Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-13-Speech-1-179"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-11-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Support for rural development by the EAFRD – Voluntary modulation of direct payments under the CAP (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061113.20.1-179"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-11-13-Speech-1-1802
lpv:speaker	lp:Bernadette Bourzai2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; AGRI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Parti socialiste (2004-07-20--2008-09-30)3 member; PES (2004-07-20--2008-09-30)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2004-09-20--2008-09-30)3 member; REGI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2008-09-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, everyone is familiar with the 2003 CAP reform, which provided for the freezing of the first pillar and the strengthening of the second, namely rural development. The fact is that the agreement on the new financial perspective – which, I might add, I voted against – runs counter to these two commitments. Indeed, the rural development package has lost EUR 20 billion in comparison with the Commission proposal, a figure that represents, for the 15 old Member States, 35% less than the current period. The proposal for voluntary additional modulation, which is aimed at transferring a maximum of 20% of the sums from the first to the second pillar and which does not meet any of the criteria applicable to rural development policy, is unacceptable. I recognise that the European Commission has attempted, in its proposal for a regulation, to manage this tool, but I share the rapporteur's concerns and I endorse his proposal that it be rejected: the risk of distorted competition is too great if certain Member States choose to deduct 20% from direct aid and not from other types of aid. It is unacceptable for this voluntary modulation not to have to comply with the same rules as those that normally apply to rural development, and the risk of the CAP being renationalised is too great. The funding requirements for rural development policy are, however, real, and I fear more people abandoning our rural areas. That is why I am calling on the Commission to propose, instead of voluntary modulation, an identical increase in the rate of compulsory modulation in all of the Member States. I should also like to stress that compulsory modulation currently applies as soon as a farm receives more than EUR 5 000 in agricultural support per year. The large majority of farms are, indeed, affected. If we are to have a genuine tool for redistributing aid, we should also take account of other criteria, such as the size of the farm, its dependence on aid, the workforce employed, the standard gross margin, and so on. Furthermore, if we are to guarantee that agricultural support is divided up fairly, we should think about capping direct aid."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph