Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-14-Speech-4-103"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010614.4.4-103"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, the report now being debated is about simplifying the direct payments introduced in 1992 and then reviewed under Agenda 2000, at least at the bottom end of the scale. The Commission's proposal allows for global payments of up to EUR 1 000 and abolishes the complicated application procedure for small farms.
We in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development support this proposal but feel that EUR 1 000 is rather low and have proposed that this limit be raised to EUR 1 500, thereby allowing about a third of all farms in Europe to apply for global payments. Of course, this varies from one country to another. I think Mr Cunha will be addressing this point. In Portugal the proportion is, of course, much higher.
We also suggest that the provision in Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation No 1229/99 requiring environmental standards to be observed should also apply here. What we do not want is for global payments to small farms to be used to make savings. If a farm claims global payment, it is not entitled to increases to compensation payments under Agenda 2000 as years go by, because global payments are based on past payments. This means that these farms are not entitled to increases, which is why we suggest a 20% increase in global payments.
It could be argued that this 20% increase would also be justified by revising payments directly in line with increases. We take the view that this is rather too complicated, but we do not want small farms to be punished by this regulation when payments are made. You know all about the arguments in connection with premium payments: large, rationalised farms in Europe, wherever they may be, receive a very large sum of money for their labour force. Given that such a small sum is paid to small farms, which also need a labour force, I think that the Commission should not be looking to make savings from this labour force and from these farms.
Commissioner Fischler, you have proposed or rather considered that farms of this size could perhaps receive up to EUR 5,000 in future under the second pillar in that, because of how they are managed, these farms help to shape the countryside in the ecological and social sense, provided that they observe certain environmental standards. We should not therefore be looking to make savings with this regulation and from these small farms by excluding them. Otherwise we would have to advise these farms not to claim global payment, because they are of course entitled to full payment – this does not repeal the law – if they do not opt for global payment. This could lead to a situation in which this measure, which we feel is reasonable, is not taken up by small farms because they say, no, we want the full payment, even if it is only a very small amount. However, because it is such a small amount and because it only affects small farms, which basically do a good job in the countryside, you should reconsider."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples