Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-03-Speech-2-188"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030603.6.2-188"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, Parliament has demonstrated that it is willing to shoulder its responsibilities. I hope that the Convention now adopts both the form and content of what has been jointly decided, and that not too many exemptions will be placed before the Council. I could understand it if exemptions for all decisions were to find their way to the Commission, but Parliament must be involved in all decisions.
The work before us has not always been easy. The analysis has been good, new perspectives have been gained, which are reflected in our preamble, but implementation has been somewhat difficult.
With regard to the audit process, for example, we demand that business consultancy is introduced; this has been taken to mean that we want to tie the hands of businesses. Let us consider qualified external protection, which should guarantee multifunctionality; the Commission gave this too little publicity. A crucial error has also been made with regard to differentiated modulation and re-designation in the second pillar, in that, firstly, too little money is being moved and, secondly, clearly it is not meant to be decoupled in the second pillar, which thus acts as a balancing mechanism for difficult or at-risk types of farming. Proposals for decoupling – to which I will return later – should have been made immediately. The issue is not, for example, support for the rye sector as a whole, but for certain specific types of crops in certain regions, and this is exactly what can happen in the second pillar.
Furthermore, no proposals were submitted for abandoning intervention and export subsidisation. Whereas with milk you have gone down the same old road, you have proved, with regard to rye, just how brutal reform can be. Both were ill-conceived and an integrated abandonment to a set timescale with quantitative limitations but no more price reductions should be considered.
Decoupling is also a complicated area. Many have not understood it; many have understood it and made use of it for their own purposes. You have once again completely undermined the possibility of greater freedom in price setting in respect of subsidies by immediately backing down when the starch potato industry says, ‘but then we’ll get no more raw materials’. The reason why these raw materials will no longer be available should have been discussed more thoroughly and questioned more aggressively. Why does the milk industry fear that decoupling the milk premium will mean certain areas falling by the wayside? If everyone is now saying that milk production in these deprived areas ought to be safeguarded – and has it now been? – the funds remain the same. If this had been better publicised, the associations working in the interests of these industries would have had less opportunity to cause trouble.
Finally, the second pillar must become the core component of agricultural reform. Even here the Commission is very restrained and cautious. Possibly you thought there are not enough funds available and the instruments have not been assembled, but this too is an omission on the part of the Commission. I hope that, this autumn, there will be a debate between Parliament and the Commission so we can really flesh out the contents of the second pillar and then make it clear that it can and must be a core component of decoupling."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples