Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-15-Speech-3-023"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-11-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Court of Auditors' annual report for 19992
dcterms:Language	"pt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001115.1.3-023"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-11-15-Speech-3-0242
lpv:speaker	lp:Paulo Casaca2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Partido Socialista (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; BUDG (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; CONT (1999-07-22--2001-12-11)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Slovenia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-08--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Mr President of the Court of Auditors, Commissioner, over the last two years the Court of Auditors has published six special reports on the subject of the common agricultural policy. In its special report on subsidies for the disposal of skimmed milk, it highlights a lack of supervisory measures, a level of falsification of milk data and fraudulent use of this data that is unparalleled in any other agricultural sector. In its report on the disposal of butter, the Court of Auditors noted that 89% of the budget is spent on subsidies to the food industry through procedures of dubious transparency and of even more dubious efficiency in terms of their impact on farmers’ incomes. In both cases, this involves a limited number of countries and a limited number of economic agents, who are the direct beneficiaries of these policies. In what has been its most important work on the common agricultural policy, the special report on arable crops, the Court concluded that, from 1993 to 1997, the Community budget paid out a sum of more than EUR 13 billion more than could reasonably have been expected. Arable crops represent 43% of the CAP budget, but only 10.7% of the end product. In 1995, almost 40% of payments went to the top 3% of beneficiaries, whilst 57%, the smaller beneficiaries, received only 4.5% of payments. The Court, therefore, quite rightly concluded that support for farmers should not be provided on the basis of price, production or area, but of support for the net income of farmers or of agricultural work units. These are excellent, high-quality documents, which are a "drop in the ocean" in a common agricultural policy that still gives special treatment to larger farmers at the expense of the smaller ones and to countries and regions at the heart of Europe at the expense of peripheral countries and regions. It is a shame that the Court of Auditors’ annual report, which is supposedly drawn up to reflect the most relevant aspects of the work undertaken in the course of the year through the special reports, did not include these studies and decided to concentrate on other issues on which it had not undertaken specific studies."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph