BETA


2006/2044(INI) Aid for innovation: sectoral aspects of the state aid action plan

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead ECON IN 'T VELD Sophia (icon: ALDE ALDE)
Committee Opinion EMPL
Committee Opinion ITRE PANZERI Pier Antonio (icon: PSE PSE)
Committee Opinion REGI
Committee Opinion IMCO
Committee Opinion TRAN
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54

Events

2006/07/31
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2006/05/11
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2006/04/27
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2006/04/27
   EP - Decision by Parliament
Details

The European Parliament adopted a resolution based on the own-initiative report drafted by Sophia in’t VELD (ALDE, NL) in response to the Commission's consultation document on state aid for innovation. (Please see the summary dated 21/03/2006.)

General remarks: Parliament said that state aid should remain the exception: an instrument to correct imbalances that could not be addressed by regular policy instruments. State aid for innovation should be complementary to the corresponding uniform Community policies and should import clear, measurable added value for the immediate beneficiaries as well as a secondary impact on the broader local, regional and national economy. Parliament stressed the need to draw conclusions from past cases in which State aid failed to achieve its aims, as well as from those cases in which it proved to be an effective instrument for attaining the desired objectives. The objective of innovation was multidimensional and complex and very restrictive definitions and arrangements should be avoided. Parliament recommended an interim deadline for revising the framework in the event of the need for improvement. It also asked the Commission to provide more detailed information about the possible distortional effects of State aid and to take into account State aid granted by the EU's international competitors, both at sectoral and horizontal level and its possible distortional and incentive effects on a global scale.

Principles governing control of state aid for innovation: Parliament w elcomed the economic approach to State aid for innovation and would welcome the introduction of ex ante rules, if these were transparent, non-discriminatory, practicable, and provide for legal certainty. Criteria for granting subsidies for innovation should be conditional on several factors, such as the characteristics of the economic sector, the market structure, and the market power of the company. The promotion of cross-border cooperation and public-private partnerships in research, the dissemination of the results of the research, and major research programmes, should be fundamental priorities of State aid for R&D. State aid for innovation should be temporary, granted according to transparent and rational criteria, proportionate, strictly and effectively controlled, and subject to periodic impact assessments through ex post analyses conducted by the Member States and the Commission. State aid should also take into account 'remoteness from the market', in other words, the non-commercial phase of the innovation process. The increasing importance of innovation must not be a pretext for granting State aid to companies. Innovation is an integral part of all business activities. Parliament stressed that rules and criteria must clarify that innovative processes per se do not merit State aid. State aid should be granted only for innovation that cannot be financed by normal commercial means and that contributes to the overall goals of business life and society.

SMEs, which, by their nature, had only limited funds at their disposal, should be allocated a higher proportion of the aid available. Parliament pointed out that SMEs were often not willing to take the high risks associated with technological innovation, even though this could not only bring individual benefits, but could also potentially benefit society as a whole. It stressed the need urgently to target State aid at supportive actions that motivate SMEs and diminish the risks linked with technological innovation processes, as well as the need to improve the overall conditions of the business environment.

Supporting risk taking and experimentation: Parliament a greed that State aid should be allocated on the basis of criteria favouring innovative start-ups and SMEs, rather than on the basis of eligible costs. It proposed that the existence period requirement for companies with a longer R&D cycle be extended to eight years. It supported the proposal that financial support should be given by means of risk capital not only for the seed and start-up phase, but also for the post-seed phase. However, this solution was not optimal and any aid should be of a short-term character and complementary to primarily private investments.

Parliament realised that innovative SMEs' access to risk capital is currently considerably limited, primarily in the first phases of their development. It supported the idea of using State aid to attract private capital investment to regional risk-capital funds working as public-private partnerships with higher flexibility of investment tranches for public resources.

A supportive business environment for innovation: Parliament recommended that universities and their research centres should take part in or cooperate closely with regional public-private partnerships as 'innovation intermediaries'. This would create a large synergy effect with better interconnection between the research and innovation activities of universities and the needs of individual innovative SMEs and innovative business clusters. It asked for further clarification on how the State aid rules apply to universities and research establishments when they are engaged in economic activities. Parliament questioned the appropriateness of allowing State aid to SMEs for hiring highly qualified staff, since SMEs might have access to specialist knowledge and skills through the services of intermediaries and experts.

Finally, Parliament stated that clusters develop organically and should therefore be eligible for State aid only on a temporary basis, during the start-up phase, in order to meet administrative problems and obstacles linked with cooperation.

Documents
2006/04/27
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2006/04/26
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2006/04/04
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2006/04/04
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary
Documents
2006/03/21
   EP - Vote in committee
Details

The committee adopted the own-initiative report drawn up by Sophia in’t VELD (ALDE, NL) in response to the Commission's consultation document on state aid for innovation. In its general remarks, the report said that the use of state aid to promote innovation should remain the exception rather than the rule: an instrument to correct imbalances that cannot be addressed by regular policy instruments. MEPs said that such aid should be complementary to the relevant EU policies and should have "a clear measurable added value for the immediate beneficiaries as well as a secondary impact on the broader local, regional and national economy". Lessons needed to be learned from past failures and successes in using aid to foster innovation. They added that the new EU framework should avoid very restrictive definitions and arrangements, and provision should be made for an interim review once the system was up and running.

The report welcomed the idea of transparent, non-discriminatory, practicable ex ante rules which would provide for legal certainty. It said that subsidies for innovation should be conditional on the characteristics of the economic sector, the market structure and the market power of the company concerned, among other factors. The committee also insisted that state aid for innovation should be temporary, granted according to rational criteria, proportionate, strictly and effectively controlled and subject to periodic impact assessments. It noted that innovative processes as such do not merit state aid, which should only be granted for innovations that cannot be financed by normal commercial means.

MEPs also stressed that SMEs were often unwilling to undertake the high risks associated with technological innovation and that they should be allocated a larger share of the aid available. They called for financial support to be given by means of risk capital for seed and start-up phases, and for such support also to be available for the post-seed phase, though this was not an optimal option and should be for the short term only.

Lastly, the committee called for greater clarity on how state aid rules apply to universities and research establishments engaged in economic activities, and recommended that these bodies should take part in regional public-private partnerships as ‘innovation intermediaries’.

2006/03/20
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2006/03/01
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2006/02/16
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2006/02/06
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2006/01/26
   EP - PANZERI Pier Antonio (PSE) appointed as rapporteur in ITRE
2005/12/15
   ESC - Economic and Social Committee: opinion, report
2005/11/15
   EP - IN 'T VELD Sophia (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in ECON
2005/09/21
   EC - Non-legislative basic document
Details

PURPOSE : to present a consultation document on state aid for innovation.

CONTENT : This document launches a consultation designed to gather stakeholders’ views on specific improvements in the rules on State aid for innovation, including clarifications of increase legal certainty, new funding possibilities for innovation, the formulation of criteria to target the aid more effectively, and simplification of the regulatory framework.

Innovation is a central issue for the EU to deliver growth and job creation. State aid policy can contribute to a more innovative economy, both by preserving product market competition as a driver of innovation, and by putting forward a framework of rules that facilitates the design of effective State aid for innovation by Member States.

Preserving competition should be the first priority when designing effective systems to foster innovation in the EU. Competition in a functioning market creates incentives for companies to invest in knowledge and innovation, since this helps them generate competitive advantage and profits. Nonetheless, State aid can in some cases effectively and efficiently contribute to foster innovation, when it addresses market failures that hamper the innovation process without excessively distorting competition. The Commission has identified in this document a series of problems for unsatisfactory innovation in Europe. However, many of these problems cannot be solved by State aid and require a more comprehensive policy approach. Furthermore, too much aid in the name of innovation may actually frustrate the innovation process, as it might undermine competition as the most effective stimulant for comparing ideas and for new, innovative market entry. Therefore, State aid policy can only be a limited response to the problem of unsatisfactory innovation in Europe.

For example, the Environmental Technologies Action Plan aims at harnessing environmentally-friendly technologies and innovation, which can contribute to environmental protection and at the same time contribute to competitiveness and growth. The development of eco-innovation is essential in order to prepare an environmentally sustainable future, but economic barriers hinder their development. In particular, market prices reflect the direct economic costs and not the costs of environmental pollution (such as health care costs from urban air pollution). This leads to systematic underinvestment in environmental technologies, especially from firms which cannot afford to be charitable in a competitive market. Well-targeted economic incentives can therefore be useful in helping to promote the take-up of environmental technologies.

At this stage, the Commission considers that developing a new separate framework for State aid for innovation on the basis of an abstract definition of innovation is unnecessary and also not in line with the objective of simplifying EC State aid rules. A series of concrete and targeted innovation-related activities, subject to this consultation, were identified, which clearly address the market failures that are

hampering innovation and for which the benefits of State aid are likely to outweigh any possible harm to competition and trade. In doing so, the Commission used a methodology in line with the economic approach defined in the State Aid Action Plan.

The new rules will be integrated mainly in a framework for R&D and Innovation but also in the Risk Capital guidelines, in the Environmental guidelines and in the general Block Exemption (thereby avoiding the notification requirements for Member States).

The following types of innovation-related activities have been selected:

- activities that support risk-taking and experimentation and help bridge the gap between technological knowledge and the market;

- activities (business services and infrastructure) which improve the general business environment for innovation .

In addition, questions are asked on more specific issues about which the Commission would also like to obtain detailed comments.

The results of the consultation will be used to formulate new clear rules for inclusion in the legal instruments on State aid and which will define the limits within which State aid to innovation may be seen to be compatible with the Common Market. Ultimately, it will be the responsibility of Member States to better target their resources and design effective support measures to foster innovation in the EU.

2005/09/20
   EC - Non-legislative basic document published
Details

PURPOSE : to present a consultation document on state aid for innovation.

CONTENT : This document launches a consultation designed to gather stakeholders’ views on specific improvements in the rules on State aid for innovation, including clarifications of increase legal certainty, new funding possibilities for innovation, the formulation of criteria to target the aid more effectively, and simplification of the regulatory framework.

Innovation is a central issue for the EU to deliver growth and job creation. State aid policy can contribute to a more innovative economy, both by preserving product market competition as a driver of innovation, and by putting forward a framework of rules that facilitates the design of effective State aid for innovation by Member States.

Preserving competition should be the first priority when designing effective systems to foster innovation in the EU. Competition in a functioning market creates incentives for companies to invest in knowledge and innovation, since this helps them generate competitive advantage and profits. Nonetheless, State aid can in some cases effectively and efficiently contribute to foster innovation, when it addresses market failures that hamper the innovation process without excessively distorting competition. The Commission has identified in this document a series of problems for unsatisfactory innovation in Europe. However, many of these problems cannot be solved by State aid and require a more comprehensive policy approach. Furthermore, too much aid in the name of innovation may actually frustrate the innovation process, as it might undermine competition as the most effective stimulant for comparing ideas and for new, innovative market entry. Therefore, State aid policy can only be a limited response to the problem of unsatisfactory innovation in Europe.

For example, the Environmental Technologies Action Plan aims at harnessing environmentally-friendly technologies and innovation, which can contribute to environmental protection and at the same time contribute to competitiveness and growth. The development of eco-innovation is essential in order to prepare an environmentally sustainable future, but economic barriers hinder their development. In particular, market prices reflect the direct economic costs and not the costs of environmental pollution (such as health care costs from urban air pollution). This leads to systematic underinvestment in environmental technologies, especially from firms which cannot afford to be charitable in a competitive market. Well-targeted economic incentives can therefore be useful in helping to promote the take-up of environmental technologies.

At this stage, the Commission considers that developing a new separate framework for State aid for innovation on the basis of an abstract definition of innovation is unnecessary and also not in line with the objective of simplifying EC State aid rules. A series of concrete and targeted innovation-related activities, subject to this consultation, were identified, which clearly address the market failures that are

hampering innovation and for which the benefits of State aid are likely to outweigh any possible harm to competition and trade. In doing so, the Commission used a methodology in line with the economic approach defined in the State Aid Action Plan.

The new rules will be integrated mainly in a framework for R&D and Innovation but also in the Risk Capital guidelines, in the Environmental guidelines and in the general Block Exemption (thereby avoiding the notification requirements for Member States).

The following types of innovation-related activities have been selected:

- activities that support risk-taking and experimentation and help bridge the gap between technological knowledge and the market;

- activities (business services and infrastructure) which improve the general business environment for innovation .

In addition, questions are asked on more specific issues about which the Commission would also like to obtain detailed comments.

The results of the consultation will be used to formulate new clear rules for inclusion in the legal instruments on State aid and which will define the limits within which State aid to innovation may be seen to be compatible with the Common Market. Ultimately, it will be the responsibility of Member States to better target their resources and design effective support measures to foster innovation in the EU.

Documents

Activities

Votes

Rapport In ' t Veld A6-0073/2006 - am. 15 #

2006/04/27 Outcome: -: 315, +: 238, 0: 17
FR PT ES AT MT NL EE HU CY EL SE DK LU FI SI IT CZ IE BE SK LV LT DE GB PL
Total
59
21
43
16
5
25
6
17
5
18
16
12
6
10
6
39
21
10
21
11
8
12
74
60
49
icon: PSE PSE
164

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Finland PSE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PSE

For (1)

1

Czechia PSE

2

Ireland PSE

1

Slovakia PSE

2

Lithuania PSE

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
35

Spain Verts/ALE

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Italy Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
29

France GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: NI NI
23

Austria NI

Abstain (1)

2

Belgium NI

3

Slovakia NI

Abstain (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (1)

4
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
21

France IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Sweden IND/DEM

Against (2)

2

Denmark IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Italy IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Czechia IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Ireland IND/DEM

For (1)

1
5
icon: UEN UEN
18

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1

Italy UEN

Against (1)

1

Ireland UEN

3

Latvia UEN

3

Lithuania UEN

Against (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
65

Spain ALDE

Against (1)

1

Austria ALDE

Against (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

Against (2)

2

Hungary ALDE

1

Cyprus ALDE

Against (1)

1

Sweden ALDE

3

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Finland ALDE

3

Slovenia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

Against (1)

1
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
215

Malta PPE-DE

Against (2)

2

Estonia PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Cyprus PPE-DE

2

Denmark PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Slovenia PPE-DE

4

Latvia PPE-DE

3

Lithuania PPE-DE

2

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

docs/0
date
2005-09-21T00:00:00
docs
summary
type
Non-legislative basic document
body
EC
docs/3
date
2006-03-20T00:00:00
docs
title: PE369.862
committee
ITRE
type
Committee opinion
body
EP
docs/4
date
2006-03-20T00:00:00
docs
title: PE369.862
committee
ITRE
type
Committee opinion
body
EP
docs/4/docs/0/url
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ITRE-AD-369862_EN.html
docs/5
date
2006-05-11T00:00:00
docs
title: SP(2006)2095
type
Commission response to text adopted in plenary
body
EC
docs/6
date
2006-05-11T00:00:00
docs
title: SP(2006)2095
type
Commission response to text adopted in plenary
body
EC
docs/6
date
2006-07-31T00:00:00
docs
url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=4620&j=0&l=en title: SP(2006)2906
type
Commission response to text adopted in plenary
body
EC
docs/6/docs/0/url
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=4620&j=0&l=en
docs/7
date
2006-07-31T00:00:00
docs
url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=4620&j=0&l=en title: SP(2006)2906
type
Commission response to text adopted in plenary
body
EC
docs/7/docs/0/url
Old
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=4620&j=0&l=en
New
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=4620&j=1&l=en
events/0
date
2005-09-20T00:00:00
type
Non-legislative basic document published
body
EC
docs
summary
events/0
date
2005-09-21T00:00:00
type
Non-legislative basic document published
body
EC
docs
summary
docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
https://dm.eesc.europa.eu/EESCDocumentSearch/Pages/redresults.aspx?k=(documenttype:AC)(documentnumber:1498)(documentyear:2005)(documentlanguage:EN)
New
https://dmsearch.eesc.europa.eu/search/public?k=(documenttype:AC)(documentnumber:1498)(documentyear:2005)(documentlanguage:EN)
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE368.093
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=PE368.093
docs/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE370.172
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=PE370.172
docs/3/docs/0/url
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE369.862&secondRef=02
docs/4/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2006-0073_EN.html
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2006-0073_EN.html
docs/5/docs/0/url
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=4620&j=1&l=en
events/1/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament
events/2/type
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
New
Vote in committee
events/3
date
2006-04-04T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2006-0073_EN.html title: A6-0073/2006
events/3
date
2006-04-04T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2006-0073_EN.html title: A6-0073/2006
events/4/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20060426&type=CRE
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=20060426&type=CRE
events/6
date
2006-04-27T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2006-0182_EN.html title: T6-0182/2006
summary
events/6
date
2006-04-27T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2006-0182_EN.html title: T6-0182/2006
summary
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 54
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 052
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Economic and Monetary Affairs
committee
ECON
rapporteur
name: IN 'T VELD Sophia date: 2005-11-15T00:00:00 group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Economic and Monetary Affairs
committee
ECON
date
2005-11-15T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: IN 'T VELD Sophia group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Industry, Research and Energy
committee
ITRE
rapporteur
name: PANZERI Pier Antonio date: 2006-01-26T00:00:00 group: Socialist Group in the European Parliament abbr: PSE
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Industry, Research and Energy
committee
ITRE
date
2006-01-26T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: PANZERI Pier Antonio group: Socialist Group in the European Parliament abbr: PSE
docs/4/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2006-73&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2006-0073_EN.html
docs/5/body
EC
docs/6/body
EC
events/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2006-73&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2006-0073_EN.html
events/6/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2006-182
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2006-0182_EN.html
activities
  • date: 2005-09-21T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2005/0436/COM_COM(2005)0436_EN.pdf title: COM(2005)0436 type: Non-legislative basic document published celexid: CELEX:52005DC0436:EN body: EC commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/competition/ title: Competition type: Non-legislative basic document published
  • date: 2006-02-16T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: ECON date: 2005-11-15T00:00:00 committee_full: Economic and Monetary Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: IN 'T VELD Sophia body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Employment and Social Affairs committee: EMPL body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection committee: IMCO body: EP responsible: False committee: ITRE date: 2006-01-26T00:00:00 committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy rapporteur: group: PSE name: PANZERI Pier Antonio body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Regional Development committee: REGI body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Transport and Tourism committee: TRAN
  • date: 2006-03-21T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: ECON date: 2005-11-15T00:00:00 committee_full: Economic and Monetary Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: IN 'T VELD Sophia body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Employment and Social Affairs committee: EMPL body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection committee: IMCO body: EP responsible: False committee: ITRE date: 2006-01-26T00:00:00 committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy rapporteur: group: PSE name: PANZERI Pier Antonio body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Regional Development committee: REGI body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Transport and Tourism committee: TRAN type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2006-04-04T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2006-73&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A6-0073/2006 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2006-04-26T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20060426&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2006-04-27T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=4620&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2006-182 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T6-0182/2006 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
commission
  • body: EC dg: Competition commissioner: --
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Economic and Monetary Affairs
committee
ECON
date
2005-11-15T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: IN 'T VELD Sophia group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
True
committee
ECON
date
2005-11-15T00:00:00
committee_full
Economic and Monetary Affairs
rapporteur
group: ALDE name: IN 'T VELD Sophia
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Employment and Social Affairs
committee
EMPL
opinion
False
committees/1
body
EP
responsible
False
committee_full
Employment and Social Affairs
committee
EMPL
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Industry, Research and Energy
committee
ITRE
date
2006-01-26T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: PANZERI Pier Antonio group: Socialist Group in the European Parliament abbr: PSE
committees/2
body
EP
responsible
False
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
committees/3
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
opinion
False
committees/3
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
ITRE
date
2006-01-26T00:00:00
committee_full
Industry, Research and Energy
rapporteur
group: PSE name: PANZERI Pier Antonio
committees/4
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Transport and Tourism
committee
TRAN
opinion
False
committees/4
body
EP
responsible
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
committees/5
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
opinion
False
committees/5
body
EP
responsible
False
committee_full
Transport and Tourism
committee
TRAN
docs
  • date: 2005-12-15T00:00:00 docs: url: https://dm.eesc.europa.eu/EESCDocumentSearch/Pages/redresults.aspx?k=(documenttype:AC)(documentnumber:1498)(documentyear:2005)(documentlanguage:EN) title: CES1498/2005 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2006:065:TOC title: OJ C 065 17.03.2006, p. 0086-0092 type: Economic and Social Committee: opinion, report body: ESC
  • date: 2006-02-06T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE368.093 title: PE368.093 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2006-03-01T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE370.172 title: PE370.172 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2006-03-20T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE369.862&secondRef=02 title: PE369.862 committee: ITRE type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2006-04-04T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2006-73&language=EN title: A6-0073/2006 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP
  • date: 2006-05-11T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=4620&j=1&l=en title: SP(2006)2095 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
  • date: 2006-07-31T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=4620&j=0&l=en title: SP(2006)2906 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
events
  • date: 2005-09-21T00:00:00 type: Non-legislative basic document published body: EC docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2005/0436/COM_COM(2005)0436_EN.pdf title: COM(2005)0436 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2005&nu_doc=436 title: EUR-Lex summary: PURPOSE : to present a consultation document on state aid for innovation. CONTENT : This document launches a consultation designed to gather stakeholders’ views on specific improvements in the rules on State aid for innovation, including clarifications of increase legal certainty, new funding possibilities for innovation, the formulation of criteria to target the aid more effectively, and simplification of the regulatory framework. Innovation is a central issue for the EU to deliver growth and job creation. State aid policy can contribute to a more innovative economy, both by preserving product market competition as a driver of innovation, and by putting forward a framework of rules that facilitates the design of effective State aid for innovation by Member States. Preserving competition should be the first priority when designing effective systems to foster innovation in the EU. Competition in a functioning market creates incentives for companies to invest in knowledge and innovation, since this helps them generate competitive advantage and profits. Nonetheless, State aid can in some cases effectively and efficiently contribute to foster innovation, when it addresses market failures that hamper the innovation process without excessively distorting competition. The Commission has identified in this document a series of problems for unsatisfactory innovation in Europe. However, many of these problems cannot be solved by State aid and require a more comprehensive policy approach. Furthermore, too much aid in the name of innovation may actually frustrate the innovation process, as it might undermine competition as the most effective stimulant for comparing ideas and for new, innovative market entry. Therefore, State aid policy can only be a limited response to the problem of unsatisfactory innovation in Europe. For example, the Environmental Technologies Action Plan aims at harnessing environmentally-friendly technologies and innovation, which can contribute to environmental protection and at the same time contribute to competitiveness and growth. The development of eco-innovation is essential in order to prepare an environmentally sustainable future, but economic barriers hinder their development. In particular, market prices reflect the direct economic costs and not the costs of environmental pollution (such as health care costs from urban air pollution). This leads to systematic underinvestment in environmental technologies, especially from firms which cannot afford to be charitable in a competitive market. Well-targeted economic incentives can therefore be useful in helping to promote the take-up of environmental technologies. At this stage, the Commission considers that developing a new separate framework for State aid for innovation on the basis of an abstract definition of innovation is unnecessary and also not in line with the objective of simplifying EC State aid rules. A series of concrete and targeted innovation-related activities, subject to this consultation, were identified, which clearly address the market failures that are hampering innovation and for which the benefits of State aid are likely to outweigh any possible harm to competition and trade. In doing so, the Commission used a methodology in line with the economic approach defined in the State Aid Action Plan. The new rules will be integrated mainly in a framework for R&D and Innovation but also in the Risk Capital guidelines, in the Environmental guidelines and in the general Block Exemption (thereby avoiding the notification requirements for Member States). The following types of innovation-related activities have been selected: - activities that support risk-taking and experimentation and help bridge the gap between technological knowledge and the market; - activities (business services and infrastructure) which improve the general business environment for innovation . In addition, questions are asked on more specific issues about which the Commission would also like to obtain detailed comments. The results of the consultation will be used to formulate new clear rules for inclusion in the legal instruments on State aid and which will define the limits within which State aid to innovation may be seen to be compatible with the Common Market. Ultimately, it will be the responsibility of Member States to better target their resources and design effective support measures to foster innovation in the EU.
  • date: 2006-02-16T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2006-03-21T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP summary: The committee adopted the own-initiative report drawn up by Sophia in’t VELD (ALDE, NL) in response to the Commission's consultation document on state aid for innovation. In its general remarks, the report said that the use of state aid to promote innovation should remain the exception rather than the rule: an instrument to correct imbalances that cannot be addressed by regular policy instruments. MEPs said that such aid should be complementary to the relevant EU policies and should have "a clear measurable added value for the immediate beneficiaries as well as a secondary impact on the broader local, regional and national economy". Lessons needed to be learned from past failures and successes in using aid to foster innovation. They added that the new EU framework should avoid very restrictive definitions and arrangements, and provision should be made for an interim review once the system was up and running. The report welcomed the idea of transparent, non-discriminatory, practicable ex ante rules which would provide for legal certainty. It said that subsidies for innovation should be conditional on the characteristics of the economic sector, the market structure and the market power of the company concerned, among other factors. The committee also insisted that state aid for innovation should be temporary, granted according to rational criteria, proportionate, strictly and effectively controlled and subject to periodic impact assessments. It noted that innovative processes as such do not merit state aid, which should only be granted for innovations that cannot be financed by normal commercial means. MEPs also stressed that SMEs were often unwilling to undertake the high risks associated with technological innovation and that they should be allocated a larger share of the aid available. They called for financial support to be given by means of risk capital for seed and start-up phases, and for such support also to be available for the post-seed phase, though this was not an optimal option and should be for the short term only. Lastly, the committee called for greater clarity on how state aid rules apply to universities and research establishments engaged in economic activities, and recommended that these bodies should take part in regional public-private partnerships as ‘innovation intermediaries’.
  • date: 2006-04-04T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2006-73&language=EN title: A6-0073/2006
  • date: 2006-04-26T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20060426&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2006-04-27T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=4620&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2006-04-27T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2006-182 title: T6-0182/2006 summary: The European Parliament adopted a resolution based on the own-initiative report drafted by Sophia in’t VELD (ALDE, NL) in response to the Commission's consultation document on state aid for innovation. (Please see the summary dated 21/03/2006.) General remarks: Parliament said that state aid should remain the exception: an instrument to correct imbalances that could not be addressed by regular policy instruments. State aid for innovation should be complementary to the corresponding uniform Community policies and should import clear, measurable added value for the immediate beneficiaries as well as a secondary impact on the broader local, regional and national economy. Parliament stressed the need to draw conclusions from past cases in which State aid failed to achieve its aims, as well as from those cases in which it proved to be an effective instrument for attaining the desired objectives. The objective of innovation was multidimensional and complex and very restrictive definitions and arrangements should be avoided. Parliament recommended an interim deadline for revising the framework in the event of the need for improvement. It also asked the Commission to provide more detailed information about the possible distortional effects of State aid and to take into account State aid granted by the EU's international competitors, both at sectoral and horizontal level and its possible distortional and incentive effects on a global scale. Principles governing control of state aid for innovation: Parliament w elcomed the economic approach to State aid for innovation and would welcome the introduction of ex ante rules, if these were transparent, non-discriminatory, practicable, and provide for legal certainty. Criteria for granting subsidies for innovation should be conditional on several factors, such as the characteristics of the economic sector, the market structure, and the market power of the company. The promotion of cross-border cooperation and public-private partnerships in research, the dissemination of the results of the research, and major research programmes, should be fundamental priorities of State aid for R&D. State aid for innovation should be temporary, granted according to transparent and rational criteria, proportionate, strictly and effectively controlled, and subject to periodic impact assessments through ex post analyses conducted by the Member States and the Commission. State aid should also take into account 'remoteness from the market', in other words, the non-commercial phase of the innovation process. The increasing importance of innovation must not be a pretext for granting State aid to companies. Innovation is an integral part of all business activities. Parliament stressed that rules and criteria must clarify that innovative processes per se do not merit State aid. State aid should be granted only for innovation that cannot be financed by normal commercial means and that contributes to the overall goals of business life and society. SMEs, which, by their nature, had only limited funds at their disposal, should be allocated a higher proportion of the aid available. Parliament pointed out that SMEs were often not willing to take the high risks associated with technological innovation, even though this could not only bring individual benefits, but could also potentially benefit society as a whole. It stressed the need urgently to target State aid at supportive actions that motivate SMEs and diminish the risks linked with technological innovation processes, as well as the need to improve the overall conditions of the business environment. Supporting risk taking and experimentation: Parliament a greed that State aid should be allocated on the basis of criteria favouring innovative start-ups and SMEs, rather than on the basis of eligible costs. It proposed that the existence period requirement for companies with a longer R&D cycle be extended to eight years. It supported the proposal that financial support should be given by means of risk capital not only for the seed and start-up phase, but also for the post-seed phase. However, this solution was not optimal and any aid should be of a short-term character and complementary to primarily private investments. Parliament realised that innovative SMEs' access to risk capital is currently considerably limited, primarily in the first phases of their development. It supported the idea of using State aid to attract private capital investment to regional risk-capital funds working as public-private partnerships with higher flexibility of investment tranches for public resources. A supportive business environment for innovation: Parliament recommended that universities and their research centres should take part in or cooperate closely with regional public-private partnerships as 'innovation intermediaries'. This would create a large synergy effect with better interconnection between the research and innovation activities of universities and the needs of individual innovative SMEs and innovative business clusters. It asked for further clarification on how the State aid rules apply to universities and research establishments when they are engaged in economic activities. Parliament questioned the appropriateness of allowing State aid to SMEs for hiring highly qualified staff, since SMEs might have access to specialist knowledge and skills through the services of intermediaries and experts. Finally, Parliament stated that clusters develop organically and should therefore be eligible for State aid only on a temporary basis, during the start-up phase, in order to meet administrative problems and obstacles linked with cooperation.
  • date: 2006-04-27T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/competition/ title: Competition
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
ECON/6/31941
New
  • ECON/6/31941
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 052
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
procedure/subject
Old
  • 2.60.03 State aids and interventions
New
2.60.03
State aids and interventions
activities/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2005/0436/COM_COM(2005)0436_EN.pdf
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2005/0436/COM_COM(2005)0436_EN.pdf
activities/1/committees/0/rapporteur/0/mepref
Old
545fc318d1d1c57f99000000
New
4f1ac934b819f25efd00011a
activities/2/committees/0/rapporteur/0/mepref
Old
545fc318d1d1c57f99000000
New
4f1ac934b819f25efd00011a
committees/0/rapporteur/0/mepref
Old
545fc318d1d1c57f99000000
New
4f1ac934b819f25efd00011a
activities
  • date: 2005-09-21T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2005/0436/COM_COM(2005)0436_EN.pdf title: COM(2005)0436 type: Non-legislative basic document published celexid: CELEX:52005DC0436:EN body: EC type: Non-legislative basic document published commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/competition/ title: Competition
  • date: 2006-02-16T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: ECON date: 2005-11-15T00:00:00 committee_full: Economic and Monetary Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: IN 'T VELD Sophia body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Employment and Social Affairs committee: EMPL body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection committee: IMCO body: EP responsible: False committee: ITRE date: 2006-01-26T00:00:00 committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy rapporteur: group: PSE name: PANZERI Pier Antonio body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Regional Development committee: REGI body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Transport and Tourism committee: TRAN
  • date: 2006-03-21T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: ECON date: 2005-11-15T00:00:00 committee_full: Economic and Monetary Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: IN 'T VELD Sophia body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Employment and Social Affairs committee: EMPL body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection committee: IMCO body: EP responsible: False committee: ITRE date: 2006-01-26T00:00:00 committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy rapporteur: group: PSE name: PANZERI Pier Antonio body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Regional Development committee: REGI body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Transport and Tourism committee: TRAN type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2006-04-04T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2006-73&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A6-0073/2006 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2006-04-26T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20060426&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2006-04-27T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=4620&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2006-182 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T6-0182/2006 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
committees
  • body: EP responsible: True committee: ECON date: 2005-11-15T00:00:00 committee_full: Economic and Monetary Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: IN 'T VELD Sophia
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Employment and Social Affairs committee: EMPL
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection committee: IMCO
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: ITRE date: 2006-01-26T00:00:00 committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy rapporteur: group: PSE name: PANZERI Pier Antonio
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Regional Development committee: REGI
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Transport and Tourism committee: TRAN
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/competition/ title: Competition
procedure
dossier_of_the_committee
ECON/6/31941
reference
2006/2044(INI)
title
Aid for innovation: sectoral aspects of the state aid action plan
legal_basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
stage_reached
Procedure completed
subtype
Initiative
type
INI - Own-initiative procedure
subject
2.60.03 State aids and interventions