Mr President, the Berlin European Council limited the interim review of Agenda 2000 – and the two own-initiative reports referred specifically to the Commission’s future proposals on the review of Agenda 2000 – in terms of the limits on the financial perspectives and the possible review of the intervention prices for cereals and milk quotas. The financial perspectives have been respected, and what is more, expenditure has been far below what was budgeted. With regard to the price of cereals, in my opinion, the real need is for the price differential for oilseed crops to be restored in order to correct the strategic deficit of vegetable proteins. However, there should be no experiments with durum wheat or rice in order to prevent the risk of cultivation disappearing. With regard to the system of milk quotas, we should refrain from any experiments that could have disastrous consequences for mountainous areas. I therefore think that the interim review of Agenda 2000 should under no circumstances lead to what I would call a radical reform, with budgetary restrictions, with the prospect of enlargement. However there could be reforms of certain aspects of Agenda 2000 that have shown signs of not working or of lacking in efficiency. For example, the application of modulation should be compulsory and uniform across all the Member States, and the scope for use of the funds freed up through it should be considerably extended. With regard to rural development, I have a few comments to make: political bargaining could be a threat to achieving objectives set for rural development. The requirement of co-financing, as it is currently designed, creates a deficit of rural development measures in the poorest regions, which are the most needy ones, and the predominant measures in some countries frequently have little to do with sustainable rural development. I think that the report by Mrs Rodríguez Ramos deals with these problems very well and it will therefore receive the unreserved support of my political group. With regard to Mr Fiori’s report, it should be recognised that it has some structural problems, possibly due to the large number of amendments that he received. Mr Fiori knows that my political group, and I personally, made a considerable effort to reach a consensus on some aspects of the amendments that I had tabled, and I thought that the final result of the vote in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development reflected agreements between all the members of the committee. I was surprised by the final amendments from Mr Fiori that will be voted on tomorrow, and I would like to say, with all due respect, that I do not share the opinion that he has just explained to us, that we need to set an economic, business-like view, which should also exist in a large proportion of agriculture, against modulation policies. I think that public policies should refer to specific objectives, such as sustainable development, job creation and social criteria, and that under no circumstances should they be incompatible with that business-like, economic view of agriculture. I have a difference of opinion with Mr Fiori on this issue and if his amendments, which remove modulation, are adopted, I will advise my political group not to vote in favour of his report.

Political group: GUE-NGL