Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-04-Speech-2-363"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070904.29.2-363"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, everyone is talking about the good and stable market situation for milk and milk products at the moment and the resulting rise in milk prices. The rise in milk prices urgently needed by farmers is providing new fuel for the much-disputed question of quotas.
The Commission’s proposal to allow the production and marketing of drinking milk that does not comply with those three categories, as long as a clear and easily readable indication of the fat content is given on the label, is right. This liberalisation measure will not only mean that transitional national derogations can be removed but also broadens the consumers’ options, which could certainly help revive intra-Community trade.
To avoid any uncertainty, the fat content percentage of the milk should be clearly visible on the packaging and directly linked to the product description. Yet I think it is unnecessary to set a tolerance margin of +/-0.2% when indicating the fat content, since that would not improve clarity but be more likely to hinder implementation.
These two draft amendments, like this third report, were also adopted unanimously in committee. Given the clear position taken by the Committee on Agriculture, I am confident that the entire mini milk package will be endorsed by a clear majority during tomorrow’s plenary vote too.
I cannot, however, accept the ALDE Group’s three draft amendments. They do not substantially improve the report. The third draft amendment refers only to school milk, which would go against what we want, namely to improve supply of the entire range of products. That is why I must, unfortunately, reject that draft amendment too.
I extend warm thanks to all colleagues in the Committee on Agriculture and in the Group. I thank them for their trust and for the good working relationship.
Today I want to discuss the mini milk package and begin by taking the opportunity to thank the Commissioner and her colleagues for the good cooperation. They have presented three good and well-thought through proposals and Parliament is, therefore, not tabling many amendments. I do believe, however, that our draft amendments provide some food for thought and I hope the Commission and the Council will endorse them in the same way as the Committee on Agriculture.
The first report submitted by the Commission contains amendments to the Council directive relating to certain partly or wholly dehydrated preserved milk for human consumption. In this report, the Commission proposes standardising the protein content at a minimum of 34%, expressed in fat-free dry matter. That standardisation will make it possible for European manufacturers to compete with manufacturers in third countries under the same conditions. This simplification of international trade is welcome and is one reason why the Committee on Agriculture adopted this report without amendments and with only one vote against.
Such standardisation saves money, which is why in the second report I proposed a milk fund programme to ensure that the milk sector could retain any saved money. The Commission proposal amending the regulation on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products provides for several important technical adjustments, which will clearly also lead to improvements.
Firstly, it will reduce the intervention price for skimmed milk powder by an average of 2.8%. By removing the intervention trigger for butter, abolishing national quality classes for butter, introducing a standard quality definition, removing disposal aid for military forces and abandoning the compulsory use of import licences, we are reducing the red tape.
I am, however, quite definitely against abolishing private storage for cream and skimmed milk powder. It represents a safety net and I believe we should discuss this in the context of the Health Check and not of the mini milk package. Aside from that, the proposal to introduce a single rate of aid for school milk is no doubt right. Given the nutritional importance of school milk, however, the aid for products falling within that regulation should be increased substantially, from EUR 16.11 per 100 kg to EUR 18.15 per 100 kg. It is also urgently necessary to broaden the range of products.
Some fantastic new milk, quark and yoghurt products are now available, which can cater for everyone’s tastes and likes, and if we introduced innovative school programmes we could whet children’s curiosity about those products while also doing something for nutrition. The potential EUR 117.3 million in savings resulting from the standardisation of protein for the period 2008-2013, or possible further savings within the milk market organisation, should be used to accompany and support milk sector reform. I would be quite prepared to discuss that too in the context of the Health Check debate.
This measure is intended to facilitate our proposed milk fund programme. The resources could be used, in the context of promoting milk sector sales, for better nutritional information and also for further accompanying measures such as modernising milk production, in areas where conditions are more difficult and in mountainous regions. The committee unanimously adopted this second report.
The third report concerns drinking milk. It proposes increased flexibility in the definition of drinking milk. The current regulation recognises three categories of drinking milk that can be produced and marketed in the Community. These are skimmed milk (maximum 0.5% fat), semi-skimmed milk (1.5% to 1.8% fat) and whole milk (at least 3.5% fat)."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples