Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-11-Speech-3-077"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-02-11"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20040211.4.3-077"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-02-11-Speech-3-0782
lpv:speaker	lp:Erik Meijer2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3 unknown; Socialistische Partij (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (1999-10-13--2004-07-19)3,3 member; Delegation to the EU-Slovak Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3,3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3,3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3
lpv:translated text	". A sound argument in favour of maintaining European agricultural subsidies is that they enable small farmers to survive falls in their products’ prices and to contribute to preserving a viable countryside. This argument is cancelled out if tax money is misused to line the pockets of rich farmers and agricultural multinationals. A recent study by the development organisation Oxfam shows that EU agricultural subsidies in Great Britain mainly benefit large landowners. For example, it is estimated that the richest of them, the Duke of Westminster, receives some GBP 38 per hour in agricultural subsidies. Even the rapporteur, Mr Garot, who, as a Social Democrat, unfortunately considers the liberalisation of agriculture as a natural phenomenon, now observes that something is amiss where agricultural subsidies are concerned. Between 1995 and 2002, agricultural incomes rose by 7%, but at the same time, the number of farms fell by 15.7%. The remaining farms increased in size and became more intensive. Agricultural support is being distributed unevenly: 20% of the farms receive 73% of the direct support for 59% of the acreage and only 25% of the jobs. The rapporteur is, above all, anxious about farms that produce little but do receive support. I would be more in favour of a ceiling, a maximum limit of support for each farm. Without such a measure, the agricultural funds would become a source of useless bureaucracy and an unjust form of redistribution."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph