Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-13-Speech-4-297"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000413.12.4-297"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I am pleased to have the opportunity of speaking in the debate and I congratulate the rapporteur for his work. One clear result, of course, of the proposal before us to curtail or remove this subsidy on school milk will be decreased availability of milk and a drop in the consumption of milk in schools. I ask you sincerely: is that what you want to see happening?
I believe we should call a halt to this general erosion of our rural communities. At the present moment in time, that requirement transcends the need to cut milk subsidies. Defending communities is far, far more important. We must keep our milk farmers farming and the communities where they earn their living as viable entities.
The Agricultural Committee deserve every support in this regard. Mr Maat has done well in a very difficult situation and I wish him every success.
The nutritional aspect is surely the central element here and the continuation of the consumption of milk by schoolchildren is what we should be working towards. The proposals before us definitely militate against that.
Can I suggest to you what might happen as a result. There are two possibilities. Children will switch to consuming non-nutritional products or, God forbid, we will move closer towards a situation where children will have to pay for milk consumed, thus discriminating against poor children from deprived communities. We all acknowledge the aim here. It is to cut milk subsidies. But to use schoolchildren as the means towards that end is a sinister way to go about it, especially in a world that is becoming far more health-conscious by the day. This is the age of non-GM food and organic products, and the proposals before us represent a major step backwards.
Let us be clear. Several Member States will not operate this scheme at all if the present subsidy is withdrawn or decreased. That is the reality of the situation. This would be a catastrophe, not only for the health of schoolchildren – our future citizens – but to the viability of communities also.
I come from a part of Wales, where GDP per head of the population is less than 75% of the European Union average, in other words, an Objective 1 area. I am not proud of that. It is an indication of our deprived status. Cutting the subsidy, however, would make my community even poorer, a community whose farmers have lost 80% of their income in 2½ years. This is not the European Union that I thought my nation had joined. We were looking to a Europe of cohesion that seeks to bolster its deprived communities and help its poorest citizens.
There is also the misconception that Member States will somehow foot this bill and make up the deficit on the basis that it is their responsibility to deal with health and social policy. Can I tell you that my Member State, the UK, is already prevaricating on the provision of additional money for Wales and for Scotland to match European funds, a point that I and my colleagues have already highlighted previously in this Chamber. This is not unique to my nation. Sadly, it affects other nations as well.
Farmers then are told to diversify, to become multifunctional. These are the buzzwords now in the European Union. Yet they have already diversified. They have already become as multifunctional as humanly possible. It is time we rewarded them, particularly in the peripheral and deprived communities of the European Union.
Cutting this subsidy would destroy an industry already on its knees. We need to give a window of opportunity to these people and provide them with the assistance to sustain themselves as they undoubtedly face the most difficult period economically they have ever faced. It is clear to me that the proposals before us are not merely a means to curtail the subsidy, but rather, in the event of a lack of participation by Member States in the wake of the subsidy cut, to terminate it entirely.
This continued erosion of the milk industry is, I am afraid, part of a general trend that we are witnessing throughout the agricultural industry. Without people farming in our villages and communities, there will be no rural communities; nobody left to service the needs of those of us that sometimes visit rural areas for recreation. The process of amalgamating farms and the buying-up of farm units by consortia pushing up prices unrealistically is already well advanced in my nation of Wales and is becoming the sad pattern in other regions and nations as well."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples