Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2013-03-12-Speech-2-553-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20130312.49.2-553-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I will be no exception in congratulating our rapporteur and the other colleagues on the way that we have conducted ourselves through these discussions. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and, indeed, our friends in the Commission, have done a really decent shift for our consumers, our citizens, our farmers and the environment, as we have taken this dossier thus far; but lest we get too smug, let us remember why we are having to make these reforms at all.
We have a broken food supply chain within the European Union. We export our bad decisions to the developing world. We have much to do in remedying what is wrong with the far too long, far too complex, far too opaque food supply chain, and these reforms go part of the way, but we do still have much to do on this. In the time available, like Ms Paulsen, I will focus on rural development, given that I was shadow rapporteur for our Group on that dossier. There is much to admire: a 5 % ring-fence for LEADER, a higher co-financing rate for agri-environent schemes; agri-environment schemes and organic schemes guaranteed a 25 % ring-fence of funding; support – crucially, from our perspective – for advisory services to encourage local processing, short supply chains, better practices, quality schemes, even Community ownership: better practices in the round, to assist our farmers to modernise how they do things.
From a Scottish perspective, LFA reform being parked for two years until we have adequate data to reform is hugely positive, with many other steps as well. However, we do have other caveats. In Article 20, the retirement scheme to get small farmers out of farming is poor, we think, in principle. Articles 37, 38 and 40 on crop insurance and the income stabilisation tool we think is wrong in principle, dubious in law and potentially disastrous in its financial implications. The Americans have already made this mistake. We think that this could see vast amounts of rural development money essentially soaked up in commodity speculation without actually doing anything productive. We think this is a poor use of public money and it really is a deal breaker for our Group, on what is otherwise a very positive dossier. I would urge colleagues to support the amendments to dump and bin these poorly thought-out proposals now."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples