Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-15-Speech-4-023"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010215.1.4-023"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I too want to join in the thanks to Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel for her excellent report. Let me also say how encouraging I find my relationship with all the Members who are deeply concerned with this issue. They have offered me their contributions, their experience and their advice on how to construct this European Research Area, which, I believe, is widely recognised as an essential political objective for Europe. I would also like to thank Mrs Fraisse and Mrs McNally, representing the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities respectively, for their contributions. Clearly, Parliament's support for this European Research Area is essential if we are to make headway with this process.
Variable geometry, or what has been called improved cooperation, is evidently one of the issues that raises questions, since Article 169 of the Treaty provides for it but it has never been implemented until now. That is why a very major debate is being held on this issue, which concerns efficiency but is also an institutional matter. We therefore believe that it is up to the Member States to take the initiative. We can only make proposals on the participation of the Union if we have real participation by the Member States. But I agree that we must ensure that this instrument does not discriminate against certain Member States and that Parliament is fully involved in the major decision making in this field. We will have an opportunity to discuss this in greater detail when we come to consider the proposal for the Framework Programme. It will be a major theme of that discussion.
Lastly, on priorities and criteria, I believe we have outlined the general criteria to illustrate the priorities set out on an indicative basis. These criteria draw on the replies we received in a wide-ranging opinion poll of all those involved in research, which we ran on the Internet throughout the year 2000. We consulted a wide range of scientific and industrial groups on these questions via the Internet.
This showed that there are clearly three major subjects that are guaranteed to produce added value. They are: everything concerned with post-genome research; the information society, together with the cost of the Internet, which is an essential factor of democratisation; and the question of the nano-technologies and advanced materials and processes.
These are three important subjects, without forgetting questions of food safety, which is, of course, very much on our minds in Europe today, the quality of life and sustainable development. These will indeed be discussed in the communication the Commission intends to draft in preparation for the Gothenburg Summit. It will discuss sustainable development as one of the key lines of research in the field of the environment, energy and transport.
On SMEs, Members are clearly right to emphasise their importance. Initially, it was said that at least 10% of the appropriations under the Fifth Framework Programme should be allocated to the SMEs. It seems we are now moving towards a more ambitious target and we might be able to argue for 15% in the next Framework Programme.
Let me now tell Mr Caudron that European added value is clearly the key component. How should we define it? I think it should be defined according to the research projects in question. The concept of European added value is not a global one. It is defined according to the subject of the research, which must be carried out at least at European level if it is to match up to world competition.
On the subject of nuclear research, I have no objection, quite the contrary in fact, to Parliament being widely involved in the discussion. You referred to the meeting on nuclear fusion. Let me point out that it was in no way a formal meeting but simply a question and answer session on a document, which is, in fact, accessible and which sets out the four possible options in regard to fusion. I think we cannot avoid a debate on this question. Indeed, it has already been discussed in earlier debates on the previous Framework Programmes. I, personally, am in favour of an open debate on this subject, because it is a fundamental social issue, an entirely legitimate question.
Women and society, young people and society: that is clearly the subject of the follow-up activities of the Helsinki Group we set up to look at the position of women in the sciences, both in the public and private sectors. Clearly there is also the question of international cooperation. There is that international dimension: the role that Europe plays in the world in relation to research and to serious diseases such as AIDS, tuberculosis and so forth. We have drafted a communication on development with my colleague Mr Nielson, which will be on the Commission's agenda next week. The international dimension must always form part of the debate.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, perhaps I have spoken at great length, but this was an opportunity for me to spark off some debate on the forthcoming Framework Programme, which will probably be adopted in the next few weeks, or even next week. That would allow me to come and present the broad outlines of the new Framework Programme in about a fortnight's time, as a follow-up to Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel's report. Let me close by once again thanking her and all the Members for their contributions.
The principle of establishing a European Research Area was accepted at the Lisbon Summit. It has become a political fact. But it is true that much remains to be done to make it a reality, as you have made abundantly clear; in that regard Parliament's proposals are an essential component for creating a dynamic at European level. Let me add that, at the forthcoming Stockholm Summit, we will have a progress report on this concept of a European Research Area. The issue is also on the agenda of the Heads of State and Government who are meeting in Stockholm, where it is one of the aspects to be considered precisely in relation to the objective of creating a dynamic European economy.
I would like to make a few comments on the various points raised in Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel's report and Members' statements. Of course, I broadly agree with what was said, but perhaps I can be a little more specific on some aspects.
It is quite clear that the European Research Area will be created thanks, on the one hand, to the Framework Programme, which is designed to facilitate it, but thanks mainly to open coordination between the Member States and those involved in research. So, if the Framework Programme is an instrument, it will have to be adjusted so that it can help structure the European Research Area. That is what you will find in the new Framework Programme: elements contributing greatly to structuring a European Research Area. Indeed, the five-year evaluation report highlighted the need for this measure and made it very clear that the Framework Programme needed to be modified.
On the question of open coordination, I agree that our role still needs to be defined and the criteria need to be more clearly adjusted. But our role is to facilitate and promote open coordination between the Member States. We must consider how we propose to achieve this. Clearly, therefore, this will be a long-term job, a job that will require partnership between the Commission and the Member States, with support from the European Parliament and support, Mr Alyssandrakis, from the entire scientific community. It is indeed a project that concerns all European scientists. There is no distinction. There are, of course, elements of subsidiarity; there is research that is carried out in the Member States and there is added value research. So we are still far away, light years away, in fact, from the kind of monopoly to which you referred and which is certainly not what any of the Members of this Parliament have in mind.
To that end, we will have to adapt new intervention formulae and, in this context, some speakers, including Mrs Fraisse and Mr Desama, referred to the question of the link with education. This science-education link is very relevant and it will, in fact, be on the agenda of the meeting of Ministers for Education and Science in Upsala. We will be holding a joint meeting between Ministers for Education and Science, an informal Council, in Sweden on 2 and 3 March, on the subject of science, society and education in the sciences; we will also be holding an initial discussion between Ministers for Research on the future Framework Programme.
On the question of the new instruments I welcome your support, and Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca highlighted the importance of these new instruments very clearly. It is in fact thanks to them that we will be able to act more effectively while also, as Mr Linkohr said, simplifying the management procedures, and therefore avoid duplication. So that is the spirit in which the instruments proposed by the Commission were defined. But I also understand your concern about the need to ensure that these instruments offer equal opportunities for all. They must not look as though they were reserved for one category or another, for one group or another or tailored to any particular group or category. So it is in that spirit that we will need to define the new instruments more precisely.
On the networks of excellence, I think it is quite clear that this is a crucial point, but I am also aware that we have to agree on the definition of networks with a capacity for excellence. In fact, we should use that term rather than referring to 'giant' centres. These are not 'giant' centres of excellence. They are networks with a capacity for excellence, depending on the subject and field of research. So the objective is to establish virtual centres of excellence that incorporate the capacity for excellence in the priority areas. It follows that this is certainly not intended to be a tool, amongst other things, for the small and medium-sized enterprises and the countries that are least developed in terms of research. There are centres of excellence in all the European countries, based on the criteria, which we will be discussing, of the European added value of the programme. That is obviously one of the questions on which the discussions will focus.
Let me say in passing that Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel was quite right in what she said about infrastructure. As you know, we have already tried to establish an infrastructure with the GEANT programme and to reconcile the infrastructures of all the European countries, with the aim of attaining a capacity of 10 gigabits. But, as she pointed out, we will have to achieve 100 gigabits, so the infrastructure programme will give priority to encouraging coordination between the Member States, since they have to make the effort on their own territory. We will be discussing that priority when we come to the new Framework Programme."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples