Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-15-Speech-2-180"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010515.8.2-180"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, as has already been said, the reform presented to us by the Commission on 13 February 2001, as a package of seven measures to deal with the problems created in the beef market by the BSE crisis, clearly deserves critical consideration by our Group.
Firstly because, while the Community cattle sector is hoping for measures to solve the crisis it is facing, only two of the measures in this package appear to be appropriate for resolving one particular crisis, that is, the Commission’s budgetary crisis in relation to solving it. Only the removal of the ceiling on public intervention of 350 000 tonnes for meat, with a view to preventing the implementation of the so-called safety network intervention system, seems to be a genuine crisis measure, as well as the measure – already approved by the management committee for meat on 16 March – of introducing a new intervention method for the sale and storage of animals of more than 30 months.
Please allow me to say also, Commissioner, that this measure does little to improve consumer confidence and to resolve the market problems, since we are storing meat which will later have to enter the market, thereby creating significant imbalances within that market.
The other five measures are really directed at the sector, but they are not urgent and they can enter into force and have their effects in the short and medium term. These measures should really have been proposed with the calmness required for a reform in a sector suffering such a deep crisis.
However, I must be absolutely critical in relation to two of them. One is the removal of the national limit on premiums for male cattle by means of individual laws; I believe that this measure is wrong and would lead us to a market of quotas, which would be closed and narrow, and would do absolutely nothing for the transparency and simplification of the CAP nor a future reform of this sector. The other is the restriction of production, as intended, by means of the reduction in the premium for suckler cows.
Commissioner, this proposal, which lays down that, in order to receive the premium for suckler cows, between 20 and 40% of the animals for which the premium is requested must be heifers, is intended to reduce the quantity of meat available on the market; but what it removes is quality meat which originates from herds of suckler cows bred within extensive systems. This measure therefore has the completely wrong objective and is clearly contrary to the often-repeated objective of Community agricultural policy promoting extensive agriculture."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples