Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-06-13-Speech-2-011"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060613.6.2-011"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, today is an important day for science. With your support, we can look ahead to a EUR 54.5 billion research programme to be launched by the end of this year. EUR 54.5 billion in current prices is less than we had proposed, but it is a substantial increase on the current programme and we also have to thank Parliament for that. Together, we are making the Seventh Framework Programme a programme for boosting growth and jobs, for promoting a sustainable and healthy Europe.
We propose that an independent review should be carried out, with the full involvement of various parties, not least the Scientific Council, in time for the future structure of the ERC to be considered not later than 2010. The review should look explicitly at the advantages and the disadvantages of a structure based on an executive agency and a structure based on Article 171 of the Treaty. The ERC’s structures and mechanisms should be modified in accordance with its findings. This should be done in consultation with Parliament, but always with a view to maintaining the total independence of the ERC from any political influence.
As regards the administrative and staffing costs of the ERC: yes, we want a lean and cost-effective implementation structure, but, no, at this stage we do not know enough to impose strict and specific limits for administrative costs that might risk undermining the functioning of the ERC at its outset.
Let me turn to the issue of stem cell research. I know that this has been a matter of intense discussion amongst many of you and I should like to say at the outset that I have profound respect for each personal opinion. The Commission learned from the intense debate on this issue during the negotiations on the Sixth Framework Programme. We are convinced that, in view of the diversity of approaches existing in Europe, we can only propose a responsible, cautious and practical approach, evaluating and selecting this type of research on a case-by-case basis and excluding certain specific research areas.
The procedure established for the Sixth Framework Programme ensures that some major health challenges and the hopes of the patients concerned are addressed through this research. At the same time, it guarantees respect for fundamental ethical principles in a way that it is unique for a research programme covering 25 countries or more. This procedure has proved to work and to be acceptable to Member States and to the scientists. What we propose is nothing less and nothing more than that the procedure be continued for the Seventh Framework Programme.
The Commission acknowledges very positively the outcome of the vote on this issue by the ITRE Committee, which is entirely in line with the Commission’s proposal and provides even more useful clarification. It would be misleading to present a deviation from this approach as a true compromise between proponents and opponents of embryonic stem cell research. For example, introducing a so-called cut-off date that would make human embryonic stem cell lines eligible or not eligible for Community funds would have far-reaching consequences. Such a cut-off date has no scientific or objective basis. It might prevent the European researchers from using the lines they have created and force them to work with lines produced outside Europe. In addition, it might severely compromise access to the best quality lines which, in this very new field of research, are generally considered to be those most recently produced. It might unduly limit access to the specific stem cell lines which are indispensable for patients.
In other words, it has to be clear that any date will compromise the label of scientific excellence in this sector which I am personally eager to attach to this Seventh Framework Programme, as long as ethical concerns are taken fully into consideration, which I believe is entirely the case with our proposal.
One last word on subsidiarity: the current strict procedures and limitations on embryonic stem cell research entirely respect the subsidiarity principle. Relying on the ethical standards of either the most restrictive or the most liberal countries would simply be against the basic principles of the European Union.
I cannot end this introduction without mentioning the very broad agreement on the Euratom programme, which includes the important international scientific project on ITER, and the Joint Research Centre, whose mission you considered very important.
I am very curious to listen to the debate now and hope that it will be possible to add some short concluding remarks afterwards. This Parliament has truly made excellent progress. I hope we can maintain this momentum. Getting FP7 started in time will require an increased effort from all of us. Time matters! FP7 is a central part of the Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs. It is on that count that Europe can and should deliver on time. This will be an important signal to our partners in the world, to the whole of Europe and to our scientific community.
I think that our three institutions have never been so close to each other in deciding a Framework Programme. With your support, we will be able to reach our current goals on time and mobilise our researchers to start participating, as from the end of this year, in the Seventh Framework Programme and in the realisation of the European research area that turns knowledge into true growth and true jobs. Together we can prove that Lisbon is back again.
It is also a programme for a stronger Europe: research unites in diversity. For that to happen, we need cooperation, ideas, people and capacities and those are the titles of the four main axes in the Framework Programme.
The cooperation programme will bring together our best talents from across Europe to research and develop and find answers on economic opportunities and societal challenges, for example in the areas of health and energy. The ideas programme will introduce a new mindset in supporting and conducting research in Europe. The people programme will attract and motivate the best scientists to work across Europe or beyond, for the benefit of European research. The capacities programme will ensure that Europe can rely on excellent capacities for conducting research in all parts of Europe.
Our continuous efforts towards simplification will ensure that we attract the best participants, irrespective of size or origin, and that we get the best value for our investment.
I am impressed by the consensus that has emerged in Parliament on Framework Programme that delivers on the ambition. I wholeheartedly thank Mr Chichester, chairman of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, the rapporteur, Mr Buzek, the shadow rapporteurs and all other Members of Parliament who made this possible.
Your objective is to further improve the Seventh Framework Programme. I am pleased to say that the Commission will be able to accept no less than two thirds of your amendments, either as a whole or in principle. Some other amendments are, in our assessment, too detailed for the Framework Programme, or they go beyond the remit of research and development. We will quickly come to an agreement on those. Some amendments create difficulties for the Commission. They concern topics for which we have a shared understanding of their importance and priority, but not yet on how to realise them. I do not think that they should become stumbling blocks. They relate, for example, to keeping space and security together as one priority, avoiding the definition of a quantitative target for SME participation, preventing the introduction of support in the people programme for interregional mobility within the same country and ensuring that technology platforms remain flexible, bottom-up and industry-driven in defining strategic research agendas and guiding their implementation.
Let me spend a little time on two issues which have been the subject of your intense debate.
I should like to start with the European Research Council. This is probably the most exciting new development in the European research landscape. Parliament’s strong support will help to make it a reality. We have to get the structure right, so that independence is guaranteed in support of scientific excellence and administrative capacity is available in support of efficiency. The Community method can guarantee this and it is for this reason that we have proposed to set up the ERC within the remit of the Community institutions. I am sure that we will be able to accommodate much of the substance of Parliament’s amendments in a way that will also help to create common ground with the Council. However, I am afraid that a review in 2008, after only one year of operation, will not be very meaningful. Much as I understand Parliament’s wish to be associated with the European Research Council’s success, I do not think we have the appropriate legal basis to decide on the follow-up to the review in codecision.
I am most concerned, however, about proposals to predetermine the future structure of the European Research Council even at this stage. What message would we give out with such an automatic change of structure? That we got it wrong in the first place? That the ERC we set up will not be independent? I simply cannot accept that logic. It would not help us in our joint aim to create a European Research Council of which we can all be proud. I believe that we are enabling the ERC to be independent and efficient. I have heard Professor Kafatos, chairman of the ERC Scientific Council, say on several occasions that the structure proposed by the Commission, as well as the stance taken by the Commission, ensures precisely that."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples