Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-25-Speech-4-118"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011025.2.4-118"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, first of all, to welcome the work of Mr Adam, our rapporteur, and to congratulate him on his desire to give some hope to sheep and goat farmers, who are, by and large, at the lower end of the scale of agricultural earnings.
The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has used its vote, as you quite rightly pointed out, to confirm the principle of a basic deficiency payment, of a rural premium and of a supplementary flexibility premium based on the criteria of produce quality, the environment or financial management. It is also the case that the levels set by our committee will have to be readjusted in plenary if Parliament hopes to influence Council and, therefore, maintain credibility. The Commission recommended a maximum of EUR 28 per head but the Committee on Agriculture raised the amount to EUR 44, which far exceeds the expectations of rearers and could, furthermore, prove difficult to reconcile with the room for manoeuvre provided by the budget.
On behalf of my group, I have, therefore, retabled two of the rapporteur’s amendments designed respectively to reset the basic premium at EUR 25 per head and the premium for milk herds – ewes or she-goats – at EUR 20. In the ‘meat’ sector, the maximum aid per head would therefore, be EUR 39, which would ensure equal treatment in terms of public premiums per hectare for sheep breeders and milk-cow breeders.
I would say that this is a totally logical approach, because these two types of production often exist side by side in the same regions and areas and even within the same holdings. In terms of the markets, we now have two situations at variance with one another: a surplus of beef and veal and a deficit of sheepmeat. If per-hectare premiums are set at an equivalent level, this could restore the balance of production, with the choices made by producers being influenced by market conditions.
Furthermore, I recommend maintaining a difference between the basic premium for the ‘meat’ sector and the premium for the milk sector because to do otherwise would leave the sheep and goat milk sectors with no future, which nobody wants to see.
This is why I hope, ladies and gentlemen, that this evening you will support these amendments, which I think are both realistic and responsible."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples