Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-29-Speech-3-180"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061129.18.3-180"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate in Parliament this evening on the Seventh Framework Programme and the prospect of its implementation is undoubtedly a moment for us to rejoice. It is an auspicious moment for the scientific community in particular, because this is, after all, the third most important programme of the European Union and one that enables the scientific community to take on a European dimension and motivates it to strive for excellence. Accordingly, one of our key aims is to avoid any lack of continuity from one programme to the next.
I am also thinking of the lowering of indirect costs to 60%. It may well be argued that this figure is somewhat arbitrary and that indirect costs should be calculated as accurately as possible. This, incidentally, is why a distinction is made between the first three years and the other years, but such a figure was essential in order to involve universities and SMEs from all countries, because accounting systems differ widely.
Let me conclude by saying thank you very much for the work you have done, and thank you especially for making this Framework Programme possible, along with the rules of participation for the scientific community, through your capacity to engage in dialogue and through that of the Finnish Presidency, which has been excellent throughout this process. Thank you again, and I believe that we shall be here in good numbers tomorrow to carry your proposals and our amended proposals without any problem.
Thanks to the joint efforts of the Finnish Presidency, whose perseverance and high-quality work I commend, of the Commissioner and the relevant departments of the Commission and of Parliament, working together in an excellent spirit of cooperation and fully focused on the defined goals, we have reached the stage at which we can launch the Seventh Framework Programme within the desired time frame. That is a crucial point.
The second point is somewhat less gratifying, for the funding earmarked for the programme is lower than we had hoped. We cannot do anything about that. As the Commissioner emphasised, the Financial Perspective initially delayed the discussion of the programme and then fell short of what Europe needs to satisfy its ambitions. I shall repeat incessantly that tomorrow's Europe will be built on research and innovation. It is talked about, it is discussed, but the Member States are still unwilling to align their policies with these aims. It is certainly detrimental that the Framework Programme as proposed by the Commission has been cut by at least 25 to 30%, but, as we say in Belgium, '
' – one has to play along – which means trying to make the Framework Programme as effective as possible. In this respect, I believe, as Mr Buzek said, that the Commission's proposal has been broadly accepted and that the improvements and amendments that have been made all point in the right direction.
For my part, I would still like to raise two matters. The first is the European Research Council, which is clearly an essential innovation in the field of European policy. It is indeed imperative that the scientific community should establish itself on a European scale and that the European scientific community itself should recognise the goal of excellence. This will give Europe a far higher profile. That is why we, along with Mrs Niebler and others, have devoted a great deal of attention to the way in which this European Research Council would operate.
Another point that seems to be crucial relates to joint technological initiatives. This process, which is an extension of the technological platforms, is one of the keys to the competitiveness of European industry. It will therefore be very important for the Council, the Commission and Parliament to be able to carry out joint technological initiatives quickly in certain fields. Needless to say, it will not be possible for this to happen in every domain, but I believe the instrument is indispensable.
Commissioner, you are a greater diplomat than I, so let me congratulate you explicitly on having secured an agreement with the Council on the continuation of stem-cell research, particularly as regards supernumerary embryonic stem cells. This is a balanced agreement. It follows on from what was achieved under the Sixth Framework Programme but is also well underpinned by ethical safeguards. The statement you have just made reassures the House that embryos will not be destroyed but that all the potential offered by stem cells, particularly spare embryonic stem cells, for the creation of tomorrow's scientific and medical knowledge will be preserved. I therefore congratulate you on securing this agreement.
I should also like to point out to the House that we shall be voting on the specific programmes tomorrow too and that there are amendments on the table. I know that the procedure is different in the case of the specific programmes, for which we only deliver an opinion. Be that as it may, our votes on the specific programmes ought not to be inconsistent with the provisions adopted for the Framework Programme. Mr Buzek rightly said that Parliament supports the compromise proposals. Legitimate amendments have also been tabled by Members. The strength of support in the Chamber varies between the specific programmes and the Framework Programme. For the sake of the general coherence of the system, there must not be a divide between the specific programmes and the Framework Programme.
Let me move on to the rules of participation. I shall be very brief, because you, Commissioner, have already highlighted the points that are new in relation to the proposal. There is, however, one precept on which I believe we are in agreement. The aim is simplification, and we have tried to develop things in that direction. Nevertheless, I am afraid we must remain humble and modest, for although the need to simplify is restated every time, those who have most experience of framework programmes sadly observe each time that they are not yet perfect. I am not sure that what we have done will be perfect. That will depend in part on your vigilance but also on us. We are here to help you to eliminate the constraints from other sources that complicate the process.
For example, we sought to guarantee the participation of small and medium-sized businesses. This has not simply involved granting them up to 75% of total eligible costs; in the context of the guarantee fund, for example, they will not be required to submit to three-monthly audits to check whether they are eligible to participate. These, then, are the practical consequences, but they depend on implementation, because there are sometimes overzealous people involved. That is quite normal, but it can result in excesses. You will therefore have to ensure proper implementation."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Il faut faire avec"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples