Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-13-Speech-1-139"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060213.12.1-139"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I count my blessings tonight. I conclude that there is not that much difference between political views on this issue. I congratulate the rapporteur. The content of the report and the Commission review are in line with what we discussed during this debate.
On the environment, the Commission cannot refuse to approve aid just because the objective pursued is not environmental. I am sure that is not the question that is being asked. We have to look at all the policies of the Union. However, the Commission shares the aim of reducing environmentally damaging State aid and we should all encourage Member States to take that into account when deciding on the subsidy.
On public services, services of general economic interest, the Commission’s decision and framework makes clear how the State aid rules apply to public service compensation. The Commission is committed to reporting on the impact of those rules within the deadlines set by those instruments. As you know, the Commission does not consider a framework directive necessary. I am talking about less bureaucracy. I am being consistent and not saying that we should still do it when it is not necessary.
Finally, the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs have done a great deal of work on this report and I am grateful that we can have a discussion with the same goal, i.e. more jobs for Europe, in a social context that we are proud to be living in.
I should like to underline that there is no rigid dogma. That was made clear on your side. It is more that we try to give a hook to Member States’ companies, because the aid does not go to the Member States themselves. Via State aid, the Member State gives a hook to those who need a bit of help, instead of just giving them the fish. They want to do it themselves, but they need a little bit of backing.
Mrs in‘t Veld and other Members have talked about less and better State aid. She mentioned that that statement by the Commission is appropriate advice, in the opinion of her political group and her personal opinion. I would have been pleased to say that it was my wording, but we got it from the Council. Aid should be less and better. That is what we tried to indicate and that is what the rapporteur put in his report. State aid reform has to be shaped to deliver not only on growth, innovation and employment, but also on a wide range of primarily non-economic issues. We all agree that they are of fundamental importance to our social European model. These include the social and regional cohesion, human capital and cultural diversity rightly mentioned by Mrs van den Burg. However, State aid should be used wisely, because it is taxpayers’ money. We should not compete through State aid by the Member States, because that is the wrong route. It would have a very detrimental effect. We must not allow a subsidy race between the Member States, so there is clearly a need for less aid, and aid that is better targeted.
On the specific concerns raised here today, the Commission will do its utmost to improve how the rules work in practice. It will also step up transparency, rightly called for by a number of Members. Aid should be monitored, but in the end it is only through a positive partnership that we will be able to deliver successful State aid reform.
A couple of Members touched upon the role of the regional aid guidelines and focusing aid on the regions most in need. We discussed this before and it was adopted last year. Again that is not dogmatic, but it takes account of the fact that some need more backing at a particular moment. We want to deliver a fair and balanced package and we discussed that here in December.
We will look further at how the State aid rules can be adapted to new financing mechanisms such as public-private partnerships. The same goes for aid for projects of common interest to boost competitiveness and technological innovation. The question of innovation has been raised. I have just read an article by Professor Getz, saying that innovation should not just be developed in the research and development department of a company, it should be at all levels, from bottom to top. That is an interesting philosophy that could be considered when we are talking about how to boost innovation.
Turning to SMEs, when we look at the 25 Member States, 92% of all the enterprises in the European Union are in the category of small and medium-sized enterprises. So when we talk about creating jobs and economic growth, we have to bear in mind that the vast majority fall within the category of small and medium-sized enterprises. That is what we are trying to take into account when we talk about giving them more attention than they have received up to now and to stimulate innovation and cooperation between, sometimes, a combination of research institutes, smaller companies and larger companies. It is a challenge to ensure that all those SMEs can take advantage of these opportunities.
It has rightly been mentioned that risk capital is not very developed in Europe. Compared to the United States, quite often innovative ideas are not taken up by companies that are small or just starting up because there is no backing from the banks. State aid to back those companies in their early development could be very helpful.
Mr Wortmann-Kool asked whether the Commission could raise the threshold. I am not saying that we would not be prepared to raise it. However, we should bear in mind that we are talking about SMEs and not large companies, and we should try to reduce bureaucracy and red tape. The amount of euros we are talking about really covers that category. So we shall be submitting a proposal quite soon, but do not be too optimistic, because I have heard on the grapevine that people are thinking of huge sums of money, but then we are not taking account of the category."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples