Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-26-Speech-3-232"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060426.17.3-232"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I have enjoyed the debate. Better targeted state aid for innovation is indeed a core aspect of our state aid reform programme. The Commission will do its utmost to improve framework conditions. We are listening very carefully to stakeholders and your report makes a vital contribution. To put it in Dutch:
. That said, next time I will take account of your request in this respect.
I am also very wary of arguments that, in the absence of aid, a company will invest outside the EU. This argument presupposes that, if there is an alternative location outside the EU with similar characteristics, the aid will tip the balance. In the absence of such proof, this argument may amount to no more than a bluff. We want real arguments and not bluff.
However, I am ready to look further at whether the new framework could include criteria for assessing the effects of aid granted elsewhere. As you are aware, personally I am not a fan of a matching clause. I have to consider it as an option in response to comments I have heard from several stakeholders and I will look at it, but I am personally not in favour of this instrument.
Mrs Ferreira mentioned the regional dimension and the recent regional aid guidelines, which already provide a flexible instrument to address cohesion issues. There could be a reaction and in this context we introduce the possibility of a new category of aid which can be granted to support start-ups in addition to regional investment aid.
I am very much in favour of backing and boosting the start-ups because, as I sometimes mention, when you do not need money the bank is interested in giving you money, and if you are interested in money the bank is not interested in you. Start-ups in most cases badly need the help of a bank or the guarantee via state aid of obtaining a loan or financial assistance for their activities.
Enterprise aid allows Member States to provide up to EUR 2 million per enterprise in Article 87(3) regions and up to EUR 1 million in Article 87(3)(c) regions. The regional bonus for R[amp]D and innovation would actually undermine our cohesion objective and be counterproductive. If a Member State makes less use of enterprise aid in assisted regions and favours innovation aid, it might put at risk the emergence and reinforcement of a necessary industrial basis, which is a prerequisite for further regional development.
If a Member State grants more aid than necessary as an incentive for industry to carry out a given innovation project, it crowds out private investment and may generate undue windfall profits.
Mrs Harkin raised the types of research and development and innovation activity which state subsidies will target. I would remind you that we have deliberately focused on scope rather than content. Indeed while we can help focus state aid on certain areas of common interest, it is up to Member States themselves to decide a precise project that they would like to support and not for the Commission to dictate this.
The Commission will provide separate notification of the guidelines on aid to environmental protection next year and, in this context, equal innovation will get my full attention.
At the end of the day it is only through a positive partnership and a complete range of pro-innovation policies that we will be able to deliver growth in jobs in the European Union. Thank you for your support, thank you for your valuable contribution to this process, and thank you to Mrs in ‘t Veld and her shadow rapporteur for their work.
I would like to respond to a few issues raised in our debate this evening. Mrs in 't Veld asked why we are suggesting a focus on cooperation between companies and between Member States. There are two main reasons: we must encourage this cooperation because it reduces distortions of competition and increases benefits for the Community. The second reason is that we must also encourage improvement of the internal market.
A couple of speakers mentioned the question of large companies’ eligibility for state aid for innovation, particularly in part of the clusters. I have taken careful note of that. Your comments tie in with what we have heard from other stakeholders including ministers at the informal competition Council meeting last Friday and Saturday.
I am therefore reflecting on the conditions in which such aid may be appropriate. In fact the working paper prepared by my services already includes the possibility of providing aid to large companies as part of clusters. However, I would like to be clear that if we go down this route there will need to be proper checks and balances to prevent distortion of competition and to ensure that the overall effect, for example the benefits generated by collaboration, is positive.
I could not agree more with Mr Hökmark’s statements. At the end of the day it is competition that makes the climate, not state aid. Therefore it is an instrument to foster and to bring into a situation where everyone has an opportunity to make his living in a way in which innovation is involved.
Globalisation was touched upon as well – by Mr Casa, Mrs Ferreira, and Mrs Harkin. It is true that our state aid control system is unique in the world. So too is our internal market – our greatest European achievement – and the reason we have state aid control in first place.
I have heard all too often the argument that our state aid rules could reduce investment into Europe as third countries may offer subsidies more liberally than Member States. This argument is based on wrong perceptions. As Mrs in 't Veld and Mr Casa said, there are other factors influencing inward investment positions. State aid is far down the list. After general and structural criteria, general political climate, general business environment, red tape, regulation, taxation, closeness to customers, availability of labour, a skilled labour force, availability of resources, availability of the infrastructure: at the end of the list there is sometimes the state aid argument.
With my responsibilities, I have the opportunity to meet quite a number of managers from the business world and when we touch on this item – what is the main issue for you and your company in taking a decision on location? – the other arguments I have just mentioned are far more important. Of course they also add that if there is state aid we will take it, we would be fools if we did not. But it is not the main reason; it is at the end of the list.
Therefore using state subsidies to safeguard European companies is very costly in economic terms and it is often the poorest parts of society that foot the bill."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Gedane zaken nemen geen keer"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples