Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-28-Speech-3-088"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010228.5.3-088"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, agricultural policy has now been at the forefront of public debate for weeks. This is a challenge and an opportunity for this policy area, for it is clear that there must now be a debate about our agricultural policy expectations. Is it only about quantity? To what extent is quality also an issue? How vigorously must we pursue the other goals which we demand of agriculture as regards landscape preservation, culture, animal welfare, and environmental protection?
During our debate, we have also heard from many speakers who have made it clear that previous proposals, which were supported by the Commission and the European Parliament, focused very strongly on these goals, but were unfortunately rejected by the Council. I hope that the Council now recognises that it can no longer ignore this debate, but must tackle it head on. But of course I must also point out that while we are focusing the debate on these objectives, we must not neglect to take the action necessary to overcome the current crisis. We will not improve the situation if we fail to take decisions; on the contrary, this would simply make matters worse.
The Commission faced up to its responsibility to make proposals as early as November/December, when the second BSE crisis broke out. We are now securing the funding for the decisions which were adopted back in December. EUR 971 million is a very substantial supplementary budget, and I am most grateful to Parliament for approving it. The additional EUR 971 million means that in total, more than EUR 7 billion will be made available to the beef industry this year. This represents an increase of more than 50% on last year's figure. I emphasise this point to make it clear that the European Union is not abandoning its farmers in the current crisis; on the contrary, we are spending a significant proportion of our budget in this area and I think it is important to underline that fact again here.
But I also agree with all those who say that spending EUR 6 billion on subsidising production and allocating a further one billion to deal with production – in the sense that we are destroying part of it – also proves that there is an urgent need for action and a new direction in this area. Let me explain once again what the supplementary budget will be used for: a proportion, i.e. 33 million, will go towards funding additional BSE tests, a significant share will be used for the buying-in of beef in public stocks, and the majority will be allocated to cover the 'purchase for destruction' scheme for cattle. It is important to make this clear. But the money will go to the farmers, as partial compensation for their revenue shortfall.
Let me also remind you that we still have very different systems in the beef industry. If the price falls below a specific margin, the meat from male cattle at least, must be compulsorily purchased by the European Union. And what about the ethical issues involved? Of course it is sad that we are currently allocating EUR 700 million to the destruction of cattle. It is a sad day for agricultural policy, and a sad day for the taxpayer. But I must also point out that there really is no alternative. We are not simply promoting a slaughter programme: what we have is a necessary measure because far less slaughtering is taking place than usual.
Let me say a few words about food aid as a possible alternative. For food aid to be provided in the form of beef, the recipient country must have closed refrigeration circuits. You cannot simply load beef on to a ship and send it to a region in crisis somewhere in the world. You will just end up with a shipload of rotten meat which is completely unusable. These are factors which have to be considered. The European Union's experience has shown that the regional market was then partly destroyed, which must be a warning to us not to make the same mistakes twice.
Let me say once more: it is clear, of course, that what is on the table is a package of emergency measures for which funding is now being secured. Nonetheless, we are already discussing the further steps to be taken, and are doing so in the Agriculture Council as well. We will be discussing the second package this week. It includes measures which go beyond the current policy of eradicating the problem. Of course, we can, and must, discuss whether further measures are necessary. But we have to agree something at this stage. And I would like to say that I am rather bemused by some of the newspaper reports about the package of measures proposed by Mr Fischler. These reports seem to bear very little relation to the measures put forward. For example, I read about a mass slaughter programme which has allegedly been ordered by Mr Fischler. But I should point out yet again that this is an offer from the European Union to buy up meat for which there is currently no market. We are saying that we are only prepared to do so with cofinancing. A proportion must also be funded by the Member States. Given the indignant reactions, even though there is a safety net wherever it is clear that there will be compulsory purchase by the European Union, I cannot help but feel on occasion that there is some deliberate mischief-making going on.
Now to the question of the further measures which can be adopted as a result of the crisis. I think it is a good thing that so many proposals have been tabled. I also think it is right to give more thought to other options, such as an early marketing premium. After all, the problem is partly resolved if an animal goes to market at an earlier stage in the rearing process and therefore has less weight. And it is also important, in my view, to consider uncoupling the premiums from output, to ensure that the premium schemes take greater account of the other agricultural policy objectives. But let us be clear on one thing: what we are doing today is securing the funding for a package of measures which were necessary as an initial response to an emergency. When we come to debate the second package of measures, we can examine the issue of crisis management. But at that stage, of course, the necessary steps should have been taken, and we must then open the third phase with the
in order to ensure that the premium schemes take greater account of the other agricultural policy objectives.
Let me conclude with a few words about foot-and-mouth disease, which has rightly been mentioned by several Members of this House. The crisis in the United Kingdom has already reached major proportions. Due to the incubation period, it will become apparent in the next few days whether the disease has spread to the continent. We must be prepared for this possibility. As budget specialists, we must also be prepared for the fact that we may face major problems in the future. And finally, we must also recognise that we may not have reached the lowest point in the agricultural crisis yet. Of course, I hope that this is not the case, but we must be prepared for this eventuality. So it is even more important to manage the crisis in a rational way, but also to adopt a course which leads to our desired goals: namely to combine agricultural policy goals with consumer protection, animal welfare, and environmental protection objectives."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"mid-term review,"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples