Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2013-11-20-Speech-3-024-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20131120.4.3-024-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, can I too begin by thanking colleagues for the excellent work they have done in trying to shape the CAP and make sure Parliament had a strong voice in it.
As Mr Santos my colleague said, this is a compromise. There are good bits in that compromise and there are some areas we will be back looking at again in two yearsʼ time, because it will not work.
The good parts are the move away from pure income support in the direct payments package towards incentives for developing a more sustainable agriculture and paying for public goods. The young farmer support is very welcome. The possibility for extra LFA support is also a very good measure, as is the greening. I believe it is a good measure. The problem I have with it lies in the detail and I will turn to that in a minute.
We have also given flexibility, as Mrs McGuiness said, to Member States in the package to allow them to shape the CAP to suit their own agricultural priorities; but as ever, we are waiting for them to use that power to deliver and tell us how they will use that flexibility, certainly in Scotland.
So these were all steps in the right direction, but there are two areas where I believe we have failed to reach a sensible outcome. On greening: I believe this is too narrowly focused on biodiversity measures alone at the expense of genuine attempts to reduce the use of scarce resources such as energy, to reduce fertiliser use and pesticide use and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Initially, of course, greening is voluntary, and I believe it should always be voluntary, but after two years it reverts to being compulsory where you will be punished if you are transgressing by having money taken away from your basic payment. As I said earlier, I believe that on greening, the review clause that is there in 2017 will be desperately needed to try and sort this out.
The second point where I have real concerns is the flexibility between pillars. Parliament rolled over too easily on that. The ability to transfer money from pillar one to pillar two and from pillar two back to pillar one undermines the very concept of fairness that lay at the heart of this reform and means that farmers in different countries can expect different levels of support. That undermines the commonality of the policy and indeed ensures that some farmers have a competitive advantage over others.
Finally, turning to an area where other speakers have raised their concerns, on delegated acts and the process, there is some suggestion that this is an attempt by the Commission to rewrite the deal. If it is, we will definitely vote these delegated acts down.
I also have one other concern: there was a Scottish clause in there which was so important in dealing with the naked acre problem we have in Scotland. We are now told that the use of that activity clause will rule out minimum stocking rates and if that is the case, the clause is worthless. I would like the Commissioner maybe to respond to concerns over that in his final response."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples