Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-15-Speech-1-075"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000515.4.1-075"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the aid scheme for flax and hemp has turned into pure subsidy-hunting. It is almost criminal how grossly the scheme has been misused, and we must put a stop to this. For a number of years, aid for hemp has been much higher than that for other crops. Per-hectare aid for hemp is more than twice as high as that for cereals. This means that, even though there are almost no legal uses for hemp, the area used for hemp cultivation has quadrupled in the course of the last year. The desire to retain the high per-hectare aid for hemp is, in reality, a result of the very odd collaboration between, on the one hand, those who want to see cannabis legalised and, on the other hand, speculators in EU subsidies, for it is, in actual fact, impossible to see any difference between cannabinol-free hemp and the hemp which is used to produce hashish. The Commission proposes that aid for hemp should be reduced in three phases to the level of aid that has been set for cereals. I should ideally have liked to see aid reduced immediately to the aid level for cereals, but I can happily live with the Commission’s proposal. It gives farmers time to adapt. I cannot, however, live with the recommendation from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. It cannot be in accordance with modern, forward-looking and enlargement-oriented agricultural policy to propose that the transitional arrangements should be further extended. That would be “far out” of place! Moreover, it is something I shall be voting against. Where flax is concerned, the Commission also proposes to limit the opportunity for subsidy-hunting and, here too, the Committee is in favour of improving the scheme. I take the opposite view, namely that the aid should be limited. It should be the market and consumers who decide what should be produced, not sky-high EU subsidies."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples