Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-16-Speech-2-055"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010116.5.2-055"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is quite amazing what excellent reports are produced, although the Commission basis is completely inadequate. The rapporteur puts forward the proposal that enterprises that have not taken up support programmes should be interviewed.
I consulted numerous colleagues on this, in my capacity as owner of a medium-sized enterprise. The almost unanimous verdict was as follows: when it comes to the European Investment Fund, and especially the various components of the Amsterdam Special Action Programme (ASAP) on SMEs and job creation, we small enterprises lose track of things because there is a plethora of individual sub-programmes, responsibility for which is in all kinds of different hands, I might add. For example, there is the normal SME guarantee facility, the growth and employment initiative, the growth and environmental initiative, the EIF technology facility ETF, the ETF start-up-programme, new sub-programmes for innovation attached to EIF-ETF since Lisbon, e-Europe, e-Learning etc.
How are these distinguished from one another and where must I, as entrepreneur, submit the applications for my project ideas? Parliament has the same problem from the opposite perspective, if it wants to assess how the ASAP is developing overall, because the reports from the EIB and EIF do not contain a coherent account. Sometimes there is talk, in general terms, of the full range of SME support, and sometimes the individual components of the ASAP are cited in different contexts.
There are also a few things wrong with the organisation of the ASAP on the policy side. The growth and environmental initiative has not received any more funds. What is more, it strives for a completely antiquated after-care style of environmental protection. The remaining areas, i.e. growth and employment, ETF, etc. have received continuous boosts, I grant you, but they concentrate on a few high-tech sectors alone, predominantly innovation, communications and genetic engineering.
In many cases, these SMEs are not dealt with directly; instead the application procedure is handled by middlemen, usually traditional risk capital and investment funds, which receive the credits and guarantees from the EIB, and which the SMEs have to go to with any complaints. That being the case, in fact nobody but the EIB knows which SMEs are receiving support for precisely which projects, and how many jobs are being created in the process. That is why hitherto, when assessing the effect these programmes have on employment, rather than providing concrete figures, the EIB has performed a simple macroeconomic model estimate. More detailed information will be available on the outcome of the whole exercise in 5 to 10 years’ time. Rumour has it that essentially, the ASAP serves to strengthen the European risk capital market for information and communication, genetic engineering and starting up new businesses, and that the job creation aspect is not actually examined in greater detail or assessed. The EIB homepage showing the list of funds to which the EIB has given credits and guarantees, fuels this notion."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples