Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-30-Speech-3-029"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010530.4.3-029"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Thank you, Mr Caudron. Naturally, all these questions would benefit from a lengthy discussion, but I would like to attempt to provide you with some initial answers, in the telegraphic style that we are using today. With regard to the programme for monitoring priorities, this applies as much to the Council as to Parliament because the Framework Programme is subject to the co-decision procedure, and the obvious advantage of having a specific programme covering all the priorities is the single committee, which is a committee that can be sub-divided, if you like, according to different areas of interest. I think that, in the discussion, the problem is not necessarily the number but is rather being able to hold an in-depth debate on a specific number of priorities. I think, therefore, that we can discuss working arrangements and the way the programme will be applied to see how we can deal with this objection.
To take the problem of new instruments versus old instruments, we have to be clear on this point. We believe that the new Framework Programme must be the cornerstone for the creation of Brussels’ European Research Area. Assessments that have been carried out on previous programmes show that they can be useful, because they enable contacts to be made at European level, but that they do not provide enough structure. This is quite clear and that is why we need new instruments. I understand the concerns felt every time the word ‘new’ is mentioned. It is difficult to adapt to change and this is to be expected. This reaction is, therefore, extremely understandable and I sympathise with some of the concerns, hence the need to explain things carefully. I would, however, like to say that calls for proposals are still applicable in the so-called Category 8, which brings together support for policies with emerging policies. So, over EUR 1.6 billion is available for the calls for proposals in the original meaning of the word. The proposal is, therefore, understood.
As for the general budget, in my opinion, I think that although it appears to have a degree of approval from the Council, I believe I am right in saying that the Swedish Presidency proposes to hold an initial informal discussion on the budget at the Research Council on 26 June. I hope that our proposal will be adopted. This is a sensible proposal, which is also part of the financial perspectives that were drawn up in Berlin on the various policies of the Commission. I believe, therefore, that this could be done.
My last point relates to the Joint Research Centre. As you are aware, we have made an effort to focus the tasks of the Joint Research Centre on areas to which it is best suited. In other words, tasks involving joint monitoring, joint tests and scientific expertise in problems relating to the environment, health, some aspects of the nuclear industry and security in terms of the information society. These are useful tools, and, of course, we have a programme for the Joint Research Centre, which, in budgetary terms, is, admittedly, unlikely to increase, but which allows the role of the Joint Research Centre to be more targeted. I believe, therefore, that the Centre will always have a future provided that it is given tasks, which will be of benefit to the whole of the European Union."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples