Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-26-Speech-3-223"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060426.17.3-223"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission’s initiative to review State aid for innovation is, broadly speaking, a positive and timely one. Innovation is one of the key instruments in revitalising the EU’s international competitiveness and in implementing the objectives of growth and employment set out in Lisbon.
Fourthly, it is worthwhile adapting cohesion policy to objectives that are more compatible with the Lisbon Strategy, such as the strengthening of immaterial assistance, and the strengthening of the assessment and monitoring thereof.
Lastly, Parliament should pay particular attention to the competitiveness of European producers on the world stage in relation to State aid awarded by third countries to new competitors in various industrial sectors. This issue ought to be pushed higher up the agenda in the Union’s international trade negotiations. Nevertheless, amounts of aid awarded to competitors from outside Europe should be taken on board in the definition of the European framework for State aid.
I have referred to just a few of the issues, and I should like to add just two more: The first relates to the clarification of State aid in the case of clusters, and I was delighted to see you refer to this specifically in your speech, Commissioner. I refer to aid to innovation-related clusters and to existing clusters, many of which will only survive if they manage to adopt a dynamic of innovation. Often being horizontal in nature, this process of innovation requires public assistance. This assistance is a crucial factor in fostering, and in removing obstacles from, cooperation between agents.
The second of these two closing themes concerns the need to combine State aid for innovation with cohesion policy more consistently, in order to ensure that we are not in fact building a two-tier Europe as regards the Lisbon Strategy.
We see State aid as one of the keys to overcoming the innovation deficit in Europe, although it is neither a priority instrument, nor a single instrument. That being said, the success of Europe as a dynamic, competitive and cohesive area depends on the quality of that aid. I am convinced that the spirit of cooperation between Parliament and the Commission will produce positive ways forward in relation to the objectives which we hold dear.
In an imperfect market, however, such as that of innovation, this does not happen naturally and needs to be driven. Despite the importance of this area, however, there is no firm European aid policy either for innovation or for research and development. What is more, the common financial resources are woefully inadequate, as evidenced by the financial perspective on which we are soon to vote.
We are therefore dependent on policies laid down in each Member State. This requires conciliation with competition policy and with the functioning of the internal market, which is not always easy. The huge imbalances that still exist between European countries and regions can, moreover, lead to major differences in the quality and amount of aid.
Companies and institutions from the outermost regions should not be barred access to the Europe of knowledge and innovation. We are aware of the difficulty of this task, but also of its importance to the future of Europe. We therefore hope that the concerns of Europe’s citizens expressed by their representatives in this Chamber are accorded due attention by the Commission, in spite of the reports that have emerged and that have been mentioned by previous speakers.
The report before us is the result of conciliation and constructive negotiation at Parliament level. As shadow rapporteur for the Socialist Group in European Parliament, I wish to express my gratitude for the openness shown by the various Members involved, including people from my group and others, and would like to commend Mrs in 't Veld for her report.
Among the proposals adopted by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I should like to draw the attention of this Chamber and the Commission to a number of issues: The first of these is the need both to simplify, and to improve the transparency and comparability of, the bureaucratic procedures involved in awarding State aid.
Clarity is crucial, not only to allow the Commission to assess the conformity of those procedures, but more importantly in order that the criteria and the impact of State aid can be made clear to businesses, to the citizens and especially to SMEs. Concepts such as ‘market failure’ as opposed to ‘market inefficiency’ are probably not very clear to citizens.
More relevant perhaps is the review of some policy instruments in light of the available experience. Let me quote some of these: Firstly, the role of public capital versus private capital in aid for innovation processes must be clarified. The perception of risk and unbalanced information often alienates private investment in some of the bigger projects and the role of public investment cannot be replaced in this case.
Secondly, the concept of innovation must go beyond just technological innovation, as has already been mentioned. Innovation will only make sense if it also includes non-technological aspects, both in industry and services. Thirdly, the typology of enterprises eligible for aid must be reviewed. There is no justification for having size and duration of support, for example, as key criteria. In the case of risk capital, there is no point in having too much delimitation in the early stages of start-ups and then none at all in subsequent stages, when it would probably be more necessary and more useful."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples