Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-29-Speech-3-186"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061129.18.3-186"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Thank you, Mr President. Thank you, Mr Potočnik, for your open and cooperative attitude; thank you, Mr Buzek and all of the other shadow rapporteurs. We are all members of the seventh Framework Programme family, and in our family there has been a long and difficult birth, with little in the way of healthcare resources, but the baby has been born healthy, though a little under-weight.
In general terms, we believe this Programme to be positive; cooperation amongst everybody is going to lead the European Union in the direction we need to take if we are to have longer and happier lives and if Europe is to play a more important role in the world.
When will we grasp that European research is even more important than agricultural subsidies and building motorways? That is not a rhetorical question; we must ask ourselves the stark question of what the priority is for the future of Europe, this Europe that wants to act, but cannot.
We have set certain challenges in this Framework Programme and to a large extent we have covered them. We have made some progress in terms of opening up science, in terms of achieving the maximum transfer of scientific knowledge and technical information and supporting all incentives that promote the transfer of technologies, so that companies, civil society and universities can develop bridges between research and the necessary economic and technological renewal in our current European societies, thanks to this communication and thanks to the rules on the obligatory publication of results, the promotion of free software or the obligation, for example, to promote interoperability; we have made some progress, but we must continue to make more.
We must also ask ourselves whether science is going to be by and for the people, because the opinions of researchers must be in line with those people who are not necessarily experts. In this regard, we should welcome the support and the important work of the science sector and society in this programme, the financial strengthening of this field and the fact that the programme is being opened up to civil society organisations.
I also wonder whether small is beautiful in European science, because we all talk about SMEs, but is that empty rhetoric or a firm commitment? SMEs create the majority of stable employment and are a source of economic stability. The support for initiatives such as that of creating clusters of small enterprises within the technological platforms is very much to be welcomed; it is very important that we have established a framework of 15% for small enterprises within all of the programmes. This is a challenge that we must fulfil; let us see whether we can turn our rhetoric into results.
Will there be less bureaucracy and more transparency in this Programme? Will there be clear and intelligible public access to information, which must be guaranteed for all processes of evaluation and funding of European Union projects? The time has come for the European Commission to reduce the expensive administrative procedures, since they lead to the marginalisation of small research groups and small companies and NGOs, which are unable to afford them because of their size. We are demanding that they be simplified as soon as possible. We want no more excuses. The time has come to act.
This Framework Programme has also meant a return to basics and therefore, with the establishment of the European Research Council, this Framework Programme will provide strong public support for basic research with medium- and long-term social and environmental objectives, led by renowned researchers who will defend their autonomy. We must ensure that this autonomy is respected by everybody, by both Parliament and the Commission.
We Greens wonder whether, in view of the energy crisis, we will have the science for a good climate, which is what we need. It is very positive that there should be financial support for renewable energies and energy efficiency and that it has been increased by 250%, but at the same time we regret that it is still only a third of the sum received by nuclear research as a whole.
We are also pleased that, with regard to social sciences, which are also sciences, this Programme offers firm support for socioeconomic research and multidisciplinary research."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples