Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-25-Speech-4-133"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011025.2.4-133"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by sincerely thanking you, Mr Adam, for producing the report and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for their contributions to the discussions in committee and also for today’s debate.
I also consider Amendments Nos 1, 6, 9, 22, 36 and 37 superfluous or pointless in the context of the regulation.
Other amendments are concerned with the need for a degree of flexibility that would enable Member States to provide additional support for the sector or, more especially, to manage the various Member States’ individual quotas better and more actively.
The questions that were raised in the discussions in this connection are concerned with a number of aspects and possibilities, ranging from extensification and environmental concerns to the development of quality products, improvement of marketing structures and the creation of producer groups. I would like to say to you in this connection that while I cannot accept the proposed amendments directly, I do understand very clearly the message they are intended to convey. I would therefore like to pursue further the concern that lies behind them in order to find solutions that will take better account of the different requirements of the sector in the individual Member States. But they must be simple solutions. I do not think we should be creating a new bureaucracy.
The same also applies for Amendments Nos 25 to 30 concerning the national financial frameworks, which should also be placed in the context of the proposals for greater flexibility. We must ensure that these framework provisions are also practicable and consistent with the objectives stated in the amendments in question.
Amendments Nos 12, 13 and 15 are in fact the ones with the greatest direct effects. They are concerned with the question, discussed here, of increasing the premium to EUR 30 for all producers and increasing the supplementary premium for producers in less-favoured regions to EUR 9. If these proposals were accepted, expenditure would rise to EUR 2.7 billion.
Even the more moderate amendments, as you termed them, Nos 45 and 46, would still entail additional expenditure amounting to EUR 385 million.
We based our proposal on the financial framework agreed in Berlin, and I regret that I cannot therefore go along with your suggestions, especially in view of the fact that at virtually every summit the Heads of Government stress the importance and immutability of that financial framework.
I must also reject the suggestion that producers of sheep’s milk and goat’s milk be paid the same aid as farmers who only produce meat.
On the other hand, I was interested to note Amendments Nos 31 and 35 proposing additional premiums in the event of a price crisis. But the draft regulation does already provide for a kind of safety net to come into effect if falls in prices disrupt the market. I cannot therefore agree to those amendments.
The proposal in Amendment No 20 that the first 15 sheep livestock units should be disregarded for calculating the stocking density for the beef and veal arrangements refers to a problem that actually belongs not in the context of this regulation but in the context of the market organisation for cattle, and I must therefore reject this proposal in this connection. But I would willingly agree to return to this point in the Midterm Review when we shall be discussing the question of the beef and veal arrangements and how they work.
I am also very grateful because it is important that we press ahead with this proposal quickly and take a vote on it soon so that it can then hopefully be adopted by the Council as quickly as possible and this reformed market organisation for sheep and goat meat can come into force on 1 January next year and the premiums can then also be paid under this new regime next year.
Amendments Nos 5, 7 and 33 are concerned with imports from third countries. Unfortunately, these amendments run counter to our international obligations and cannot therefore be accepted for that reason.
Traceability is another important aspect. Amendment No 8 proposes that the report on the environmental effects of sheep and goat farming to be prepared by 31 December 2005 should also look into this question. I understand that and fully share your concerns, but I believe that this problem really needs to be solved sooner and that we cannot wait until 31 December 2005.
The first step towards better origin safeguards requires the creation of a reliable marking and registration system. Since such a proposal requires a different basis in law, the proposed amendments are simply outside the scope of this regulation because under this regulation the relevant legal basis would be lacking. But I do think that part of Amendment No 42, which links the granting of premiums to compliance with the marking and registration rules, seems a sensible approach. I shall at any rate put such a proposal before the Council.
Amendment No 19 is concerned with allowing Member States to show greater flexibility when setting application periods. This question will be settled in the implementing provisions. A Council decision is not therefore required here; it falls within the competence of the Commission. To avoid cases of fraud, however, an efficient marking and registration system ought to be operative for that reason, too.
Finally, I would like to thank you again for the report and the amendments. In some areas there is a consensus, in some I shall pass your concerns on to the Council even though I cannot formally accept the amendments in their present form, and unfortunately there are also amendments which I am unable to accept because I do not have the authority to approve the funding.
As many of you have also emphasised, the most important point of the proposed reform is the replacement of the variable deficiency payments by a fixed-rate form of aid. That has a number of important advantages. This new aid is stable. It can also be calculated in advance. This means that farmers can also plan with certainty. Above all, it is also a lot less bureaucratic because none of the expensive market intelligence on which the deficiency payments are currently based and all the complex calculations involved will any longer be necessary.
Moreover, it is also of course much, much easier for sheep and goat farmers to understand. It allows producers to respond correctly to the needs of the respective markets because the support is not affected by changing prices. The Commission proposal also guarantees budget stability and in particular is also more consistent with WTO objectives over all.
I believe there is broad agreement about these principles, as the debate has shown.
Let me turn briefly to the most important amendments. Some are concerned with improving the text and are extremely welcome. I would, for example, be very pleased to accept Amendment No 11 because a more precise definition of the terms “producer” and “holding” will help to make the regulation much easier to understand.
I can also support Amendment No 16, which proposes that premiums be paid not later than 31 March instead of 30 June. That will mean that producers will get their premiums even earlier.
I also welcome the proposal to change the definition of producer in less-favoured areas, but I think the term could be simplified even more here. The wording of the amendment therefore needs to be made even more precise in this respect.
On the other hand, I do not think it is necessary, as proposed in Amendment No 44, to specify the supplementary premium for dykes and salt marshes. They ought to be covered by the rule for less-favoured areas. So I do not really think this amendment is necessary."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples