Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-28-Speech-3-064"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010228.5.3-064"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the central question in addressing the first budget amendment of 2001 is whether we should continue to make in-roads in to European agriculture while the BSE fire is still raging. Is it permissible for a crisis to be used, or abused, for one’s own political ends, for the greening of agriculture policy or on the contrary for its liberalisation? The real problem of BSE is caused not by large or small-scale businesses or the number of cattle per hectare: the real problem is that Member States have made a mockery of European rules and hence, in fact, have abused the trust of European consumers and farmers. In that sense, I am bound to say, partly in view of the discussion in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, that Amendments Nos 2 to 5 are not in accordance with the unanimous opinion of the Committee on Agriculture as communicated to the Committee on Budgets. Amendment No 1 is included in the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture.
Madam President, the seven-point programme of the European Commission will come up for discussion later. We are now concerned with the budget amendment before us. The Committee on Agriculture agrees with this budget amendment, which is in line with the proposals made by it back in November 2000. Although its foundation is weak, for example because of the relationship between the euro and the dollar, which is at this moment considerably less favourable than is desirable for the agriculture budget or is presented by the Commission, this is still the most practical course to follow. The space within the existing budget will be used and the Financial Perspective remains intact. That will no longer be the case in the near future. Now that beef consumption has fallen by 28% and export is virtually impossible, we are heading towards a surplus of 2.5 million tons of beef, though the storage capacity of the European Union only totals 1 million tons.
The consequences for farmers’ incomes are dramatic and the low prices certainly did not encourage consumers to increase consumption. The expenditure ceiling will soon be in sight. It was decided in the Committee on Agriculture of the European Parliament to discuss four alternatives for future funding, namely changing the Financial Perspective, saving on the current budget, adjustment of the division of costs between the Union and the Member States or additional funding through levies and discounts. Because of the present foot-and-mouth crisis, that discussion will have to begin earlier than we should in fact prefer.
Mr President, it will be clear to you that the support of the Committee on Agriculture for the budget amendment can be seen as support for the Commission: it is exhibiting, in any case, more dynamism than the Council, which is bogged down in the individual national agendas, instead of solving the crisis."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples