Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-15-Speech-1-047"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000515.3.1-047"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when our farmers read in the press that we in the European Parliament are debating agricultural prices for the 2000/2001 financial year, many will certainly cherish the hope that we might just be considering a few price increases. But that is not the case! In fact, we are discussing the proposals which the Commission has tabled following the Agenda 2000 reforms. May I, at this stage, specifically thank the rapporteur, Mrs Jeggle, for her work. Hitherto, people have regarded it as a routine annual exercise when we have had to debate prices for agricultural products. Year after year, blows were exchanged and, in that respect, I now welcome the fact that the fixed multiannual price proposals really can give farmers a rather more reliable framework in which to plan their production. However, I should like to warn you that, with this system, the annual review by the Council, the Commission and Parliament might not perhaps receive the attention which it deserves. The market situation, the outlook in the individual sectors and the trends in farm incomes as well as employment should continue to be examined by the European institutions on an annual basis.
The proposals on setting institutional prices and monthly increments cover the products already mentioned. Most prices were fixed under Agenda 2000, but the Commission is proposing to cut the monthly increments for cereals by 7.5%. I should like to fully support the rapporteur’s stance in this regard. In our group’s view, the reduction in the monthly increments for cereals cannot be supported, not least because the Commission’s proposal undermines the Berlin decisions on Agenda 2000. We should not continue to exert pointless pressure on farmers' incomes.
I now turn to a topical issue, Commissioner Fischler, which is of interest to me. During the last plenary part-session, we once again discussed with Mrs Schreyer whether this EUR 300 million for reconstruction aid in Kosovo for 2001/2002 really could be taken out of the agriculture budget. I am familiar with the argument that we would save this amount because of the exchange rate mechanism. This was also reiterated when we were discussing the organisation of the market in sugar. But have I deduced correctly from the press that, at the beginning of last week, the Council in any case rejected this Commission proposal? I interpreted the press report as meaning that it did not support this, and I would be grateful to have the answer from your point of view, otherwise we will provoke a discussion here and debate the reality afterwards. Personally, I was extremely pleased at least by this admission from the Council at this stage."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples