Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-26-Speech-4-064"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001026.2.4-064"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
In a bid to safeguard industrial peace in urban areas, the price of the food package has been kept artificially low for dozens of years now. The only way farms could survive was to scale-up and undergo mechanisation. That made them heavily dependent on loans. There is a lot of money about in the agricultural sector these days, but that does not appear to be a guarantee for a good income or safeguard the future of the business. My colleague Mr Salvador Jové is only too aware of the bad position which southern European small farmers and farm labourers find themselves in. Within the existing structure of extensive agricultural subsidies, he is looking for a majority to reach a compromise which will do more to safeguard the chances of survival of this group of farmers. I support his view, as long as this results in income support for those on incomes which are too low. If I were to have my way, I would invest less funds in agriculture but within this sector, give more to the poorest. This line of thinking is at odds with the idea that Europe should collect more taxpayers’ money to subsidise the richest and most profitable businesses. The growing Dutch glasshouse horticulture, which yields a large volume of vegetables, fruit and flowers in a small space, is in a much stronger position than cereal or dairy farms. Since it appears from Appendix III that glasshouse horticulture does not benefit from the proposed subsidy scheme for vegetables and fruit, I am putting my objections on hold for the time being."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples