Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-14-Speech-3-029"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-11-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:European Research Area (Multiannual Framework Programme 2002-2006)2
dcterms:Language	"el"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20011114.2.3-029"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-11-14-Speech-3-0302
lpv:speaker	lp:Konstantinos Alyssandrakis2
lpv:spokenAs	vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; EUL/NGL (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Kommounistiko Komma Elladas (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2000-12-13--2001-11-29)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us a very important text, the substance of which will not only determine how the European Union applies research in practice, it will also set the tone for guidelines and practices in all the Member States, especially those like Greece which, to all intents and purposes, have no national research programme of their own. One of the weak points identified in research in the European Union is its poor application and yet the European Commission's proposed overall budget does not respond to the need for a bold increase in funding and, unfortunately, the Committee on Industry, despite proposing research activities, has not increased the budget. A second important point is orientation. The draft before us leaves little room for free research which may not bring in results which can be directly applied in practice but which helps to increase our knowledge and acts as a basis for future applications. This being so, we feel that the Committee on Industry's proposal to reduce expenditure on so-called priority 8 is not a move in the right direction. This does not, of course, mean that we disagree with the seven thematic priorities proposed. The third major issue is who is to benefit from funding. The structure of the proposed programme is such that it benefits companies, both directly and indirectly, because the guidelines are tailored to their needs. In our view, corporate research should be funded from company profits, not the public purse. We are also afraid that small research teams will have trouble finding funding, although the Committee on Industry's amendments will help here. One comment on the Euratom programme: whatever our reservations about the safety of nuclear fission, we need to be equally hopeful that the continuing debate will provide a long-term solution to the energy supply problem. From this point of view, I welcome the fact that the Committee on Industry has recommended an increase in funding for the ITER reactor. Finally, what worries me is that the so-called ethical issue has become much more important than it deserves and has even had a disorientating effect. Public funding for research is no way to resolve this sort of problem. It would be a serious oversight on my part if I failed to thank Commissioner Busquin and his staff and, of course, our rapporteur, Mr Caudron, and all the shadow rapporteurs on their tremendous work."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph