2 STATE AID
(25030)
14584/03
COM(03) 636
| Commission Report: State Aid Scoreboard — Autumn 2003 update.
|
| Legal base | —
|
| Document originated | 29 October 2003
|
| Deposited in Parliament |
14 November 2003 |
| Department | Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration |
EM of 2 December 2003 |
| Previous Committee Report |
None; but see (24562) 8908/03: HC 63-xxv (2002-03), paragraph 14 (18 June 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council
| Not known |
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
2.1 The Commission reports biannually on state aid and
state aid issues. The last report ("scoreboard") gave
an overview of the state aid situation in the fifteen Member States;
examined Member States' relative success in redirecting aid from
specific sectors to horizontal objectives, including a survey
of aid specifically earmarked for assisted regions; and considered
state aid control procedures, recovery of state aid and ongoing
work to modernise state aid control.[4]
2.2 In clearing that scoreboard we noted
that previously the Commission had said it intended fully to integrate
the new Member States into future scoreboards and that this did
not appear to have happened. We urged the Minister to tell the
Commission that it must implement that expressed intention.
The document
2.3 This scoreboard is the Autumn update
and again provides an overview of the state aid situation in
the fifteen Member States and examines the underlying trends based
on the latest available data. It is divided into three parts:
- actions undertaken by both
the Commission and the Member States to follow up the Conclusions
of the Stockholm and Barcelona European Councils on state aid;
- consideration of one of the most distortive types
of state aid, that is, rescue and restructuring of firms in difficulty;
- recent developments in the Commission's state
aid reform programme.
2.4 The report notes that the overall level
of state aid continues to fall (from €102 billion in 1997
to €86 billion in 2001, though there was an increase from
€85. 2 billion in 2000) and that aid is falling as a percentage
of GDP in the majority of Member States. Also there is a significant
increase in the proportion of aid directed towards horizontal
objectives, such as research and development aid for small and
medium-sized enterprises, the environment, employment and training
and a corresponding reduction in the amount of the more distortive
individual aid.
2.5 The report makes only a brief mention
of the new Member States and says the state aid situation there
will be covered in the Autumn 2004 scoreboard.
The Government's view
2.6 The Minister of State for Industry and
the Regions and Deputy Minister for Women and Equality (Jacqui
Smith) says:
"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 the overall
level of State aid as a percentage of GDP by 2003, and onwards,
to redirect aid towards horizontal objectives of common interest
including economic and social cohesion and target it to identified
market failures and also to continue to develop the use of effective
monitoring and evaluation of individual State aid and State aid
schemes in order to monitor impact on competition and effectiveness
of the aid."
Conclusion
2.7 We report this document, like previous
scoreboards, because it is a useful summary of the situation as
regards state aid in the European Union. But we note that the
Commission has still not fully integrated the new Member States
into the scoreboard as promised. We should be grateful if the
Minister would let us know what the Commission's response was
to the approach we urged on her when we reported on the last scoreboard.
We shall hold the document under scrutiny until we hear from her
on this.
2.8 We have
said of previous scoreboards that they would be relevant to any
debate on state aid or related matters. We expect to do the same
with this document once we have completed our consideration of
it.
4 See headnote. Back
| 
