Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-15-Speech-2-197"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010515.8.2-197"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin with a piece of good news: the beef markets have started to recover. According to the estimates we have received from the Member States, consumption is now about 10% down on pre-crisis levels. Some non-EU countries have also relaxed their import bans.
I doubt, however, whether such a measure would be effective, since the production of veal normally matches the consumption of veal, and I do not think we can expect veal consumption to rise in response to an increase in the premium. Another point is that this proposal would put considerable pressure on the EU budget.
Amendment No 28, which seeks to limit any increase in the slaughter premium for calves to animals fed with full-cream milk and reared on grassland, would, I believe, be impossible to implement in practice. Lastly, I welcome the proposal contained in Amendments Nos 6, 7, 8 and 22 that efforts be made to restore consumer confidence with the aid of an information campaign in order to increase the level of beef consumption.
In this context, I believe it is important to introduce a suitable programme as quickly as possible. I do not believe, however, that the creation of a new legal basis after 1 January 2002 satisfies the need for rapid action. My staff have already been working very hard to develop such a programme on the basis of current legislation for implementation at the earliest possible date.
As you can judge from my reactions, this report and the exchange of views on the report have proved extremely fruitful. Even though I am unable to accept many of your amendments in their present form, the Commission is in complete substantive agreement with you on many points. Next week, I shall pass on these suggestions to the Council, which, I hope, will make a political decision on this package.
Finally, I should like to answer the question put to me by Mr Alavanos, who asked me what I would say to my patron saint, Francis of Assisi, when I, God willing, reach the gates of heaven. Well, I shall say to him that, while it is certainly true that many animals have had to be slaughtered at this time of crisis, I have been committed to ensuring, within the Commission and with the help of the European Parliament, that the animals of this world continue to be treated with the greatest possible kindness.
These encouraging signals, however, must not obscure the facts that even a 10% drop in consumption represents an enormous challenge and that there is still a considerable surfeit of beef cattle because of the lower number of animals being slaughtered. Moreover, there is also the need to cope with the volume of meat that is already in storage and the volume awaiting storage, not to mention the loss of income that farmers have suffered. We must therefore continue to do everything in our power to restore the equilibrium of the cattle market. There is no alternative to radical action such as the Commission has proposed.
But let me say once again that the purpose of the proposals before us is crisis management; it is not a matter of bringing forward the agricultural reforms. The emergency measures taken by the Commission have already removed more than 400 000 tonnes of beef from the market in the first four months of this year. Slightly more than half of this meat has been put into storage. The proposals before us now relate to further measures for the coming years.
I should like to address my special thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Sturdy, for his excellent work, which he had to produce within a very short space of time, into the bargain. Mr Sturdy, you said, ‘I tried to be constructive’. I would say you were constructive. The amendments contain several statements with which I fully concur. These include the statement in Amendment No 5 to the effect that meat we have bought in can be donated as food aid and the call in Amendment No 9 for the financial ceiling set in Berlin not to be exceeded. However, since we have already taken account of the food-aid option and since the Berlin ceiling is set in stone anyway, there is no need to include these points in the recitals of the draft regulation.
I regret to note from your Amendments Nos 1, 2 and 10 that you do not support either my proposal for the introduction of individual ceilings for the special premium or my proposal for a reduction in the overall level of these premiums. I was very interested, however, to read your proposal in Amendment No 12 that holdings which breach the 90-head limit should be eligible for premiums worth up to 50% of the wages incurred in cattle rearing. Although the technicalities of its implementation would be very complex, I shall nevertheless bear this proposal in mind and urge the Council to agree to a derogation from the 90-head limit, subject to the proviso that such a derogation would be of benefit in terms of the environment and employment. I can also go along with the idea expressed in Amendment No 11, which suggests a temporary arrangement whereby the second payment of the special premium for steers may be granted in respect of steers for which the first payment of the special premium for bulls has been paid, subject to the proviso that the total premium payment in respect of such an animal must not exceed the normal aggregate payment of the special premium for steers.
I find myself unable to accept Amendments Nos 3, 13 and 17, however, the thrust of which is that premiums should be increased where stocking density is reduced. Such a measure would run counter to the aim of reducing production levels, because farmers would obtain just as much in premiums per hectare as they now receive.
The increases in premiums which Amendments Nos 14, 15 and 18 seek to achieve are already covered in practice by the current extensification premium. The proposal contained in Amendment No 14 that the premium for steers be increased in order to encourage this slower form of beef production appears interesting. Such a measure, however, would fundamentally upset the balance achieved by Agenda 2000. The same applies to Amendment No 27, which seeks to apply the stocking-density factor to the slaughter premium. For this reason, rather than incorporating these amendments into the present crisis-management package, I should prefer to look at them again in the framework of the mid-term review.
The aim of fixing a minimum percentage of heifers per herd of suckler cows is designed to ensure that premiums can also be obtained for keeping non-reproductive cows. This, if you like, is a sort of set-aside premium. In other words, it is a payment which is very definitely not production-linked. This payment only makes sense, however, if the minimum percentage exceeds the normal reproduction rate for cows. That is why I prefer to stick with my proposed minimum of 20% heifers. So I am afraid that I must reject Amendment No 16.
The proposal in Amendment No 19 that the minimum age for the calf-slaughter premium be abolished may well seem appealing to those who defended the early-slaughter premium in the past. I believe, however, that such a measure would be anathema to consumers who care about animal welfare. The proposal in Amendment No 21 for an increase in the slaughter premium for calves seems at first sight to be logical in view of the aims of increasing veal production and producing less red meat."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples