sed up, it should be permitted for the difference to be carried over into the next trading period.
I am puzzled at the fact that, while for products from the north the new regulations remain in force until 2005, for olive oil the intention is for the regulation to remain in force only until 2001, when there will be a new, more stringent, regulation. Why two measures and two yardsticks?

Fischler
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first I would like to express my thanks for the constructive debate that we have all shared today in this discussion on the olive oil sector. May I remind you that as long ago as December 18 1997, with its decision on the olive oil sector, the European Parliament made a fundamental contribution to the debate on the common organization of this market.
The Commission has addressed the recommendations expressed in your proposal of March 18 this year in the following way: first, the Commission shares the view of Parliament that an urgent reform is necessary. It has also accepted the argument for obtaining more details about production before carrying out a final reform. The proposal for the full reform will, therefore, be presented at a later date once the appropriate actions have been carried out, but early enough for it to be able to come into force on November 1 2001.
While a more thorough analysis is being made of the market production and certain other aspects during the initial phase, it is, however, also necessary to adapt the current regime for the financial years 1998/99 to 2000/2001 in order to confront the present difficulties of the producers and above all to avoid a worsening of the situation. By means of this initial step, the Commission wants to do justice to the argument and the dictates of urgency.
If we now compare the resolution of the European Parliament with the proposal of the Commission, we find the following: the European Parliament wishes to have a single production subsidy in accordance with the actual quantities of oil produced. The Commission proposes abolishi