Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-10-Speech-3-299"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020410.9.3-299"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I should like to begin by making two declarations of interest. The first is that I represent Wales in the European Parliament. Members may know that the risk capital action plan was first adopted at the Cardiff Summit, the capital city of Wales and also the city in which I live. However, a rather more direct financial interest is that I am a director of the National Farmers' Union Mutual Insurance Company in the UK, one of the UK's top ten insurance companies. I should mention that because some of my remarks will touch upon issues that are relevant in the insurance sector.
I congratulate Mr Skinner for the work he has done on this report. It is traditional to say that but, in this instance, I really do value the hard work and commitment that he has given. He is a somewhat solitary figure on that particular side of the House in terms of the need to ensure that we develop the interests of business. Nonetheless, his is a voice that we welcome. His report is one that we welcome. My colleagues and I in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have made some variations to the report which make it even more acceptable.
This report is set within the context – I believe – of some of the failures of the venture capital industry. There have been such failures. The venture capital industry has been too focused on areas where there is already significant financial activity. That is why it is necessary for there to be some guidance in relation to the state aid rules. But I should like to caution Parliament in the light of some of my own experience of the history of the failure of government-sponsored forays into the whole venture capital area.
First of all, people imagine that if there is some government-sponsored capital scheme it is bound to mean a guarantee of financial support. Secondly, what are the judgments as to which investments should be backed and which should not? Who is making those judgments?
Thirdly, the effect that there can sometimes be in distorting markets and actually driving good competitors out of business. These are some of the cautions there may be.
The report we are considering here gets this balance right but we still need to get away from the idea that government, in some sense, can resolve all of these issues. It is important that we deal with the promotion of entrepreneurship. We give too much lip service to this without effectively putting it into operation.
In my own country we have Objective I status but getting the people who are involved in putting that plan into operation to recognise the importance of entrepreneurship is very difficult. Very often we have local and regional administrations run by the public sector who just regard this as yet another income stream. So there must be guidance in those areas as well.
Finally, I want to make a point about the sources for raising funds. They are pension funds, banks and insurance companies. That is something that is recognised by the Commission and Mr Skinner as well. In this House we have to get away from demonising these organisations. These organisations are the ones that we look to for the funding to create the dynamic economy that we want to develop in Europe. There will be two benefits: we will create new businesses and employment opportunities and we will, at the same time, be funding, very often, income for retirement for European citizens. As a result of that we will be creating a virtuous circle of investment. That is a message that is not heard often enough in this Chamber."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples