14 STATE AID
(24562)
8908/03
COM(03) 225
| Commission Report: State Aid Scoreboard: Spring 2003 update.
|
| Legal base | —
|
| Document originated | 30 April 2003
|
| Deposited in Parliament |
28 May 2003 |
| Department | Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration |
EM of 5 June 2003 |
| Previous Committee Report |
None; but see (24345) 7160/03: HC 63-xvii (2002-03), paragraph 6 (2 April 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council
| None planned |
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared, but relevant to any debate on state aid or related matters
|
Background
14.1 The Commission reports biannually on state aid and
state aid issues. The last report focussed on state aid in the
acceding countries.[38]
The document
14.2 This update gives an overview of the state aid situation
in the fifteen Member States in the European Union and examines
the underlying trends. The Scoreboard is divided into three main
sections. The first section gives a snapshot of aid in 2001,
looking at the absolute and relative levels and considers the
extent to which Member States are reducing their state aid relative
to GDP.
14.3 The second section focuses on Member
States' relative success in redirecting aid from specific sectors
to horizontal objectives and includes a special focus on aid specifically
earmarked for assisted regions. It also looks at the state aid
instruments used by Member States, noting that the bulk of aid
to manufacturing is in the form of grants, but noting also other
measures such as soft loans or use of the taxation or social security
system.
14.4 Finally, the third section considers
state aid control procedures, recovery and ongoing work to modernise
state aid control.
14.5 The Scoreboard shows that the overall
level of state aid is falling. It fell from €102 billion
in 1997 to €86 billion in 2001, although there was a small
increase from €85.2 billion in 2000 to €86 billion in
2001. It also shows that aid is falling as a percentage of GDP
in the majority of Member States. In addition, aid continues
to be redirected from sectoral to horizontal objectives, although
sectoral distribution of aid varies widely among Member States.
The Government's view
14.6 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State for Competition, Consumers and Markets (Miss Melanie Johnson)
tells us:
"There are no direct policy implications
from this document, which is intended to increase transparency
and to emphasise the need for Member States to reduce overall
level of state aid as a percentage of GDP by 2003, and onwards
and to redirect aid towards horizontal objectives of common interest
including economic and social cohesion and target it to identified
market failures.
"The Commission press release announcing
the publication of the scoreboard was openly critical of the UK
because our level of aid increased by €4.3bn from 2000-2001
(copy of press release attached).[39]
This increase was largely because of aids to the transport sector,
especially related to Railtrack. However, the UK is still a low
provider of state aid and has been in the forefront in pressing
for increased transparency and a reduction in overall levels of
aid. The Government agrees with the Commission that the Scoreboard
is a key tool in monitoring and controlling state aid."
Conclusion
14.7 We report this document, as we have
done with the two previous Scoreboards, because it is a useful
summary of the situation on state aid in the European Union.
We have said of the previous documents that they would be relevant
to any debate on state aid or related matters. We similarly note
that this document would be relevant to such a debate.
14.8 In the
previous Scoreboard the Commission said it intended to fully integrate
the new Member States into future Scoreboards. This does not
appear to have happened this time and we urge the Minister to
tell the Commission that it must follow through on its expressed
intention.
14.9 We clear
the document.
38 See headnote. Back
39
i.e. attached to the Explanatory Memorandum. Back
| 
