Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-04-Speech-3-106"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020904.3.3-106"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs |
vice-chair; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-22--2004-07-19)3
|
| lpv:translated text |
".
We voted for Mr Berenguer Fuster’s report. Indeed, it would be difficult not to, considering who the beneficiaries of this aid are and the goals of simplification and transparency that the Commission has set itself.
The issue we need to reflect on, however, is the fact that, as the Commission is quite aware, in some regions of the Member States of the Union, the difference between being in an area receiving aid under Article 87(3) and not being in such an area is a tax reduction in excess of 12%.
The question is then the content of Article 4(3) of the draft regulation, with reference precisely to the above-mentioned regions, for we believe that the method of determining the areas does not produce a wholly accurate definition of which areas are genuinely disadvantaged and that the Commission is aware of this. Consider the method used by local employment systems to define these areas and how it has been disregarded in some cases.
We therefore believe that the current maps should be revised to ensure that they are consistent, irrespective of whether the regions themselves have used them. Otherwise, even with the planned 10% increase on the upper limit, the draft regulation would, in those cases, essentially serve the purpose of – covertly and only partially – remedying the errors made."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples