Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-13-Speech-2-459"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: none) |
|---|---|
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Madam President, I would like to thank you and all the honourable Members for the close cooperation between Parliament, through its Committee on Regional Development and its rapporteur, Mr Koterec, and the Commission on this important issue.
In the new draft regional aid guidelines, two principles have been of fundamental importance. Firstly, there is the need to provide a solid contribution to the cohesion policy of the Union by ensuring the maximum possible coherence with the structural fund regulations. Second, there is the need to implement the conclusions of successive European Councils calling for less and better-targeted aid, following the general approach set out in the state aid action plan.
I am confident that this reform, which is only a first step in our overall review of state aid rules, will constitute an important contribution to the achievement of the Lisbon Agenda and the restoration of European competitiveness, and will act as a driver for the virtuous circle of economic growth, better standards of living and more and better jobs.
I look forward to the next stage of the wider debate: this is not the last evening that we will be discussing this issue. The next stage of the wider debate will come when Parliament discusses the state aid action plan next year. It is in that context that I take note of several of the comments in the report relating to more wide-ranging issues, such as those mentioned by a couple of honourable Members: block exemptions, the de minimis thresholds and the general rules applicable to small and medium-sized enterprises. I would also like to remind you that important amounts of aid to small and medium-sized enterprises may be granted anywhere, including outside the assisted areas. Aid for research, for development, for training and for environmental protection is also available for large companies wherever they are located, subject to a number of conditions.
The ‘statistical effect regions’ are regions with less than 75% of EU-15 GDP per capita but more than 75% of EU-25 average GDP per capita. De facto they go up to 82.2% EU-25 GDP per capita. Under the draft guidelines these regions will benefit from Article 87(3)(a) status and a 30% aid intensity for aid to large companies for the first part of the programming period as well as the possibility of granting operating aids.
The situation of these regions will be subject to a mid-term review if their GDP has fallen below the 75% EU-25 GDP per capita. They will continue to benefit from Article 87(3)(a) and from operating aid. Otherwise they will be eligible under Article 87(3)(c) with an aid intensity of 20% and they will benefit from transitional provisions. In particular they will be able to continue granting operating aid for two additional years. Therefore, all statistical effect regions will continue to be eligible for regional aid for the whole programming period, either as Article 87(3)(a) or as Article 87(3)(c) regions.
Our discussions this evening and the amendments tabled to the motion for a resolution lead me to add three more specific points. Firstly, it remains essential to focus regional aid on the neediest regions. That also means defining well balanced and distinctively shaded aid intensities. Secondly, increasing the safety net would risk going against the principle of the exceptional nature of regional aid and might endanger the objective of giving the assisted regions a real boost compared to others. Thirdly, there is a delicate balance to be struck between ensuring that investment remains in a region for the time necessary to contribute to development, and overly restrictive obligations on the investing companies, which would become a disincentive to investment.
Regional aid is de facto cofinanced by structural funds in new Member States; old Member States generally use their own budget. A cut in the financial perspective as well as an increase in population coverage would be anti-cohesion and I would like to underline that.
I will close by simply noting that, on a subject as important as this, any reform can only be successful if it is built on a broad consensus amongst stakeholders. I welcome the fact that the European Parliament is an active contributor in this. Again I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Koterec, and the members of his team, for all their work."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| rdf:type | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051213.65.2-459"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples