Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-13-Speech-4-303"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000413.12.4-303"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mr Maat very sincerely for the effort he has made to present a balanced report on the Commission proposal. You will have seen from the debate that the school milk scheme is a very sensitive issue indeed, on which there are many different shades of opinion, and that means that he certainly did not have an easy job.
Some of the amendments proposed in Mr Maat’s report in effect totally reject the Commission proposal. I cannot therefore accept the amendments in question, which are Amendments Nos 1, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 12. I am still convinced that the cofinancing proposed would promote the commitment of state and municipal authorities – and that of school authorities and the dairy industry – which is, in turn, a prerequisite for the success of all of these efforts.
It is quite simply wrong to say that the level of aid will drop from schoolchildren’s point of view. The level of aid will remain the same, only the source of funding will change, and no one can seriously maintain that aid is only good if it comes totally from the Community budget.
I am also quite happy to concede that there are health, nutrition and social policy objectives here. But there is one point I wish to make, and this is also the reason why a particular Treaty article has been taken as the legal basis here: in the field of agricultural policy, we can only justify aid that leads to additional sales. If the real objective is to take social policy or health policy measures, then these should be financed under health and social policy and not, as it were, through the back door.
Amendments Nos 2, 4 and 9 are designed to cover a broader range of milk products under the scheme. In this respect the Commission would like to maintain the existing scheme, in which the selection of subsidised products is a matter for the Commission. Although I cannot therefore accept these amendments, I have no problems with the underlying message, which it is worth conveying, and that is that the current range of products needs to be reviewed, and I will ensure that this issue continues to be dealt with and discussed in the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products.
Lastly, Amendment No 3 is in the form of a statement, so that I do not think it would be appropriate to incorporate the text into the regulation. As regards the practical side of the proposal, I fear that this amendment would lead to varying levels of support in different Member States and to dramatic fluctuations in the level of aid within a short time. And as I am sure that no one would want that, it would be better to keep the existing provision, which is clear, based on objective criteria and which guarantees general stability.
For the same reasons, I am unable to accept Amendments Nos 8 and 10, which are designed to link the level of aid to milk components other than fat. Finally, Amendments Nos 8 and 9 are intended to make it clear that the aid will be paid for a fixed quantity of milk per schoolchild per day. This would essentially mean maintaining the existing position, so that is in fact another argument as to why these amendments cannot be accepted. Thank you for your attention."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples