kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
we cannot afford to price our farmers out of the market. any such reduction in agricultural holdings would simply increase our dependency on external markets.
mr president unless we take action to curb the increases in farm input prices we run the risk of making it too expensive for our farmers especially our smaller farmers to operate.
this would be negative for europe both in terms of the value of agriculture to the eu and in terms of the quality and safety of the food available to consumers.
there is the further problem that food produced in third countries may not be of the same quality and may not adhere to the same standards and rigorous health and safety provisions as food which is produced within the eu.
it is an industry which has proved resilient in difficult economic conditions and should provide further private sector growth if given the proper support and freedom from oppressive legislation.
over recent weeks i have been talking to farmers in my own constituency and they see the proposals from the commission as complex overbearing in terms of environmental objectives and favouring landowners over active food producing farmers.
whilst the rapporteur highlights generally the problems in terms of cost of production versus farmgate prices in northern ireland despite these difficulties agriculture continues to contribute to the economy.
there is no doubt that many of the issues raised by the report are valuable but i believe that the greatest contribution that we can make to a sustainable and competitive sector is in producing a common agricultural policy that sees food production and european food security as its aim and objective.
in our discussions on cap reform if we miss the opportunity to provide an environment for increased productivity and one which provides food and supply security we will only continue to increase price volatility for farmers and consumers.
we should recognise the absolute importance of this industry to our economy.
actually seed is one of the farm inputs that farmers have a huge degree of control over and in the uk a farmer has three choices.
all of these things he can do.
in addition to that those sugar beet have gone from being randomly monogerm to consistently monogerm and all that is down to the efforts of plant breeders.
he will then have to declare that he has done so and pay a modest acreage royalty.
somebody was talking about maintaining seed banks.
i do not see the necessity to call on the commission to interfere in this in any way at.
the price of failure for a plant breeder is very high indeed it is ten years' work straight down the drain.
this works well in the uk.
they have to be rewarded for the work that they do. they are in great competition with other plant breeders and the farmer i can assure you is the most brutal customer of the lot.
he can either maintain an old variety on which no royalty is payable or he can multiply up a new variety.
i can assure you that the seed breeders themselves do that.
he can expect to be inspected or he can simply buy a bag of seed where the royalty is part of the price.
i suspect this is replicated throughout the rest of europe.
there is one particular area that i think needs immediate action from the commission and that is in regard to the fertiliser market.
this highlights the urgent need for action in the cap reform and in other areas where the commission is taking action to try and help this matter. we need to strengthen the hand of farmers when it comes to negotiating with the retailers and with their input suppliers.
the only competition they face is from the blenders but they unfortunately have to buy their nitrogen from that same supplier.
if we can achieve that what will then happen is a better return for farmers a better margin and less reliance on the need for taxpayers' support in the future.
the result of course is that farmers are squeezed from both sides by these huge and powerful companies.
the other half of growhow is owned by cf industries which is the largest manufacturer of nitrogen based fertilisers in north america. surely this level of consolidation means there is little real competition in the uk marketplace.
the upper pressure on these prices will rise further as a result of resource scarcity and a growing demand for food.
the retailers processors food suppliers and consumers are key stakeholders in the food supply chain but so is the farmer.
fourteen i have no doubt that this imbalance is replicated for farmers right across the eu. it is clear that primary producers are being squeezed from both sides of the food supply chain. on the one side they receive low grade farm gate prices due to the strong position of processors and retailers and on the other side they pay high input prices due to increased concentration of input companies.
on the other side of the chain retailers have used their powers over farmers to implement a number of methods such as hello money' pay to play money' payment delays shelf space pricing and carrying the costs of discount campaigns which cut away at the returns of farmers and buy their produce in unfair and unbalanced conditions. this is about fair return for fair work making a viable living from work that brings added value to the environment delivers food security and puts food on the table of the european citizens.
total input costs for eu farmers rose by almost forty between two thousand and two thousand and ten and costs continue to increase for farmers year on year.
cap reform has never been more urgent and this report deserves to be absolutely fundamental in all our minds as we take forward the cap reform project with you commissioner.
we are not going to see our food supply chain getting calmer.
farmers are facing a squeeze between rising costs for input and low farm gate prices.
it pulls together a number of the interlocking and mutually reinforcing factors which are impacting on our food supply chain and making the lives of european and global farmers more difficult.
so to those who would say that the free market in agriculture is working well prima facie no it is not.
for those colleagues usually those not present in these debates who have suggested that the free market is working i have some statistics from the scottish agricultural college report on power in agriculture actual statistics on market concentration showing that four companies worldwide account for seventy five ninety by some measures of global grain trade
the fact is that the increased concentration of market power downstream of farming in processing industries trade companies and supermarkets and upstream of farming in terms of increasing costs for fertilisers energy feed seed water loans and land rent is undermining the proper functioning of the food supply chain in europe.
quite the reverse the market is concentrating further day by day in a world where we are increasingly seeing instability in energy prices global instability and its political knock on effects and climate change making parts of the world wetter parts of the world drier and all of the world more climatically unstable.
we are your ally in this and if anything we want to see more urgent activity from the commission on the many issues raised in this report.
we need to act on this urgently.
we saw what happened as other colleagues have mentioned with the breakdown of the interbank lending market earlier in this economic crisis.
madam president oh to be a commissioner and be able to have so much time to speak!
it was good to hear your fulsome response commissioner.
i have less time but i will be quite blunt.
i would like you to take the comments in this debate as armour and weapons into your struggles on this matter.
this house is united about one issue which is that there is a problem at both ends and indeed in the centre of the food supply chain.
the bov report which was an initiative of mine in the epp group and i thank mr bov for his work on it deals with the farm input problem.
it is serious and you have acknowledged that.
at the other end we have had the excellent work of my colleague mrs patro neves on the imbalance of power and the need to look at this.
i am particularly pleased by your words and i quote you here that you will reserve the right to legislate'.
there is a huge parallel between what has happened in financial services to the discredit of the european union and what is happening in the food supply chain.
my interest in this house is in the food supply chain.
are you as commissioner prepared to watch over the destruction of this if we do not take action now?
let me warn you that though we have been up early for this debate there are others in the food chain who have been up much earlier and are taking from the pockets of producers both their pockets to cushion their own profits.
some of the practices that are going on you do not even know and we do not fully understand.
there is something rotten in this system and unless politicians have the bottle to call it rotten there will be no change.
take this debate to the commission and take action.
as we speak they are sitting down and talking about implementing measures.
however just as the commission is telling us that the process framed in the high level forum for a better functioning food supply chain would not work they are ready to present legislation.
parliament has decided that the retail round table is the forum where progress will be assessed based on data and facts.
we need however to ensure that our financial services legislation is joined up with our wider agricultural policies.
ultimately we do not know what role financial market participants are playing in the world's commodity markets because there is a lack of transparency in the trading process.
this report makes clear just how many factors influence the price of food yet it is easy for politicians directly to blame banks and hedge funds for price volatility.
this is not a two dimensional discussion and the commission needs to look for more sophisticated tools to remove the opacity in commodity markets and give financial regulators a full toolbox.
they really need to clamp down on any abusive behaviour as and when it may occur.
mr bov was quite right to encourage farmers to cultivate their own seeds rather than relying on seed monopolies and also to recycle phosphates and nitrogen rather than relying on evermore expensive purchases and of course to return to the production of traditional products. he has also shown himself to be aware of the burden of the cost of complying with legislation much of it of course eu legislation.
he might have mentioned the costs of the new enriched poultry cages that have to be borne by countries complying with this very welcome legislation but not of course by those countries that have studiously ignored it.
the gap between farm gate prices and the prices paid by consumers has been mentioned by other speakers.
the power of oligopsonist supermarkets must be broken.
i would caution however against the race for erecting massive wind turbines on farms.
in scotland right now the modern equivalent of snake oil salesmen are knocking on doors throughout the countryside trying to persuade hard pressed farmers to part with vast sums of cash in exchange for having one of these industrial monsters erected on their land with the promise of pots of gold.
however as the recent storms have demonstrated these turbines are often subject to catastrophic failure and even when they are working they only produce a trickle of electricity.
as a result many farmers in scotland have found that they have rusting hulks on their land which are earning nothing and costing them a fortune.
rising costs will force us to rethink our attitude i believe about soya imports from third countries and the problems associated with the protein deficit in the eu.
i do not believe that domestic protein production can satisfy demand especially if we wish to increase food production for reasons of food security.
large retailers must be prepared to cooperate with producers in order to ensure that the distribution of profits along the chain is equal and fair.
the eu imposes the strictest standards on animal welfare environmental practices and food safety.
i support the fact that the eu is the world leader in this regard but i also think we have to find a balance between maintaining the highest standards and risking over legislating our farmers out of business.
i fear the proposals from the commission regarding the reform of the cap go in that direction especially in relation to greening and direct payments and the ridiculous set aside proposal.
with regard to the issue of imbalances in the food chain it is clear that the power of retailers has grown to what some consider to be an unacceptable level. while there are some measures the eu can take especially as regards transparency and profits in the chain i think that farmers need to look at how they can organise themselves better and increase their bargaining power whether through producer organisations or cooperatives.
madam president commissioner our farmers are being squeezed between ever rising input prices on the one hand and very tough competitive market conditions for agricultural commodities on the other. faced with this problem the commission has two options.
they should be reluctant to regulate markets that is usually heavy handed and rarely effective but they should offer encouragement and support to the industry by indicating best practice on all sides.
you can empower farmers by ensuring that there is transparent market information always available;
and you can enable farmers by amending competition law promoting codes of conduct illustrating best practice and simplifying the common agricultural policy.
i am disappointed that the commissioner's proposals for cap reform fail to recognise adequately the strategic importance of a viable competitive agricultural sector.
how fortunate the commissioner is that he has jos bov here today to offer him sound practical advice.
the commission appreciates the contributions of the institutions and believes that the final text reflects the common objective of protecting the health and safety of workers in europe.
this new system was adopted in two thousand and eight and will progressively come into force over the next few years.
this will make a significant and positive contribution in facilitating transposition and implementation at national level thereby improving the protection of workers' health and safety.
to support this initiative the commission has published a range of guidance material.
as such this is a welcome contribution to improving the common understanding on chemical risk management issues not only in the eu but also with our key trading partners across the world.
this will assist employers and workers in managing the practical reality of the transition from the pre existing to the new system for chemical packaging and labelling.
the improvements to the proposal which were agreed during the negotiations result in a text which is not only clearer from a legal perspective but also simpler to understand.
we have updated the references and the terminology to reflect the new system that we are now using.
we in europe adopted the un globally harmonised system of classification and labelling of chemicals in.
i am fully in agreement with the list of vulnerable workers that we have added to the list. the rapporteur listed them; young workers pregnant workers etc. i also fully agree with the recommendation that explanatory guidelines and guidance be available to smes.
the commission is now looking forward to the adoption of the proposal by the council and publication of the directive in the official journal.
the first point was about the separation of banks and why is that?
here i am speaking about private savings; we want them to be funnelled to the real economy.
i do not believe that one hundred of the economy should be driven by public investment.
i do not call that investment.
public investment is needed and that was the last of my three points.
well because we want private savings.
but they are looking for two things they are looking for certainty firstly that they will get their money back and secondly they are looking for certainty in terms of the projects that they need to invest in.
is to provide certainty.
we need to move quickly to the capital markets because that is the best way to give us the stability we need to.
we need this instrument in place to give certainty to the markets to make sure that they can invest on a longterm basis in all of the things that we need to do.
finally i will make this one point. as public budgets improve as the situation develops we will see further capital projects.
i think together with the juncker investment plan and the new funds for strategic investment we are beginning to see europe emerge from this appalling crisis a crisis where effectively twenty of investment has been taken out of the euwide economy since the fall of lehman brothers in. two thousand and eight what we now need to do and it is the key issue for me
there is a wall of funds within the pensions industry within the insurance industry that will invest in a longterm investment project.
therefore it is a pity that the council did not support parliament's request for sixty of investments to go to european projects and there are not greater measures to protect the retail investors willing to invest in eltifs for a longer term.
one of the priorities of cmu in this respect is the revitalisation of the securitisation market. however it must be clear that there should be full standardisation transparency adequate capital requirements and clear information to investors on the credit risk.
at the moment private investors interested in committing money for the long term face a set of fragmented national markets which can make it hard for them to invest in one single member state or across borders within the union. this in turn restricts the amount of private investment for jobs and growth.
i would like to pay tribute to parliament's farsightedness in including intellectual as well as physical property within these funds. research and development play a vital role in our economies and they are as much in need of financing as physical infrastructures for example. ensuring that all types of investors retail investors as well as major institutions such as insurance companies and pension funds can access our european long term investment funds has always been a key element of the commission proposal.
our commitment to market based financing channelled through these funds does not exclude the role that banks can play in long term financing.
in particular we are very thankful for parliament's willingness to compromise on issues such as the european investment quota to ensure that the european long term investment funds are in place and in a form that is both attractive for potential managers and investors.
for asset managers to give investors access to a far wider range of assets than has hitherto been available in a robustly regulated legal framework.
as such it is a key component in our work on the financial markets union to increase the amounts of market financing going into the real economy. this regulation is one of the first concrete expressions of our work with capital markets.
the european long term investments funds have a role to play here and in other parts of the economy where long term committed capital is needed.
banks continue to play a very important role in financing long term businesses and projects in many member states.
as mr lamassoure has just pointed out the winds are a little milder these days with the euro going down and with energy pricing being more favourable to growth but at the same time we need investment.
parliament and the council have always agreed that smes are crucially important to the european economy and so their inclusion as an asset within this is key.
the european long term investment funds are designed to solve this problem creating a uniform set of rules that allows all types of investors to invest in smes long term projects and companies.
well fear stalks this chamber fear that greece may leave and bring the euro down and fear that low growth across the economy may make people see that the european union is a failure after all and that it is a bad idea whose time has passed.
there is seemingly a belief in this chamber that central bankers can steer economics and do so as well hence the reason that the ecb is allowing quantitative easing which will eventually make people poorer and also ensure that you pay more in the future for what you are paying now.
when we look at our phones most of us will not say that governments should design or make phones.
our computers should not be designed by our own governments or parliamentarians but here in this chamber there seems to be an idea that parliamentarians and commissioners can create pension funds and be private equity investors.
that is what this particular product is all about.
first of all there is significant uncertainty concerning the reforms in some states the reforms that are needed to get the countries on a sustainable path.
we expect that there is potential to achieve a higher investment multiplier in the real economy and also a more balanced view to include a higher focus on the supply.
the most important areas are the private equity schemes and the smes and at this point i think we need to consider as fast as possible the facilitation of these financing options and pay considerable attention to the portfolio allocation of these kinds of investment opportunities not only by focusing on the scope of the smes but also on the geographic factors
mr president as the s d shadow on this report my main objective was to ensure that we created a type of fund that would benefit the real economy and i think we actually achieved that.
the long economic crisis and huge investment gap in europe shows that there is a great need for investment to ensure growth employment and an improved economy.
what these funds can do is function as an investment vehicle that can contribute to the financing of the real economy in the eu.
this is useful for example for insurance companies and pension funds which need a pooling mechanism to facilitate the financing of longterm investments.
the aim is that the eltif will contribute to financing smart sustainable and inclusive growth in europe.
that is essential because we need a europe that is economically stable to once again experience investment and growth.
my hope is that the eltif will be used by many to help facilitate investment but most of all my hope is that the eltif will be much used for green and sustainable investment that will not only contribute to growth but also have a positive impact socially environmentally and economically for europe as a whole.
we have a label here which allows you to invest in the long term not only in infrastructure projects but also in nonlisted companies and in smes which also need a stable shareholding base.
i think it is important that with this label we give investors the diversity that they need.
we will have to continue to reform our economies to make them more competitive and to make sure that there are projects available for these funds to invest in.
it is also important that we continue on this road to make sure that the whole capital markets union gets a more solid base.
i think commissioner hill has put forward a proposal and will work in the coming weeks and months to make this happen. i hope that what we have created here this european longterm investment fund this label will attract the necessary people to look at the longer term and bring about more financing options and more diversity in our economy because i think that is what we need more investment more growth and ultimately more jobs
you always do and with good grace so i thank you for that.
your speech is very much about state capital and public investment.
that is why we must also ensure that the capital markets union will develop into a synergy that harnesses financial markets and services to produce growth through longterm investment.
for years we have been building on financial stability;
now we need to ensure that growth is possible under financial stability.