Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-14-Speech-4-112"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-06-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Direct support schemes under the CAP2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010614.4.4-112"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-06-14-Speech-4-1132
lpv:speaker	lp:Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; BUDG (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with South Africa (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 member; Conference of Committee Chairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 chair; AGRI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Bündnis 90/die Grünen (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, allow me to ask the Commissioner a question before the debate closes. You said we would need another hundred million. According to the calculations in your proposal, the payments affected here – if I remember correctly – represent 1.6% of all payments. In other words they are minute. As Mr Pesälä said, we were not looking to increase premiums, we were just trying to keep things simple. If the Commission makes sure that it adds the additional premium increase for the farms to the global payment system, then we would be satisfied. We are not trying to increase premiums through the back door, even though these holdings are sorely in need of an increase. That is another kettle of fish, however. To make savings here is out of order, however. Given that you were so quick to work out or to get someone to work out the figure of one hundred million for you, then we would be most interested to know how much would be saved if the premium was not increased. Because that would represent a saving and a reduction in premiums to the detriment of these small farms and I think we should prevent that."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph