Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-25-Speech-4-117"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011025.2.4-117"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I reiterate what my colleague, Mr McCartin, has just said. He is speaking on behalf of the Committee on Budgets. There is money there to support the proposals that were passed by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, for a EUR 30 fixed rate premium and a EUR 9 supplement premium. There is money there. I appeal to colleagues to support the views of the Agriculture Committee. I fear tonight's vote – on a Thursday night – may be unrepresentative of the large majority decision at the Agriculture Committee on this particular issue.
The Community average income of sheep and goat producers is generally amongst the lowest of all sectors, especially in northern Europe where lambs are reared in meat production systems. I quote the words of the Commission: "Unlike beef and other commodities, the Community is deficient in sheepmeat and, under the present regimes, there is a major exodus from sheep production, especially in northern Europe. The beef regime unwittingly also supports this exodus from sheep production as ewes are counted for extensification payment under this regime but are not paid for, thereby encouraging farmers who have the option to decrease their sheep and increase their cattle on a holding to draw down more extensification payments."
The most cost-effective solution from a common agricultural policy point of view is to ensure that the sheep and goat regimes, together with the impact of the beef regime, encourage as much land as possible to be kept in Europe in sheep production. It is at least four times as expensive to support a livestock unit of beef, compared to that of sheepmeat.
While beef producers need all the support they are getting, given their present difficulties, it is not in their interest either to have competition generated between dry stock sectors by imbalance in the respective regimes.
The main proposal for a fixed, single annual premium I fully support, at EUR 30. I fully support it, in place of the unfair, uncertain and – from a WTO perspective – unacceptable present deficiency payment system. We support the flexibility amendments to send a message to the Commission that there is room for different treatment in some Member States in relation to this regime, providing that it does not come from the flat rate payment. We cannot support the identification and traceability amendments because this is a matter for DG V, not because we do not support the principle but because it is for another DG, and for that reason solely."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples