Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-15-Speech-3-168"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060215.14.3-168"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Thank you for the question. You are right to say that it was mentioned in the debate. However, even before it was mentioned in the debate, the Commission, in its original proposal and together with the European Investment Bank, tried to develop an instrument called a ‘risk-sharing facility’. One of the major problems we have to deal with at European Union level is that we do not all have the same ways of addressing risk. It varies from culture to culture. That is why it is crucial that we create instruments to address that problem. It is not allowing us to be totally in line with the major competitors, especially when we talk about the percentage of GDP invested in research and development. It is crucial that that we stimulate that.
That was the idea behind introducing the risk-sharing facility with the EIB. It would increase potential, because with each unit of the grant which we would somehow give to the EIB, we would get something like four to five units of credit back. It would also give us the opportunity to address some of the more risky businesses which the EIB – in line with banking logic – is not addressing. I am sure that this is not a magical answer which will solve our problems, but I sincerely hope that it will be followed by some other financial institutions across Europe."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples