Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-15-Speech-3-275"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060215.17.3-275"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, at the outset I should like to thank all those who have assisted with this report and the colleagues who put forward amendments, which were extremely helpful.
With regard to the budget, we did not have access to the final details when this report was being drawn up. We now know that there is a reduction EUR 20 billion in funding for rural development for the period 2007 onwards, compared with what the Commission had forecast. It is a bad signal to send to rural areas.
I have huge concerns about the possibility for Member States to cut 20 % of market support measures and direct payments and to allocate it to rural development. That is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is, in my view, a renationalisation of agriculture policy by the back door. It is also unworkable in its current form. It now emerges that Member States who opt for this voluntary modulation can spend the money in any way they choose, without regard to the rules or indeed national cofinancing; this is regrettable.
We must make rural development work for people and the places in which they live. In so doing, we will continue to see the fruits of the policy and ensure that rural development has a future beyond 2013.
In my past life as a journalist I had the great pleasure of reporting on the many success stories of rural development, which, as you said, Commissioner, unlocked the potential of rural areas. I mention, in particular, those under the Leader Programme. Rural development in action is much more interesting than the theory behind it. However, we need to have rules, and that is why in this report we have set out strategic guidelines to allow Member States to plan their programmes from 2007 onwards. I believe that the guidelines offer the flexibility that Member States need in order to draw up those programmes. Each Member States has different needs because rural areas differ right across the 25 Member States.
We talk about the two pillars of the CAP – agriculture and rural development. Some people speak of two different policies, but it is important to remember that it is a single policy with two different pillars. I am glad to hear you say, Commissioner, that agriculture is still of huge importance. We should not ignore the reality that a vibrant, commercial and sustainable farm sector is a vital component of rural life. Of course, rural development has a much wider remit: it provides for restructuring of rural regions and it allows for environmental protection and for measures to improve the quality of life for rural people.
Just last week I presented certificates to mature students in Tullamore, a town in the midlands of Ireland. These courses were promoted by the local Leader group. Each and every one of the students spoke about what a great value it was to them and how it had improved the quality of their lives and that of their community. Benefits will flow from that. It is another example of rural development in action – and it does work.
Rural areas are different from urban areas, but the policy priorities for rural regions have to fit in with the overall objectives, as you have set out, of competitiveness and economic growth, environmental sustainability and quality-of-life issues. Because of time constraints, I will not go through all of the details. However, improving the competitiveness of agriculture, forestry and food is a priority. We need ongoing investment in research and development across all of the range of activities in rural regions.
In the report, we stressed the importance of job consolidation and maintenance, just as we stressed the importance of job creation. When we reform agriculture there will be changes in employment in rural areas. A quality environment is key to the future of rural regions. So, too, is the ongoing restructuring of the agriculture sector. Where we have measures in place to try to encourage young people into farming, we must ensure that they are sufficient to do just that. Across the European Union we hear of young people not wanting to farm. We may regret that in the future, as it has implications, not just for food production, but also for the quality of our rural environment and landscape. We want young people because we want a living countryside. Without people, we have very little else.
We also allow for regional specialities to be promoted; organic farming by traditional means is provided for as well. Once again, the priority is to ensure that these measures and this production are market led and that the measures we put in place under rural development programmes add value to these local products. Non-food uses are also very important, and other reports discussed here tonight spoke of renewable energies and biomass.
Ensuring that the rural communities have access to basic services, such as childcare and education, is also very important. We need to talk about the quality and affordability of those services.
A key requirement in rural regions is access to information technology: to IT training and broadband. I spoke earlier about the great success of rural development in the town of Tullamore but, in case you think all is wonderful in rural Ireland, in terms of broadband penetration, we are unfortunately languishing in 17th place in the European Union. Broadband, in my view, is just as essential as electricity to rural regions, and yet many parts of rural Europe do not have this basic facility. It means that they cannot provide jobs and that small and medium-sized enterprises are held back."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples