Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-26-Speech-3-221"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060426.17.3-221"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, it is my pleasure to be here tonight for the debate on Mrs in 't Veld’s report on the communication on state aid for innovation. The report follows Parliament’s very interesting and constructive opinion on the state aid action plan. I greatly appreciate the interest and involvement of MEPs in the process of reforming the rules on state aid. As you know, it is essential to have the right rules in order to help Member States use state aid tools in a targeted and prudent way in support of our shared goals of growth and jobs.
I will give very careful consideration to all your useful comments and ideas. I do not claim to have the magic formula here, and I am glad that Parliament is contributing so actively to the process to ensure that the final results give the highest possible level of added value in terms of European competitiveness.
You all know the substance of the Commission’s proposals on innovation. We emphasise – as Mrs in 't Veld rightly mentioned – that state aid is just one instrument among the many policy tools available to promote innovation in our economy. I could not agree more with Mrs in 't Veld on the key importance of structural reforms. State aid can help, but it is certainly not the only instrument – quite the contrary. We focus on concrete measures, not a general definition of innovation. In line with what Mrs in 't Veld said, we propose measures to support risk-taking and experimentation, as well as the business environment for innovation. Priority, by the way, is given to SMEs and technological innovation, but again not exclusively.
I am very pleased that Parliament and a large majority of stakeholders are broadly supportive of the Commission’s plans.
Mrs in 't Veld, your report is of high quality and strikes a good balance. I would like to congratulate you and the committee on it. Furthermore, the report comes exactly at the right moment. My services have just sent the Member States a first working document on the new rules. The rapporteur has expressed clear views. However, there is a background to this.
At the start of the Austrian Presidency I had an interesting discussion with the Austrian Minister for Economic Affairs. We talked about issues related to my portfolio in the context of the Austrian Presidency. He explained that innovation, research and development, as well as SMEs, were of high importance for the Austrian Presidency. He asked me to confirm that it would be possible to discuss those matters at the informal Council meeting in the spring – that meeting took place in Graz last Friday and Saturday, as you are aware. So I had promised that there would be something that we could discuss in detail.
Let us be quite clear: the working document that I have sent is a preliminary report to begin consultation. That is of paramount importance. We will take into account the conclusions, the outcome and the atmosphere of this debate, as Parliament’s line in this state aid report is of key importance.
The working document, which is available on the website, is really a first stage, paving the way for consultation. It will be revised and refined in the light of the comments we receive, including your comments and thoughts.
I hope to finalise the new framework for research, development and innovation this autumn. I can assure you that in this process I will look with an open mind at Parliament’s constructive comments on issues such as innovation aid for large companies as part of clusters and the very helpful typology and conditions you propose for distinguishing between day-to-day operations and activities relating to innovation.
You suggest that certain limited forms of non-technological innovation should be eligible for state support for innovation. I am ready to look further at this, and I see your point, for example, as regards process and organisational innovation in services."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples