Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-29-Speech-3-215"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061129.18.3-215"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, at this late hour, I wish to begin by thanking this House, on behalf of all the researchers in Europe, for your words of support during this three-hour debate.
On higher education, if we do not make progress quickly, then higher education and universities in Europe are really the engine behind everything: the labour and financial markets and, finally, the coherence between macroeconomic policies and structural policies which have to be in place. So when we talk about our issues, these are the issues of all the governments, the whole Commission, the whole Parliament. We cannot settle them alone. That is why we always have to look at the big picture and why the debate on which we have to embark in the future is that one.
We have to build on a positive climate which I think we have in Europe. We are now clearly devoting political attention to knowledge, research and development, but it is not important that we get it there, it is important that we keep it there. Why? Because only if we have constant strategic attention for a period of some years can we truly count on serious changes in Europe.
It is true that it is almost midnight but, if we work together, I am sure it is not too late.
Many of you mentioned funding. Unfortunately, we have lost the bet, because the number seven would be really lucky – seven years, seventh programme, EUR 70 billion. In any case, we can still be proud of what we have achieved, because it is a serious increase.
I have no doubt that the programme will be adopted tomorrow. Then we can continue with our work for the future. Firstly, on the question about fisheries, I would simply add that we now have theme No 2, named ‘food, agriculture, fisheries and biotechnology’. This was the last change that was made at the last debate, so it has been included.
I should like to draw your attention to many important things that are part of our achievement. We will all have to consider in the future how the European Research Council is developing. It is a major thing for Europe. It is a major breakthrough that for the first time we are able to gain sources together at EU level, finding excellence without political interference, including mine. That is a major change in thinking, which I hope will be a source of future decisions connected with the European research area. We have European technology platforms which go far beyond the framework programme and they have much more potential. We talk about public-private partnerships in joint technology initiatives, which will be a delicate but worthwhile exercise in the future. We will also have to monitor these closely. We will have to deal with a risk-sharing finance facility, which you mentioned, and I am fully aware that you are expecting simplified procedures, which will not be easy to achieve. I am committed to doing that, but I sincerely hope that I will have the support of all those who can help.
Unfortunately, I have learned that sometimes it is simply impossible to meet all expectations. If, on the one hand, you have private needs which seek fast solutions and, on the other hand, public money, you cannot come together 100%. We will do our best and we will try, but I just want to say that in some areas it is simply the logic of the work which does not fit 100%.
We have a major success with the framework programme which we are putting on the table. However, the framework programme is only the foundation on which we have to build. We have to go beyond that. That is why I want to launch the debate on the European research area immediately. I have three major reasons for that. Firstly, the area was launched in the same year as the Lisbon Agenda. That may be a coincidence, but I do not think so, because the European research area is the main part of Lisbon thinking.
Secondly, in 2009 we shall be embarking on a new Financial Perspective debate. It will be more than a new Financial Perspective debate, it will be a debate about how the future Europe should look. We should come into this debate with strong potential and only if we truly have a debate about European research area behind us will we be strong enough to show clearly that all the messages I have heard today are the right ones. Also, the others will understand them.
Thirdly, when we talk about constitutional, institutional changes, we must be present at that debate. This debate will come alive soon and in this respect it is also important how the European research area and European research cooperation will be treated in future. Those are enough good reasons when we will be dealing with international cooperation, funding, infrastructure facilities and
questions which concern what we have done up to now and how we can improve in the future.
When we talk about the famous 3% that we all have in mind, let us be clear that we have two major challenges. One challenge is coming from the developed countries. Here we are lagging behind in yearly funding for science and research. When we talk about the developing countries, it is not money that is the problem, but the pace, because they are making rapid progress. Those are the two challenges we have to face. When we talk about 3%, we have to be clear that its composition is twofold: public financing and private financing. In a way, since we can make decisions directly, it is easier to handle public financing. However, it is not always easy to come to the figures like in FP7 we were like to, but still it is in direct political control. But when we talk about private financing, which normally consists of two-thirds in normal circumstances, we do not have direct control. Here we can either go in through direct activities which are clearly linked to that, such as state aid, tax incentives, intellectual property rights, regulations, standardisation, lead market initiatives, public procurement, risk venture capital, and so on. However, if we are honest, then we have to take into account those things that are connected with competitiveness and the internal market."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples