Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-14-Speech-3-049"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011114.2.3-049"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members, we have reached a critical point in the process of adopting our new framework programme on Research. The European Parliament’s opinion at first reading does indeed constitute a milestone along our way.
The arrangement also allows for Parliament to closely monitor the implementation. Each of the eight priorities will in fact have a separate budgetary line on which Parliament will be able to exercise its budgetary control.
With regard to the scientific and technological content, most of the amendments, namely Amendment Nos 30 to 294, relate to the scientific content. We wish to signal our agreement with a series of suggestions by Parliament concerning priority numbers 2 ‘Information society technologies’, 3 ‘Nanotechnologies’, 4 ‘Aeronautics’, and 7 ‘Citizens in the European knowledge-based society’. We have in mind for instance Mrs Schroeder’s amendments concerning respect for privacy in the field of information technologies, and also the Committee on Employment’s amendments on research to support the Lisbon objectives.
Most notably, the Commission agrees to reorganise the content of priorities 1 ‘Genomics and health’, 5 ‘Food safety’, and 6 ‘Sustainable development’, along the lines suggested by Parliament.
As regards priority 1, namely broadening the scope to include the study of the genomes of all living organisms and strengthening the elements of medical research, particularly regarding cancer, in two separate sections along the lines suggested by Mr van Velzen and particularly in the spirit of Mrs Gutiérrez-Cortines’ and Mr Caudron’s amendments, we can accept all that is involved.
I should also like to respond to Mrs Sandbaek’s comments on poverty-related diseases and immunisation against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Clearly, provision has already been made for this, as Mrs McNally pointed out. Such provision is within the framework of international policy, and the technological platform for AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis is exactly in line with the spirit of Mrs Sandbaek’s question. That question had indeed already been dealt with.
I would like to add my voice to those who have congratulated Mr Caudron, the rapporteur. I should like to say to him in all sincerity that the quality of the report and the spirit with which he has imbued it, the energy and the work he has put in are all exemplary in the context of such a difficult task. As Mrs Quisthoudt-Rowohl pointed out, it was a complex task but Mr Caudron brought it to a successful conclusion and I would particularly like to thank him for that.
I also wanted to emphasise that this work was the product of a joint effort and the shadow rapporteurs from other groups were involved in this. I shall not name individuals but I am sure you are all aware of those who have made a constructive contribution to the task in hand over the last few months, as I mentioned earlier. I have in mind also, of course, the rapporteurs of the various committees and obviously, the ITER Committee as a whole, and its Secretariat. They were also involved in the work.
I do believe that what we have before us is a high quality joint endeavour.
In this connection, you will be aware that a number of amendments have been tabled. I shall not attempt to outline the Commission’s position on each individual one because I would need the floor for two hours. You will find the relevant information in an exhaustive table to be lodged with Parliament’s clerk immediately.
Generally speaking, I should like to emphasise that the Commission has widely supported the opinions of the ITER Committee. It is a statistical operation and could perhaps be queried. In fact, however, out of the 334 amendments the Commission has accepted 248 as they stand, in part or in principle. That equates to three-quarters. You will be able to study the explanations given for each amendment, and the reasons why others cannot be accepted. This can be because they are already there in the proposal. It is important to be aware of that.
I would therefore simply like to present to you the Commission’s positions on major issues as defined in the context of the amendments adopted by the ITER.
I shall refer to the structure of the framework programme, its scientific and technological content, the instruments for its implementation, the overall budget and its distribution, and the ethical issue. In conclusion, I shall say a few words on the management of the programme, because, as we have emphasised, this is clearly the key issue.
As regards the structure of the framework programme as a whole, the Commission shares Parliament’s views as expressed in Amendment No 36 tabled originally by Mr van Velzen. I am delighted that Parliament and the Commission are of a single mind concerning the concept of a single specific programme for all the main thematic areas. This should result in multidisciplinary coherence and a strategic vision of research in Europe."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples