WRITTEN QUESTION E-3028/03 by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Approval of support for Ford's Belgian car manufacturing plant in Genk and its suppliers.
Date: 2003-10-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, Province of Limbourg, State aid, aid system, control of State aid, investment aid, motor vehicle industry, regional aid, subcontracting, vehicle parts

C 70 E/200

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2003)

The Commission considers that the budgetary goals and rule of the EC Treaty and the Stability and Growth
Pact remain valid. A budget position of ‘close to balance or in surplus’ provides an appropriate framework
for prudent budgetary management that is in the economic self-interest of all countries. The budgetary
objective of ‘close to balance or in surplus’ provides ample room to allow the automatic stabilisers to
operate fully in response to economic downturns and to cope with the budgetary impact of major reforms.
It is also an appropriate medium and long-term goal, given high debt levels in many countries, substantial
contingent liabilities and because ageing populations will lead to large increase in spending on pension and
health. All these challenges can only be met if countries make sustained efforts to run down public debt in
the coming decade.

In the area of public finances, governments can contribute to the Lisbon goals by spending public money
as efficiently as possible, by redirecting public expenditure towards growth-enhancing cost-effective
expenditure subject to overall budgetary constraints, and by seeking a higher leverage of public support on
private investment. Indeed, this is the reasoning behind guideline No 14 of the Broad Economic Policy
Guidelines adopted by the Council on 26 June 2003. This guideline contains several ways in which the
public sector should enhance its contribution to growth, one being ‘by redirecting, i.e. while respecting
overall budgetary constraints, public expenditure towards growth-enhancing cost-effective investment in
physical and human capital and knowledge’. The implementation of this guideline together with structural
reforms on which the Council has repeatedly given priority will boost economic growth and employment.

The interaction between the Union’s budgetary rules and public investment has been investigated in detail
in the report Public Finances in Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) 2003 (1). A careful analysis of the
data fails to show any clear-cut link between change in the investment ratio and the provisions of the
Union’s framework for fiscal surveillance. Indeed public investment expenditures in many Member States
have stopped falling after the beginning of monetary union.

Regarding the specific case of Portugal, on 17 September 2003 the Commission proposed an appropri-
ation of EUR 48,5 million in the context of the Union solidarity fund on account of the forest fires. Finally,
with respect to budgetary developments the Council on 11 November 2002 made recommendations to
Portugal with a view to bringing an end to the situation of an excessive government deficit in 2003 at the
latest. In monitoring the situation (cid:1) in order to establish whether the Portuguese authorities comply with
the Council recommendations (cid:1) the Commission considers all relevant information, including the latest
economic forecasts that take into account the events of summer 2003.

(1) COM(2003) 283 final.

(2004/C 70 E/216)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3028/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: Approval of support for Ford’s Belgian car manufacturing plant in Genk and its suppliers

According to the Flemish authorities, on 12 September 2003 the Commission approved the granting of
support for an investment programme for the Ford car manufacturing plant in Genk (in the Belgian
province of Limburg), and for a number of component suppliers. The Commission has apparently agreed
that an amount of EUR 45,06 million can be granted to Ford and EUR 2 million to its suppliers.

Can the Commission say whether it has in fact approved this support and, if so, what the amount involved
was? Were any conditions imposed on the granting of this support, and if so what conditions, and under
what programme or programmes can the support be granted?

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/201

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2003)

The Commission on 5 September 2003 decided not to raise objections against an aid of EUR 45,06 million,
which the Belgian authorities intend to grant to Ford Werke AG in Genk and to EUR 2,57 million in
favour of five first-tier component suppliers.

The planned aid was assessed under the provisions of the Multisectoral framework on regional aid for large
investment projects (1), which applies to the motor vehicle sector since 1 January 2003. As the measure
concerns an ad hoc aid,
it had to be notified individually.
According to the framework, the maximum aid intensity for regional investment aid in the motor vehicle
sector is 30 % of the regional aid ceiling.

i.e. not aid under an approved scheme,

Genk is an assisted Article 87(3)(c) area with a regional ceiling of 14,46 % gross grant equivalent (10 % net
grant equivalent). Consequently, the maximum allowable aid intensity was 4,3 %. Belgium intended to
grant an intensity of 4,2 %. Based on eligible investments of EUR 1,073 billion, the foreseen aid intensity of
4,2 % resulted into an allowable aid amount in favour of Ford of EUR 45,06 million. Based on the same aid
intensity, an aid of EUR 2,57 million was authorised in favour of five first-tier component suppliers.

The aid may only be granted to the extent that the notified investments are in fact carried out. The decision
will be published shortly in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 70, 19.3.2002.

(2004/C 70 E/217)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3031/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: Community subsidies in the cultural sphere

Associations play a central role in any country’s social development, not only in terms of active
involvement and self-organisation on the part of citizens, but also of the services which associations
provide, particularly in culture and sport. Recreational associations are often the main channels for
publicising and preserving the cultural heritage of many regions, thus contributing to cultural wealth and
diversity within the European Union. Associations are responsible for amateur drama, folk clubs, brass
bands, music schools and a whole range of exhibition spaces for art. Resources, particularly funds, are
generally in short supply to cover the working requirements of these associations in the tasks they perform
for the community, above all in providing leisure time activities. I personally encounter this hard fact with
some frequency, and likewise the lack of available information as to sources of support, particularly at
Community level.

Can the Commission answer the following:

(cid:1) What Community resources exist to support culture, particularly for recreational associations?

(cid:1) In the specific case of wind band associations, what Community aids exist for buying instruments and

support material for music schools, and doing up auditoria and halls to perform in?

(cid:1) What are the global Community budget totals authorised and actually paid out for culture, and how
have these totals varied between 1994 and 2003? What is the breakdown of this total by Member
State and number of projects funded?