Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-16-Speech-2-189"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010116.10.2-189"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members, I should like to start by thanking you, Mr Parish, for your earnest report on the situation and perspectives of young farmers in the European Union. I should also like to thank the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for its work.
We have endeavoured in Agenda 2000, especially by developing the second pillar, to take account of the concerns of young farmers. In some organisations of the market, we have at least managed to grant special terms to newly established farmers or young farmers. I need only mention the sheep premium or the administration of national milk quota reserves or planting rights under the programme to restructure and convert vineyards. But, without doubt, the real issue here is the future of farming per se, because if young people are no longer prepared to take up farming, then any further debate on agriculture is superfluous.
And, without doubt, the attractiveness of farming also depends a great deal on the political framework conditions which apply to agriculture, not just agricultural policy as a whole, but also the specific terms on which a young person can enter this profession. Measures to promote rural development are particularly important here.
Agenda 2000 increased the maximum setting-up grant by 66%, meaning that up to EUR 25 000 can now be paid in aid, and loans to finance setting-up costs qualify for interest rate subsidies. At the same time, the terms governing investments in farming operations include the option of increasing the maximum rate of aid for investments by young farmers within the first five years of starting up. These aid rates may be as high as 45% and, in disadvantaged areas, as much as 55%.
Apart from this specific aid for young farmers, there are, of course, all the other forms of aid which young farmers can claim just as any other farmer can. On balance, the rules for promoting the development of the countryside are extremely flexible but, according to the principle of subsidiarity, it is up to the Member States to implement them. The Member States are responsible for deciding what priority should be given to promoting young farmers.
Finally, I should also like to point out – and several Member States have already gone for this option – that the early retirement scheme, the eligible sums for which have again been raised under Agenda 2000, can be linked to setting-up aid for young farmers.
The Commission, like Parliament, feels that we need adequate statistics if we are to make better policy assessments. The information which the Commission compiles via the information network of agricultural accounts and structural surveys should, in fact, suffice in order to analyse the situation of young farmers and I do not think that we need, nor does it make sense to set up a new database especially for young farmers. What we do need is for the assessments in question to be made available. The Commission services are currently working with the Member States evaluating the arrangements for which provision is made in the earlier 1997 regulation, especially with reference to young farmers. I am sure that we shall glean some useful facts from this exercise, but I must point out that we shall be unable to submit an initial assessment of the programmes still being examined by next year because we quite simply do not have the necessary data.
The Member States are able to amend plans to develop the countryside, especially in order to take account of the results of interim assessments. The Commission does not intend to introduce any new Community initiatives now; it prefers to keep to the seven-year term prescribed in the Agenda and the relevant legislation. But we must not forget that the young and women are priority target groups under the LEADER + Community initiative and that the assessment system which the Member States need to work out in order to select pilot projects needs to take account of this focus in Community policy.
Many of the questions addressed in the report and the motion for a resolution, such as land prices or the availability of farmland or inheritance tax or the tax status of farms, are matters for which the Member States alone are responsible. However, despite a great deal of criticism, the Commission will examine the conclusions of the Parish report within the limits of its powers and right of initiative in a bid to help improve the conditions of establishment for young farmers and revive the countryside."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples