Norbert LINS

Policy topics Norbert LINS is active on

What Norbert LINS has said (23)

• 2026-07-14 “The Irish presidency will has cap and agriculture is a high priority. It's important that in the months ahead we make clear where we want to go with this cap. The most important commission commissioner in recent years was Franz Fischler. He had a vision. It was a gender 2000. Then with direct payments, more world market, its viability of European agriculture, environmental measures and rural communities. So do we still have a vision for a common European agricultural policy? Do we see agriculture and rural development as an integrated part of this policy, or are we just running it down? We must be clear in the Council and in Parliament. The Commission proposal, unfortunately, isn't very apt for a vision. I think we need more time urgently for my report. There were 3300 amendments. I think we urgently need a transition arrangement to be become clear if we have a vision for a common Agricultural policy.”
  Agriculture (green)
• 2026-07-14 “(16:46:29 - 16:49:52): Thank you. Thank you to the reporters for their 1st evaluations. Above all, I want to make clear on the role of the regions, it is not enough. This relates both for agricultural policy and regional policy. It is not enough just to have the local level regional actors involved in the decision making process. We need them to have a full role to play in taking the decision. So both agricultural and for regional funds. So it's not just about having a voice. They have to be able to take decisions if you're talking about a federal system or regional system, however the different member states are organized. On agricultural policy, the key issue is the specific nature of the co financing, in particular, in the 2nd pillar of the CAP. Of course, there are differences here compared to regional policy on co financing 80% different percentages. It's important for us that these specific co financing rates are included in the plan. So flexibility as well. When changing national and regional plans, the specific characteristics of the CAP need to be taken into account. By way of an example in the 2nd pillar, we've got different programs in different member states. In my country, these are decided at the regional level. There are some programs which aren't so successful, and then we were brought in a new program halfway through for farmers. This kind of thing, these kind of changes have to be possible, and they have to be unbureaucratic, and it must be possible to make these changes quickly. So we need to create possibilities for exemptions, which make it possible to make changes quickly when required. And this is another difference to regional policy. In the cap, we have annual payments in 2028. They have farmers have to apply by the May 15, and then they wait for the end of 20 28. I'm not very optimistic, I have to say, but they expect payments. And on this as well, we need to take into account the particular nations of the CAP. There's annual payments, not payments by project, which may be fulfilled or not. So those are the most important points which I wanted to flag up here. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• 2026-06-29 “(15:06:27 - 15:12:36): Thank you very much, Chairman and colleagues. I now have the opportunity to present my report over the next few minutes. I'm aware that being cap rapporteur is not an easy task, and you have to try and do anything and everything. You have to be an expert everywhere. You have to try and link it all together. So that's something that I've tried to do. We've held various discussions within my political group, but also with other political groups. And I've lied. I tried to take account of everyone's views. As the chairman said, the commission proposal was heavily criticized, I think, quite rightly. And we it then took us months work before we said, okay. Well, we'll work with the draft we've got, but we want to make some improvements to put it diplomatically. So in my draft report, I stuck firmly to the other reports that we've got, so the MFF interim report and also the NRP report. I've worked closely with miss Katainen there over recent months. And so my report is built in the same way as those previous reports that I mentioned so that we have some consistency. Because, clearly, we see things very differently to the way the commission proposal went, but also very differently to the council as well. They have their partial general approach, but so we have our position. So the most important 7 points in my report. Firstly, capping and digression and redistribution. I'm in favor of new capping instruments for natural persons. And in my draft report, that sits at €500,000, and I've taken digression out. So it's not 20,000 or 50,000 or even a €100,000. The key element of redistribution. So support for small holdings. That's my 2nd point. That is the compulsory redistribution. That's not a new element. That's something that we already had in the current CAP period. Member states have to redistribute at least 10% of funds in pillar 1 from large holdings to small holdings. The 3rd element is promoting young farmers, a small difference from between my report and the NRP reg report. I'm calling for 8% direct payments in the 1st pillar to go to young farmers to assist generational renewal. And the 4th element is also linked to that. I delete the criterium for pensionable age there. And the reason is that I think we need to work more with incentives rather than playing different groups against each other. We should help people more. I think that's the right approach, And we don't want to ensure that people who who aren't in who are retiring benefit from the CAP. So that's my approach. And then I also think we need a minimum budget for the environment and animal welfare. And I it's not that I'm being not being ambitious here, but I want to make a clear comment, which is that member states are now responsible to ensure that there's an appropriate budget for agriculture under the MFF. And so it's up to member states really to ensure an appropriate level. The 6th element relates to farm stewardship. That's the successor to so called conditionality. I think we really need to ensure a genuine level playing field in Europe. And in order to do that, we need to ensure that everyone does things similarly. We can't have some people being really ambitious and some doing nothing. That would undermine competitiveness in the European Union and also ensure that we no longer had a level playing field. So we need to ensure that something's done there. And the 7th and last element that I'd like to emphasize is the extension of risk management and appropriate improvement is there. I mean, we've seen the heat wave that struck Europe over recent days. And, basically, here, we need to improve the resilience of agriculture. We need to improve resilience of farming. That needs to be key in the future CAP, and that means a pragmatic approach. And all the this kind of thing is in my report. There are many more details in my report, of course, but I don't have a great deal of time now. I think I've made the most important points, and I now look forward to hearing column comments from colleagues. And I also look forward to the amendments that will certainly be tabled. Thank you.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• 2026-06-29 “(15:54:25 - 16:00:39): Thank you, colleagues. Thank you very much for all of your initial reactions to my draft report. I think I can conclude that the majority of you are very positive when it comes to the structure of the reports. There are some that aspects of the report that have been criticized, but I think that this is a good foundation for our further work over the next few weeks and months. We'd just like to share a couple of comments on some individual points. Perhaps there's been some misunderstandings on certain things, and some further explanation will be necessary. We really are at the outset, at the very beginning of the process. So when it comes to capping and digressivity, 1st of all, when it comes to binding redistribution, there is an element of degreissivity included there, but I'm not saying that we should do the same as the commission taking away 100,000 and then not give anybody anything. No. That's the main difference. And those who've been focused on agricultural policy for the past few years and has been at meetings of farmers will know just how we can get things through with the majority, how I can get support from the sector. And in my experience, taking something from from some people and no proposals to help people that or with doing that, in my experience, it's very difficult to find a majority majority of support. That is just a general message that I'd like to put out there. Now to the commission, I don't think that we are taking out ambitions on the environment. No. Once again, we are sending out sending out a very clear message to member states. For the next MFF, the member states can maintain the ambition for the environment or even increase it. Many colleagues have said this. We can't spend the money 5 times, fivefold. Yes. Thomas fights. I could take out, 10,000, farmers and thereby reduce direct payments sevenfold. So to go from 600,000 to 100,000. Yes. But certain regions, not only holdings, would be adversely affected, and it would be difficult for them to continue to survive. It's important to know that that would be the consequence of such a proposal. On young farmers, I can see that there is general support for that. But just to explain briefly, it is important, and I try to strike this balance in my report. It's important in agricultural policy not just to say, that everything's the same. No. We have differences. In common agricultural policy, we need to have some aspects that are common. But for young farmers, for women in agriculture, it's, of course, essential that they have the opportunity to invest their money. And there are, of course, big differences there, and the number of young farmers are different depending on where you are in the European Union. So my 8% is just a starting point for discussions, but I did want to, just explain that we, of course, always need to remember what what can is feasible within the structures that we have in the European Union. I think that we will it it's good that we have such, good intentions. And I've seen in your reactions today that we have a common approach, but it's important that the to remember that the commission and the council want to take this down a different path. If we look at the general approach on the NRPP in the council, it's all about, having a free lunch and about free choice for member states. And they don't want to have a common agricultural policy. So, obviously, we know what the approach is, but it's our job as the European parliament to stand up for the maintenance of the common agricultural policy. And over the next weeks and months, we must bear this in mind because we will be fighting over this. But at the end of the day, we need to know that in tri logs, we will be there as a team, and we will need to, as a team, save this common agricultural policy. That's what our main job is, and we must focus on that. Thank you.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• 2026-06-29 “(15:54:25 - 16:00:39): Thank you, colleagues. Thank you very much for all of your initial reactions to my draft report. I think I can conclude that the majority of you are very positive when it comes to the structure of the reports. There are some that aspects of the report that have been criticized, but I think that this is a good foundation for our further work over the next few weeks and months. We'd just like to share a couple of comments on some individual points. Perhaps there's been some misunderstandings on certain things, and some further explanation will be necessary. We really are at the outset, at the very beginning of the process. So when it comes to capping and digressivity, 1st of all, when it comes to binding redistribution, there is an element of degreissivity included there, but I'm not saying that we should do the same as the commission taking away 100,000 and then not give anybody anything. No. That's the main difference. And those who've been focused on agricultural policy for the past few years and has been at meetings of farmers will know just how we can get things through with the majority, how I can get support from the sector. And in my experience, taking something from from some people and no proposals to help people that or with doing that, in my experience, it's very difficult to find a majority majority of support. That is just a general message that I'd like to put out there. Now to the commission, I don't think that we are taking out ambitions on the environment. No. Once again, we are sending out sending out a very clear message to member states. For the next MFF, the member states can maintain the ambition for the environment or even increase it. Many colleagues have said this. We can't spend the money 5 times, fivefold. Yes. Thomas Feitz. I could take out, 10,000, farmers and thereby reduce direct payments sevenfold. So to go from 600,000 to 100,000. Yes. But certain regions, not only holdings, would be adversely affected, and it would be difficult for them to continue to survive. It's important to know that that would be the consequence of such a proposal. On young farmers, I can see that there is general support for that. But just to explain briefly, it is important, and I try to strike this balance in my report. It's important in agricultural policy not just to say, that everything's the same. No. We have differences. In common agricultural policy, we need to have some aspects that are common. But for young farmers, for women in agriculture, it's, of course, essential that they have the opportunity to invest their money. And there are, of course, big differences there, and the number of young farmers are different depending on where you are in the European Union. So my 8% is just a starting point for discussions, but I did want to, just explain that we, of course, always need to remember what what can is feasible within the structures that we have in the European Union. I think that we will it it's good that we have such, good intentions. And I've seen in your reactions today that we have a common approach, but it's important that the to remember that the commission and the council want to take this down a different path. If we look at the general approach on the NRPP in the council, it's all about, having a free lunch and about free choice for member states. And they don't want to have a common agricultural policy. So, obviously, we know what the approach is, but it's our job as the European parliament to stand up for the maintenance of the common agricultural policy. And over the next weeks and months, we must bear this in mind because we will be fighting over this. But at the end of the day, we need to know that in tri logs, we will be there as a team, and we will need to, as a team, save this common agricultural policy. That's what our main job is, and we must focus on that. Thank you.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• 2026-06-29 “(15:06:27 - 15:12:36): Thank you very much, Chairman and colleagues. I now have the opportunity to present my report over the next few minutes. I'm aware that being cap rapporteur is not an easy task, and you have to try and do anything and everything. You have to be an expert everywhere. You have to try and link it all together. So that's something that I've tried to do. We've held various discussions within my political group, but also with other political groups. And I've lied. I tried to take account of everyone's views. As the chairman said, the commission proposal was heavily criticized, I think, quite rightly. And we it then took us months work before we said, okay. Well, we'll work with the draft we've got, but we want to make some improvements to put it diplomatically. So in my draft report, I stuck firmly to the other reports that we've got, so the MFF interim report and also the NRP report. I've worked closely with miss Katainen there over recent months. And so my report is built in the same way as those previous reports that I mentioned so that we have some consistency. Because, clearly, we see things very differently to the way the commission proposal went, but also very differently to the council as well. They have their partial general approach, but so we have our position. So the most important 7 points in my report. Firstly, capping and digression and redistribution. I'm in favor of new capping instruments for natural persons. And in my draft report, that sits at €500,000, and I've taken digression out. So it's not 20,000 or 50,000 or even a €100,000. The key element of redistribution. So support for small holdings. That's my 2nd point. That is the compulsory redistribution. That's not a new element. That's something that we already had in the current CAP period. Member states have to redistribute at least 10% of funds in pillar 1 from large holdings to small holdings. The 3rd element is promoting young farmers, a small difference from between my report and the NRP reg report. I'm calling for 8% direct payments in the 1st pillar to go to young farmers to assist generational renewal. And the 4th element is also linked to that. I delete the criterium for pensionable age there. And the reason is that I think we need to work more with incentives rather than playing different groups against each other. We should help people more. I think that's the right approach, And we don't want to ensure that people who who aren't in who are retiring benefit from the CAP. So that's my approach. And then I also think we need a minimum budget for the environment and animal welfare. And I it's not that I'm being not being ambitious here, but I want to make a clear comment, which is that member states are now responsible to ensure that there's an appropriate budget for agriculture under the MFF. And so it's up to member states really to ensure an appropriate level. The 6th element relates to farm stewardship. That's the successor to so called conditionality. I think we really need to ensure a genuine level playing field in Europe. And in order to do that, we need to ensure that everyone does things similarly. We can't have some people being really ambitious and some doing nothing. That would undermine competitiveness in the European Union and also ensure that we no longer had a level playing field. So we need to ensure that something's done there. And the 7th and last element that I'd like to emphasize is the extension of risk management and appropriate improvement is there. I mean, we've seen the heat wave that struck Europe over recent days. And, basically, here, we need to improve the resilience of agriculture. We need to improve resilience of farming. That needs to be key in the future CAP, and that means a pragmatic approach. And all the this kind of thing is in my report. There are many more details in my report, of course, but I don't have a great deal of time now. I think I've made the most important points, and I now look forward to hearing column comments from colleagues. And I also look forward to the amendments that will certainly be tabled. Thank you.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• 2026-06-25 “And then if we talk about the commonality of the cap, I think this concerns both regulations. As Mr. Finney said, we were talking about the co-financing system, and if you look at the Commission's proposal, then in all these different details, many measures, especially in the area of agri environment and protection and environmental protection, they they would no longer be financed at the same rate. And of course, if you see how there's not a lot of money available in national and regional budgets. So I think that it's important, especially as as our colleague Mrs. Tynan said, we have to have keep a very similar co-financing system similar to the one we currently have. Of course, we can go into the greater detail in the coming weeks and months, but what we want to have is that the Commission recognises that we're people from the sector and. And the member states don't want a revolution either. What we want is an evolution of the situation, and I think the Parliament is going to express this. And sometimes I want to see just not just those elements we don't want to see, but I would like to see proposals as to how we could improve things. That's just a side comment very much the end. And Mrs. Maslin from the s d is next president.”
  Agriculture (green)
• 2026-06-25 “Thank you very much, Mr. Van. And now we go into the question and answer session, Uh, starting with the NLP rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs. Um, as the cation is not with us, then I have to give the floor to me. Um, as a, as a shadow rapporteur, I will switch into my mother tongue. Thank you very much for these presentations. Thank you for these introductions in the new challenges. Contained in the Commission's proposal. I think it's very clear that. That the criticism of the Commission's proposal has not decreased. And we're in the middle of the debate. What can we get? What do we want to get? And the, uh, Restructuring of the cap, and we're going to see on Monday when when I present my report on the Common Agricultural Policy, my draft report is then going to be discussed. That's on Monday. Now, briefly on when you hear the report from our colleague Mrs. Katainen, you can clearly see that we, as the Parliament, we would like to keep the two pillars structure. We want that the regions play a role. And, Mrs. Ostergaard, you have to say, well, we have different situations in the EU. We have centralized systems and in some cases very much regionalized systems. I come from from a large member state with 16 federal states. And so a completely centralized system would actually not make any sense. Other countries are smaller or other or more centralized in the way that countries are constructed. So that then that would be. So I think this proposal has to be suitable for both. I think the Commission has made it a little simpler by saying, well, here you have to do this, you have to decide this member states. And so I think during this procedure, I think we're going to be able to make a few changes.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• 2026-06-25 “So, dear colleagues, good morning to everyone. Let's start our meeting. Let's move into the agenda. Adoption of the agenda. Anyone against this is not the case. The agenda is adopted. Chair's announcement. Today's meeting is web streamed. We have interpreters for 16 languages. Then we move to top three of the agenda. Public hearing on a new funding structure for the Common Agricultural Policy consequences for farmers and national authorities. Dear colleagues, I would like to welcome you and our invited experts to this public hearing on the new funding structure Of the Common Agricultural Policy. The Budget and Committees are jointly responsible with agri Committee for the National and Regional Partnership Regulation. As you are aware and are invited to take part to this hearing, and I would like to welcome the colleagues of these committees who are here today. I don't think this is the case for now and in particular, and he is not there. Our colleague Van Overveld and colleague Benny is as well not there for the moment as a complement to the workshop we held in April on the budgetary and government aspects of the legislative proposal of the Commission. This hearing is meant to provide us with targeted insights on their practical and strategic implications for farmers and national authorities.”
  Agricultural funding
• 2026-06-25 “As you can see from today's program. Our experts will address key aspects of the draft regulations currently under discussion, which I believe will usefully feed into our work on the amendments to the National and Regional Partnership Regulation. The Cap regulation and the Budget Expenditure Tracking and Performance Regulation. During our first panel on the new budgetary operational functioning of the Cup, Miss Maria Ostergaard, vice chair of the Working Party on Direct Payments at Copa-cogeca, and Luke Verner, Secretary Secretary General of Farm Europe, who are both with us today, will focus on the possible impacts on farmers. For our second panel and with remote participation this time, Mr. Hoffner, head of Austria's Management Authority, and Miss Kate, director general of Spain's National Paying Agency, will analyse the opportunities and constraints of the Commission proposal. After the Q&A session, Miss Katherine, director for strategy and policy analysis of the Commission's DG agriculture, will take the floor. I thank for her participation. I kindly ask all speakers to respect our six minute limit and now give the floor to Miss Scoular. Ostergaard, please. You have the floor.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Madam president. Commissioner. Colleagues. The Common Agricultural Policy must continue to be a standalone, reliable. Um. Budget adjusted. Adjusted for inflation, it must remain. And we need, um, an independent, uh, law on this. And it must be clear that we decide on the cap is a question of creating a security for farmers in the context of political uncertainty in volatile markets. We need to guarantee food security. We need to maintain the competitiveness of our farm sector within the EU and also outside it. It's not an ehm, an end in itself. It's a question of supporting farmers in Europe and rural areas. The commissioner talked about, uh, um, health services and broadband in rural areas. These people are providing us with our food. So we need to ensure that we can maintain cohesion of society in Europe. Cohesion between urban and rural areas. Nothing less than this is at stake here. So we need a clear signal next week about this from the commission. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Commissioner, thank you for coming to the committee. I'm speaking on behalf of the agri committee. I think we have a pro-European European approach. Your European. If you can react to criticism that there are difficult problems that these are tackled with, the Commission has done that again and has made a proposal which basically goes in the right direction. I think unfortunately we have too little time. For this approach, which goes in the right direction to improve it further. I think we need to stop the clock urgently that. The situation has been mentioned many times that we're trying to make it easier in one place, but in other places. The burden gets greater. So this for a serious approach to this regulation, we need more time and we need legislative procedure which is changed. So it's necessary. That we agree on and stop the clock, and that we then seriously work on amendments. If you acknowledge what is there's a good intention in the regulation and but it's poorly implemented. And if that's the case, you must do act or either abolish the regulation or change it in the right way and put it in the right direction.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “I mean, it's difficult to understand if we conclude a Mercosur agreement, uh, that, uh, our own, uh, people are, uh, straight jacketed by very stringent rules. Uh, for example, there's no willingness, uh. Uh, to come up with a zero risk, a category on the part of the commission for EU member states and member states that have no deforestation, uh, risk, for example. And then also in farming, uh, I mentioned bioethanol a moment ago. Uh, if we see, uh, bio, uh, ethanol resources as a strength rather than fighting against it, then perhaps there would be more openness there as well towards the Mercosur agreement, if we can see it as an opportunity to expand, uh, market rather than contract. So I think these are tasks for the commission, not just related to the agreement itself, but to take another look at other policy areas and over the coming weeks and months, send out messages to the affected sectors and perhaps lead to a rethink in some some people's minds. And thank you once again for the invitation.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you very much, Thomas Waitz, I am not at all surprised that the Greens are saying they might be able to agree, because there are a lot of positive things in the commission's package and a lot of positive things for organic farming as well. We also see the results from the mini cap last year. We had some simplifications that we started. We have extension of the arable land, and we've actually had a bigger harvest this year than in previous years, and that is the outcome of the first round of simplifications.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Miss Ivanova from the EC. Thank you very much indeed for this report from the European Court of Auditors. I think it's come at the right point in time. Now that we have seen the beginning of the Cap negotiations. Let me just explain where you see the challenges. So we see the challenges in this new commission proposal. Well, you talked about the legal architecture, how the different funds link up, the political funds, are there going to be brought together, even though they are supposed to follow different implementation techniques and for different reasons? Um, you said it's not going to lead to less complexity, but rather to more complexity. Might do. Anyway, member States challenge, therefore, is to look at the different targets and fill fulfill them from the same fund. Um, red tape cutting you mentioned. Well, there are simplifications for the Commission, apparently, but for member states and the regions and the beneficiaries, specifically the farmers, we don't really see any cutting of red tape. You very clearly said that there's going to be more planning, um, insecurity, uh, when it comes to the actual amount of money per member state. And we can only know that once the NLP plans, uh, have been decided. So we'll have the ring fenced. Copy. But, uh, lots of the financing. We won't know what it will be. Uh, whether it will actually be available for farmers. At the end of the day, there's lots of room for manoeuvre for member states. Uh, you know, seven. So that we're not necessarily thinking about seven year periods, but rather national annual budgetary restrictions. You talked about flexibility. You differentiated things there. On the one hand, you're positive, uh, when it comes to differing conditions in different places, different situations, member states.”
  CAP delivery architecture: ring-fenced common fund vs integrated national plans
• “Thank you very much. Thank you. Chair. After consultation with groups of farmers in the sectors. I have taken their opinion and in my opinion as well. This is not at all sufficient. That's why I have tabled 30 amendments. But they in fact have asked me to put a very concrete question to the European Commission. Given the growing protests among farmers, one of the warnings from the sectors is that this will result in destabilization of the agricultural market and will undermine the competitiveness of farmers. And will the European Commission be prepared to put in place a separate crisis budget, yes or no? Let's have a clear answer. If so, then what will be the minimum size of that? From what budget line will it be funded, and from when will it be available? If not, then why is the Commission pushing through this agreement without ensuring some real protection for farmers incomes, and who will take the financial responsibility for the crisis if it does in fact end up affecting European farmers, which is almost certain anyway. Now, the way in which the European Commission is running all of this in terms of the actual substance, in terms of the communication, it's a real disaster. I mean, this does not enhance faith in the Commission's mechanisms. No, it really is just not right.”
  Agricultural funding
• “I think there are other other substitutes who will be participating in the vote. I see. Okay. It's important that we make a note of that so that we don't make any, um, formal errors. So first of all, we need to establish the quorum for a valid vote. And we would need at least a quarter of the members of the committee present. That is a total of 13. And I can see 3 or 4 times as many as that sitting here in the room this morning. So that quorum is clearly attained. Which takes us on to the election of the chair. So I'm going to ask for candidates. Jan Russell has asked for the floor.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'll, I'll try to stick to the time that I have, but that's not going to be easy to do when I believe or hope that the Commission has understood the message. That this is completely different. What the what the court is telling us shows that they are really kind of tearing apart the what the commission is doing, both in their opinion and the opinion on the cap that we'll be talking about next week. And so I think that we at least need to try to repair things as much as possible. So I'm curious why the commission has actually chosen a particular this particular instrument, one which is so un successful from what we've seen from the last period, both in terms of the design or the building up thereof, as well as the strategic planning thereof, with in the Common Agricultural Policy, was one of the least successful instruments that we had in my country. The strategic planning had the plan had 4000 pages to it. It was one of the most heavily bureaucratic instruments that we've seen up to now. Compared with other national and regional plans, and we've just heard that we're not really sure what, whether or not we're output oriented or milestone oriented. So at least we have to make sure that we that the contents are brought over from the NRP into the actual regulations on the Common Agricultural Policy to create a true joint agricultural policy that deserves that name and that takes into account European businesses. And the Commission has also just admitted that that there is not even clear who has which mandate or responsibilities when the commission. And so I think we need to make sure that we are clear about who is responsible for what. I think it's quite a shame that the Parliament has talked about this on many different times, and we have never actually been so close as we need to be. And the commission is responsible for this problem.”
  CAP delivery architecture: ring-fenced common fund vs integrated national plans
• “Thank you very much for for inviting the AGRI committee. I will switch into my mother tongue for, uh, for my speech. Yeah, Thank you. Thank you very much for the invitation to speak for four minutes. I probably won't need four minutes. I just wanted to start by sketching the image of agriculture in general. We've got a representative of the wine sector. It's well known, uh, that, uh, uh, wine and spirits, also dairy, are reacting positively to this agreement. And on the other hand, uh, we have people who have concerns who or who reject the, uh, agreement. These are people in beef, in poultry, uh, in bioethanol. And for that reason, we need to weigh all of this up, and we need to look at the pros and cons. I think it's good that the European Commission has made compensation available for the agricultural sector. There are also questions about future monitoring and controls. What are the Commission's intentions there? How are they going to adapt monitoring? How are they going to tighten up the monitoring to make sure that the details of this agreement are respected? And how will the cumulative effect of all the different trade agreements be evaluated? That's my question. I think some of our directives and regulations that have already been adopted perhaps need to have another new look taken at them.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you very much and thank you for the collaboration over the last few years. I'm greeting you here as the as a chairperson. You're not somebody who talks a lot and doesn't act much. But I've always found your work very good and this is very refreshing. So thank you very much. I would like to touch on what Mr. Dorfman mentioned. Is the F7 fit for purpose? This is something that you mentioned a lot. And the other thing is this collaboration with the member states. There are four authorities which are which are responsible with the member states. In my country, this is we're trying to produce or improve these authorities. But is there a, a vision for, for, for the future of how we want to work? So that would be my question. Could you touch on that topic, please? Thank you.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “So, dear colleagues, please take your seat. We will immediately start our meeting. Welcome this morning to our first constitutive meeting of the Agri Committee in this new term of office. And I'd like to welcome you all very warmly. First of all, all those who have been newly elected, those that have been re-elected. I'd like to congratulate, congratulate all of you on the election to the most important committee of this House. We've seen how many people wanted to be on this committee, and thereby we see how much it has increased in importance over recent years. We've actually got here the biggest meeting room. It's the biggest one in the European Parliament premises. And I think this is illustrative of the importance of the Agriculture Committee. Now, let me just say a couple of things which I think are important from a procedural point of view. Do you all have your voting cards with you? We're going to need that voting card of each of us for the electronic vote that's about to take place. So that's a vote that will be taking place electronically. If you've left it in your office, then now is the moment to pop out and get hold of it. Good. So. There are a couple of formalities that we have to get out of the way. The constitutive meeting of the committee is taking place, and we will be electing the chair and up to four vice chairs, according to article 200 and rule 219 of the Rules of Procedure. So first of all, this is not going to be too surprising to you. We'll be electing the chair and then we'll be electing the vice chairs. Good. So we need to know if there's any proxies. I have understood that Mr. Fidanza is being replaced by Procaccini, who I see just here in front of me, and I don't think there are any other substitutes that have been announced.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “So, dear colleagues, please take your seat. We will immediately start our meeting. Welcome this morning to our first constitutive meeting of the Agri Committee in this new term of office. And I'd like to welcome you all very warmly. First of all, all those who have been newly elected, those that have been re-elected. I'd like to congratulate, congratulate all of you on the election to the most important committee of this House. We've seen how many people wanted to be on this committee, and thereby we see how much it has increased in importance over recent years. We've actually got here the biggest meeting room. It's the biggest one in the European Parliament premises. And I think this is illustrative of the importance of the Agriculture Committee. Now, let me just say a couple of things which I think are important from a procedural point of view. Do you all have your voting cards with you? We're going to need that voting card of each of us for the electronic vote that's about to take place. So that's a vote that will be taking place electronically. If you've left it in your office, then now is the moment to pop out and get hold of it. Good. So. There are a couple of formalities that we have to get out of the way. The constitutive meeting of the committee is taking place, and we will be electing the chair and up to four vice chairs, according to article 200 and rule 219 of the Rules of Procedure. So first of all, this is not going to be too surprising to you. We'll be electing the chair and then we'll be electing the vice chairs. Good. So we need to know if there's any proxies. I have understood that Mr. Fidanza is being replaced by Procaccini, who I see just here in front of me, and I don't think there are any other substitutes that have been announced.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Madam president. Commissioner colleagues. The the cap simplification package sends out a strong message to farmers in Europe. We have understood that the rules were not practical enough, they were too constraining, and so we have acted to ensure that simplification will come to farms as quickly as possible. In particular, rules for permanent grassland, uh, erosion protection. These are clear steps for progress. There will be less bureaucracy, less burden for farmers, which I'm sure they will welcome. But bureaucracy, uh, we, uh, is something we need to tackle, uh, beyond just the cap in plant protection products as well. I hope tomorrow will be discussing that in the area of pesticides. Last week, um, there was an environmental omnibus, uh, put forward. I don't think it's quite the breakthrough we need in terms of reducing the burden for our farmers. We have the nature restoration law. We have, uh, nitrates, bio gases, all of this we need to look at still. So we've started moving in the right direction. We need to keep making progress. There's still a lot of work to do to really help make farmers competitive in Europe. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)