Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-14-Speech-4-024"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020314.2.4-024"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Commissioner Fischler, like everyone, we obviously share the Commission’s concerns regarding the dangers nicotine addiction poses to public health. But, given the European Union’s tobacco deficit, our action must, of course, be based on demand and not on supply.
Let us bear in mind two figures: we consume 800 000 tonnes of raw tobacco and produce 250 000 tonnes in the European Union. Europe imports 70% of the raw tobacco it needs, and so the European Union is far from being the world’s biggest importer. It is therefore obvious that any action that seeks to reduce production would only increase our dependence on imports.
It is, however, the social effects of such measures that give me cause for concern. Need we point out that tobacco growing is very labour intensive and involves 130 000 growers and 400 000 seasonal workers, which amounts to more than 500 000 jobs? Need we point out that the first processing stage provides 18 000 permanent and 40 000 seasonal jobs in rural areas? Need we point out that tobacco growing is carried out on small family-run farms of between one and two hectares of tobacco, and, on average, tobacco production makes up 60% of the family’s income? Need we point out that most of these farms are situated in disadvantaged regions which many people have left to go to live in towns, which have experienced rural depopulation and problems farming the countryside in rural villages? Need we point out that tobacco growing, which brings in a steady income, greatly assists in maintaining the farming population and therefore trade and public services?
That is why we must take an extremely careful approach to changing the set-up of the COM in tobacco. When the reform of the COM in tobacco was approved in 1998, Parliament and the Council planned to carry out an assessment of this reform at the end of 2002. This assessment alone will provide a basis for an appropriate consideration of the future of tobacco growing in Europe.
I therefore share the view of the rapporteur that no decision should be taken on the future of the existing tobacco regime until we have the results of the studies that are currently being carried out. And I would point out that the Commission must submit a new proposal on the tobacco sector in 2003. For these reasons, I am pleased that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has refused the planned quota and premium reductions which would have severely affected farmers’ income, would have hampered the restructuring of plantations and would not have encouraged farmers to switch to other crops.
We also oppose the plan to increase farmers’ contribution to the Community Tobacco Fund, given that this Fund – which has an annual budget of EUR 20 million – has been substantially under-utilised. Lastly, we also rejected the Commission’s plan to refocus where support from this fund is directed.
To sum up, Madam President, the Commission has put before us a flawed reform, one that, let it be said, also has a tinge of shallow populist rhetoric and hypocrisy, and could have serious social consequences for this sector. The Committee on Agriculture supported the wise recommendations of our rapporteur who has drafted suitable and solid proposals which do not confuse tobacco and nicotine addiction, and I hope that the House will follow suit."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples