Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-15-Speech-1-071"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-05-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Flax and hemp for fibre2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000515.4.1-071"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-05-15-Speech-1-0722
lpv:speaker	lp:Encarnación Redondo Jiménez2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Partido Popular (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; AGRI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2000-04-03--2002-03-07)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (1999-09-14--2002-01-14)3 substitute; BUDG (1999-09-01--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, we are discussing a Commission proposal on the reform of the COM on flax and hemp in two respects. Firstly, the Commission is explaining the need for the reform in terms of an increase in budgetary cost. I do not believe that that is the best way to try to justify the need for a reform, although I agree that it is needed. Amongst the objectives which this reform should have, as well as simplifying and updating the regulations, is also improving control, which is something we always forget about later on. The Commission proposal offers a good, coherent and precise analysis of the sector in the European Union. It explains the importance of flax and hemp production from both an economic and an ecological point of view. However, it seems to me that the Commission’s considerations with regard to hemp fibre and short-fibre flax are not very realistic, either as regards its future viability or its range of uses. However, the thing that seems least appropriate to me is the proposal on processing aid. In this case I would like to draw your attention to the increasing number of uses for this type of fibre, as several speakers have already pointed out. If we were to follow that route, the European Union, which already falls short in terms of using this type of fibre, would cease to use it altogether, at least in some countries. Today I read in one of my country’s newspapers that one of the autonomous regions has abandoned more than 95% of its cultivation of short-fibre flax. These were the words of the local Minister for Agriculture for that region. This type of situation will become inevitable if this amendment is put into practice. With regard to payment for processing, I cannot agree with the Commission’s proposal, either in terms of the distinction between short- and long-fibre flax or its proposals for hemp. It appears to me that they have not made any precise calculation to justify the different amounts for the premiums. Neither does there appear to be any precise calculation to justify the maximum guaranteed quantities, either at European level or on the different national levels. Consequently, these quantities are going to hinder development in the European Union with regard to short- and long-fibre flax and hemp. In addition, it also seems to me to be problematic to apply these regulations during this, the 2000-2001 season, since we are already at a late stage. I believe that Mrs Schierhuber’s proposal is a balanced one. It has been approved by a majority in the Committee on Agriculture and we should adopt it as a basic regulation."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph