Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-26-Speech-4-144"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090326.16.4-144"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"− (
) We believe that the original purpose of the programme – to distribute intervention stocks to the most deprived persons – was strangely worded right from the start. Mixing agricultural policy with social policy may be commendable, but it gets complicated. Recently, the proportion of goods not coming from intervention stocks has steadily increased. At the last reckoning, around 85% of the food was bought on the open market.
We believe that the distribution of food to the most deprived persons in the Community should be abolished. The circumstances of the most deprived persons in the Member States should be dealt with by the Member States or the municipalities. It is these political levels of responsibility which should ensure, via their social policy, that all citizens get their right to a minimum level of subsistence. Whether this is done via social security benefits, the distribution of food or by other means should be their decision.
The European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development proposes that the food aid be funded in full by the EU. The views that are put forward in this committee simply to get agricultural products on the market are astounding.
As usual, the June List observes that, in this situation, it is fortunate that the European Parliament does not have powers of codecision in respect of the EU’s agricultural policy. Otherwise, the EU would fall into the trap of protectionism and of heavy subsidies to various groups within agriculture."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"SV"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples