Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-155"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010213.8.2-155"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I promise to be much briefer.
In reply to Mrs Roth-Behrendt's questions – and this also applies to the others – we should be clear about one thing: what we are proposing here today is not a new agricultural reform. As I, in fact, said. Nor are we in a position to engage in agricultural reform at the moment. I think it would be wrong if we were to look now at the reform of the beef and veal sector in isolation. When we talk of agricultural reform – and we shall do so in good time, I can assure you, you will be hearing from us – then we must include, for example, the question of silage corn, the question of milk quotas, the question of what to do about dairy cattle versus beef cattle. And there really is too little time for that, especially if you want to prepare something carefully. What we have tabled here today is nothing more – but also nothing less – than a clear concept to get us out of the current crisis.
Now to Mrs Roth-Behrendt's question as to whether we should change over from quotas to direct payments. There are no quotas for individual cattle fatteners under the current system. First we need to introduce quotas for individual cattle fatteners; what you meant, I think, is that we should deregulate the whole thing and get into rural development. But this is precisely the sort of question which can only be resolved in the context of a general debate on agricultural reform.
I personally – and I say so quite openly – am against the guillotine. I am against any instrument of murder and hence I am also against the guillotine. Which is why I favour seeing this 90-head limit as a franchise, by which I mean that everyone gets a subsidy up to 90 animals. Mr Maat felt that was a contradiction because it makes no difference if it is a small or a large holding when it comes to BSE. I think you are quite right. But the 90-head limit is not a measure to fight BSE, it is a measure to create incentives for more extensive beef production in the future.
We have already looked into what Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf said about early marketing premiums. The thing is, we had this sort of premium in 1996 and in later years. We have calculated that this premium alone cost EUR 200 000 million. Unfortunately, the end result is somewhat questionable, because 40% of calves are slaughtered with a low weight in any case. That means we would pay nearly half the veal farmers a premium with absolutely no end result. Which is why we have shunned this measure, especially in view of our limited resources."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples