Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-03-13-Speech-1-102"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-03-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Relocation in the context of regional development (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060313.18.1-102"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-03-13-Speech-1-1032
lpv:speaker	lp:Elisabeth Schroedter2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; EMPL (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; REGI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with Belarus (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; G/EFA (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, subsidy hopping is a popular game of extortion in the European Union, and it is quite clear that it is the taxpayer who foots the bill for it. This game has not been played only since the accession of the ten new Member States; on the contrary, as soon as Sweden joined, a business was enticed away from Bremen to the new Swedish ‘Objective 2’ area, having just received a subsidy. The effect of that was to frustrate public measures against unemployment in Bremen. That example shows what is at issue here. This is not about restricting freedom of establishment, but rather about the need for companies that receive public funds to commit themselves to creating jobs in the region, and for this to be laid down in a binding way. The Commission has proposed a period of five years, which I do not think is enough. It is no more than symbolic and is quite utterly ineffective. In view of the fact that the companies’ investments are subsidised by up to 50% from public funds, this period must be longer – at least seven years, which is what the previous Commission had proposed. Five years amounts to a considerable reduction; even a period of seven years is not very much at all in this instance. If we really want to restrict subsidy hopping, it is this longer period that we need. I think Mr Hutchinson’s report addresses essential issues, and that it is an important one. What I expect of the Commission is that it should reconsider this five-year period, which, with this amount of subsidy, distorts competition; that it should incorporate the period of five years as recommended by this House into its regulation on subsidies, and, moreover, that it should monitor more closely those companies that engage in this sort of subsidy hopping and blacklist them in the way the rapporteur has suggested."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph