Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-06-16-Speech-1-196"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080616.26.1-196"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Thank you very much, Mr President. Commissioner Hübner, ladies and gentlemen, there are regions, and people living in those regions, that are unable to avail themselves of the opportunities we seek to provide for them out of Community resources in order to enable them to catch up with the European Union average as quickly as possible and put an end to the poverty in which they are living.
I initiated this report in order to investigate the reasons why we have been unable to bring about development in these regions, and to make recommendations with a view to changing this situation and putting an end to it. As the European Commission’s Fourth Progress Report on Cohesion states, cohesion policy functions very well at national level in some countries. In practical terms, more vigorous development and positive progress towards cohesion have begun to take place in countries that have already acceded to EU membership and are receiving cohesion funds. If we look at slightly lower territorial levels, however, we can see that inter-regional disparities are not diminishing to the same extent. I would like to cite Hungary as an example: in Hungary, per capita GDP in the central region has reached 110% of the European Union average; in four out of Hungary’s seven regions, however, per capita GDP is less than 45% of the EU average. In these cases the disparity is at least no longer increasing. In many instances, however, as the Fourth Report on Cohesion also states, territorial disparities within regions are continuing to increase.
What could be the reason why some regions are able to use the available opportunities to their advantage, while others are not? If we look a little more closely, we find that there are some very serious underlying structural reasons, structural reasons at the territorial level. In territories where little development is taking place, the human capacity for generating appropriate projects is clearly lacking, the basic infrastructure for getting investment into these territories is lacking, and appropriate education and proper healthcare are lacking. There are several micro-regions, for example in Hungary, where the life expectancy of the male population is more than 15 years lower than the national average.
What should we do about it? Since the problem we are dealing with is a highly complex one, and is clearly concentrated in certain micro-territories and micro-regions, I believe we must assess whether it is right to examine cohesion policy at inter-regional level only, at the level of the regions. Would it not be better instead to examine whether we need more focused, more precisely targeted measures at the level of the micro-regions where the worst of the problems are? From now on our first point of departure must be to examine the nature of the statistics we are using as a basis for our decision making. I was aware of this problem while preparing this report, but I cannot give you any concrete basis for statistical comparison, as there is a lack of comparable micro-regional statistical data throughout the EU. From now on we must examine whether it is appropriate, although these are primarily rural areas, to tie rural cohesion into agricultural policy. Would it not be much more appropriate to deal with the problems of rural areas in the context of cohesion policy and using cohesion policy instruments, allowing agricultural policy measures to play a purely complementary role?
At this juncture I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their exceptionally constructive work in helping to produce the report. At the same time, I would also like to point out that, following the several weeks of negotiations, and after I had accepted the report of the PPE-DE Group containing a very major amendment on a vital point of the report, the PPE-DE Group then proceeded to vote against its own point. For me this raises the question: what is it that we want? Do we simply want to state that a problem exists, and do nothing more, or are we prepared to face up to the problem and to make recommendations regarding how to change our policy, and to focus more closely on identifying areas where we can actually do something to solve the problem? Thank you very much for your attention."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples