Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-03-11-Speech-2-215"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080311.30.2-215"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
". −
Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, as already stated, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has unanimously rejected the Commission’s proposal to increase the quotas for the coming milk year by 2%. This would amount to 2.8 million tonnes. We consider this proposal to be too rigid, too inflexible, and it is the wrong signal in the current situation, particularly for the markets. Based on the rulings of 2003, there will be a 0.5% increase in quotas for 11 Member States anyway on 1 April this year – the equivalent of 700 000 tonnes more milk in the European Union.
The intensive debates with my colleagues in the Committee on Agriculture have shown that there will be no panacea, nor any comfortable way to conduct further debates. There are widely differing opinions and all positions, from the general and fundamental rejection of any increase in quotas up to and including a 5% increase, were represented. We nevertheless managed to find a compromise that took account of the positions of all the groups, and this was unanimously accepted with no dissenting votes or abstentions. My heartfelt thanks go to all my fellow Members for their constructive cooperation.
The agreed compromise has two focal points. Commissioner, you have said as much. I have a different opinion on this.
Firstly, the establishment of a European balancing mechanism, by which under- or over-shooting of the existing national quotas can be compensated at EU level. This would not be very bureaucratic and would result in producers who exceed their quotas being penalised only after balancing.
Secondly, as from 1 April, the Member States can decide to raise national quotas voluntarily for the 2008/2009 quota year. We want flexibility, not rigidity! This compromise means that the quotas that already exist will be used more efficiently. For Member States with greater potential, there is also the opportunity to use this European quota framework along the lines of a common European internal market system.
Commissioner, you always stress that the existing milk quota will expire in this system in 2015. A linear increase in quotas alone will not, however, create the soft landing you promise. Just think back, if you will, to the old milk lakes! The Committee on Agriculture has therefore unequivocally been arguing, as it has done already in the mini milk package, in favour of setting up a milk fund in order to achieve savings in costs resulting from the reforms explicitly for the milk sector. In our view such forward-looking promotion and preservation of the entire sector can be made possible only in this way. In particular this instrument should be used for dairy farmers in disadvantaged areas and in areas completely given over to grazing land and pasture. I would therefore ask you, Commissioner, to include this request by the European Parliament in tangible terms in your legislative health check proposal.
In our view the application of Article 69 is insufficient because it is not clearly defined in terms of practical measures, particularly for the sector already mentioned. It is also pure cynicism when a high-ranking Commission official announces to a gathering of farmers that they should not be complaining about producer prices already effectively falling again, since they had already been making do with 27 cents per litre of milk. This is contempt for the legitimate interests of an entire profession, which I, as a Member of a Parliament, having taken up the cause of democracy at the highest level, do not accept!"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples