Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-02-Speech-1-079"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-10-02"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Risk capital2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001002.6.1-079"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-10-02-Speech-1-0802
lpv:speaker	lp:Helmuth Markov2
lpv:spokenAs	treasurer; EUL/NGL (1999-10-13--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Slovenia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; BUDG (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Partei des Demokratischen Sozialismus (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I welcome this report on risk capital, because I agree that it represents an opportunity to obtain essential funding for research, development, production and market penetration for new products, which in turn can, of course, create more jobs. We agree on many points, such as the provision of public and private risk capital, ways of making it more accessible, prioritising the availability of risk capital for SMEs, favourable tax treatment for ploughing back profits into risk capital funds, and simplifying and minimising the cost of patent applications. However, the overall concept also gives rise to some criticisms. Firstly, if this is primarily about SMEs in underdeveloped regions, why is there such a sharp focus on innovative services? I would also like to see investment in new products in innovative manufacturing sectors as a means of promoting regional development. Secondly, it is no use having genuinely good intentions as regards investing in new business start-ups and in research and development, and pumping risk capital into these areas, if the process of opening up new markets, which is highly costly for SMEs, is not included. I say this because that is where SMEs face the greatest difficulties once they have a product – penetrating the market. Thirdly, why should public risk capital only be applied in areas which the private sector is reluctant to finance? It follows that this simply means keeping higher loss risks in the private sector and reserving high-profit areas for the private sector. This amounts to a distortion of competition which puts public risk capital at a disadvantage. Fourthly, how can you guarantee that the greater involvement by pension funds in risk capital called for in the report may not lead to pension contributions being lost, which would run counter to the contributors' objective of ensuring a secure retirement? Fifthly, it remains unclear why mergers on the capital market should have a positive impact on the availability of risk capital. Experience suggests the opposite. The fewer suppliers there are, the less competition there is and the higher costs are."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph