Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-20-Speech-3-143"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000920.12.3-143"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would first of all like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Souchet, on his report, because there was only one possible response to the Commission proposal, which was not a good proposal, and that was a powerful parliamentary response, which is what we have. I am extremely pleased with it. It is also providing us with the opportunity to examine the situation we currently find ourselves in, as we are being forced to adapt regulations on two counts, which means that we sometimes need to adopt working methods which are not our own.
The first point is agreements reached at WTO level and the second one could be the budget. I would like briefly to explain both, starting with the WTO rules. It is becoming clear – poignantly so – given the price level in the EU but also outside, that we still need refunds, and there is also an indication that the difference in power between producers and farmers worldwide and those who sell their products is still far too pronounced. As long as this is the case, we cannot in fact do without refunds. This will also need to be spelled out clearly during the forthcoming WTO negotiations.
The second point concerns the budget. It does not seem right to me to use this in the argument regarding the refund regulation and processed agricultural products. Why? Because the European Union has, for a number of years, awarded refunds to Member States because it simply was unable spend it all itself. Surely, this cannot be the argument. Secondly, Parliament made it abundantly clear in its report on the 2001 budget, which was adopted in the Agricultural Committee, that there is extra scope within the framework of the financial agreements of Berlin.
In these agreements, a number of proposals have been made for a number of export certificates in order to solve this problem. For example, an extra five million has been proposed for cereals in the form of spirits, an extra ten million for cereals and rice, eleven million for sugar and isoglucose and eleven million for processed dairy produce. So the money is available and the solution should thus be in sight.
The fact remains that the agricultural policy is, in principle, there for the benefit of farmers. This is why it has been framed with the European rural areas in mind. The fact that this regulation is necessary also illustrates the close relationship between the processing industries in Europe and the farmers. In this sense, an interim regulation is essential. But I should add that, quite clearly, we should drive home the message to the processing industry that, first and foremost, we rely on products which are grown within the European Union. In addition, I should also call on the Commission to give due consideration to small- and medium-sized businesses. In many heavily agricultural regions, jobs are already thin on the ground, so it is precisely those companies that should be able to cope with this type of regulation and should, in that sense, be given more attention."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples