Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-02-13-Speech-2-279"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070213.20.2-279"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, last November we rejected the proposal for a regulation on voluntary modulation by a very large majority.
As the European Commission has not amended its text, the stage is still set for that text to be rejected again; everyone knows the reasons, so I shall not repeat them: the cuts made to the second pillar, the omission of cofinancing, the fact that cofinancing introduces distortions of competition between States and the imbalance that creates in the structure of the common agricultural policy which, I might point out, is the only common European policy and is at risk of being renationalised as a result.
Rural development policy’s need for funding is nevertheless real and I really do fear a growing depopulation of our rural areas if nothing is done to modernise farming structures, to renew generations of farmers, to improve the quality of life and the environment and to encourage economic diversity in the countryside.
That is why, Commissioner, I am asking you, instead of voluntary modulation, to propose an increase in the rate of compulsory modulation, making it identical in all Member States. I would also like to stress that, at present, compulsory modulation applies where a farm receives more than EUR 5 000 in aid a year, which means the vast majority of farms.
A proper tool for redistributing agricultural aids would also take account of other criteria, such as the size of the farm, its dependence on aid, the labour employed, the gross margin, etc. As well as that, there could also be a ceiling on direct aid to make for better distribution.
Unfortunately, even if the European Parliament rejects this proposal overwhelmingly for a second time, a proposal which would normally be an important legislative act, it is only an opinion, and I agree fully with Mr Goepel. I therefore believe we should keep up the pressure on the Commission and the Council while for the time being retaining the 20% budget reserve for the rural development funds for 2007."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples