Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-02-14-Speech-3-189"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070214.17.3-189"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
As we have said before, the key issue here is that the Commission’s proposal is not a proposal for genuine modulation. Such a proposal would increase aid to those who receive the least, or receive nothing, and reduce aid to those who receive a large amount, so as to ensure greater fairness in the distribution of aid among producers, countries and crops and to support small and medium farmers and family farming.
We feel that the Commission should table a fresh proposal in order to create genuine, compulsory modulation, which would guarantee greater fairness and release financial resources by introducing a maximum limit to aid per holding (capping) and a percentage increase in aid for farmers who receive the least from the CAP (modulation), for example, by proposing a 15% to 20% increase for small or medium-sized farmers who receive less than EUR 5 000 in aid, and taking various circumstances into account even when they receive more than that.
Without this, there is a risk that existing inequalities will be exacerbated. We therefore urge the Commission to recast the proposal in order to ensure that a decision on this issue does not ultimately lead to the renationalisation of the costs of the CAP. The Commission has so far not done this, however. Hence our decision to abstain."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples