Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-14-Speech-2-041"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020514.4.2-041"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, second reading by the European Parliament is a crucial stage in the adoption of the framework programme under the co-decision procedure. I would like to stress that, during this procedure, cooperation between the three institutions was particularly productive. I would like to thank Parliament and the Council for their commitment. In particular, I would like to give sincere thanks not only to the rapporteur, Mr Caudron, but also to the shadow rapporteurs, Mr van Velzen, Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel, Mr Piétrasanta and Mr Alyssandrakis, as well as the chairman of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, Mr Westendorp and all the members of this committee and those who contributed to this process. I would also like to pay tribute to the Spanish Presidency and to Minister Marimon Suñol for the extremely efficient way in which they handled this important and delicate stage of the adoption process. I would also like to reiterate the importance of the swift adoption of the framework programme and its launch in January 2003 for Europe’s researchers and its scientific community. On behalf of the Commission, I can approve all the compromise amendments adopted by the Committee on Industry. The rapporteur, Mr Caudron, explained to you the main areas where compromise amendments were proposed by the Committee on Industry and the way in which the Council indicated that it could take them into account, following a series of informal three-way meetings.
It is nonetheless necessary to clarify the conditions in which research undertaken in the fields of science and technologies of the living being might be carried out within the specific framework of Community programmes. In order to do this, and I think that this is an important step, the Commission has included the following statement in the Council’s Minutes: ‘In accordance with the opinion of the European Parliament concerning the proposal on the Sixth Framework Programme and taking into account the opinion of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies, the Commission believes that research in the following areas must not be financed by the framework programme: research activity aiming at human cloning for reproductive purposes, research activity resulting in the modification of the genetic heritage of human beings, which could make such changes hereditary, research activity to create embryos solely for research purposes or to supply stem cells, including somatic cell nuclear transfer.’ Of course, there is also the question of animal experiments, which must be replaced by alternative methods as far as possible, bearing in mind that the suffering of animals must be avoided or kept to an absolute minimum.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, within a very short space of time, thanks to exemplary collaboration – and I once again extend my heartfelt thanks to all those who played a part in this – we have made considerable progress. Once the vote has been confirmed by the House, which I hope it will be, and once consensus has been achieved, we will still have some work to do. The decision on the framework programme is only the first component of a mechanism which also comprises the rules for participation, which were also adopted under the co-decision procedure, as well as the specific programmes. In order for Parliament and the Council to adopt the framework programme and its instruments for implementation in June, in accordance with the objectives that we have in mind, the three institutions must continue the close collaboration that was successfully engaged at the beginning of the procedure. We worked very closely and in a very productive manner with the rapporteur for the rules on participation, namely Mrs Quisthoudt-Rowohl, as well as with the rapporteurs for the specific programmes, Mr van Velzen, Mr Alyssandrakis, Mr Piétrasanta, Mr Schwaiger and Mrs Zorba. We must continue with these efforts. The Commission certainly intends to continue to do everything in its power to encourage inter-institutional dialogue.
For the first time in the history of Community research, we are in a position to adopt the framework programme in a timely fashion, rather than at the very last minute, so that it can be launched and implemented in the best possible conditions. We must seize this opportunity and we must give ourselves the means to take full advantage of this possibility. This is what both researchers and European citizens will thank us for.
Today, I shall simply expand slightly on each of these points, and where necessary, give you some details which you do not yet have.
The first point is the technical amendments which were adopted en bloc by the Committee on Industry on 23 April, and which are to be incorporated in the specific programmes. The Commission undertakes to incorporate them in the specific programmes subject to the following statement being included in the Council’s Minutes: ‘The Commission considers that the content of the amendments voted ‘en bloc’ by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy on 23 April 2002 in relation to the second reading of the Sixth Framework Programme, is broadly acceptable and can, subject to the appropriate editorial changes, be incorporated into the specific programme decisions implementing the Sixth Framework Programme and, as appropriate, in the Rules for Participation of Undertakings, research centres and universities for the implementation of the Framework Programme’. The Council intends to make a statement along the same lines.
My second point relates to the issue of instruments for the implementation and participation of SMEs. The formula agreed by the three institutions emphasises the need to ensure a smooth transition from the current framework programmes to the new one, taking into account Parliament’s concerns. It is also clearly stated that special measures will be taken to stimulate and facilitate the participation of small- and medium-sized businesses as well as that of research bodies of the candidate countries in the measures undertaken in the priority thematic areas.
The next point relates to health. In line with Parliament’s wishes, the aspects of research on health were both strengthened and better identified, particularly as far as the European dimension of research and the communication of the results of this research to patients. This is particularly the case for cancer research, which, as has been explained, is now the subject of a specific measure, which has been granted considerable resources.
Electronic networks for research is an additional point. Parliament expressed its concern to see activities carried out on this theme within the framework of infrastructure support activities, which would be implemented in conjunction with those carried out in the priority thematic areas concerned. In order to clear up any ambiguity on this point, it was agreed at the trialogue that the Commission would include the following statement in the Council’s Minutes: ‘The Commission states that the resources allocated to the activities on high speed electronic networks, notably GEANT and GRID – an amount of up to EUR 300 million, comprising up to EUR 100 million in Thematic Priority 2 “Information Society Technologies” and up to EUR 200 million in “Research infrastructures” – will be managed in an integrated way.’
Moving onto the budget, the sense of responsibility with which the three institutions treated this subject can also be seen by the swift agreement which was reached on the overall amount. However, significant concessions were made regarding budgetary allocation, in the direction that Parliament wanted. In addition to the increase of resources granted to health research, I feel that the increase for specific aspects of international cooperation, as well as the science/society theme, correctly reflect the attention that Parliament devotes to these issues.
As far as international cooperation is concerned and in line with Parliament’s wishes, additional emphasis was placed on the specific measures to support international cooperation with the developing countries, the Mediterranean countries, Russia and the new independent states. The various methods of support for international cooperation in the framework programme have also been clarified.
My final point concerns ethical considerations. This is such an incredibly sensitive issue. As you know, it was very difficult to find a solution on this point which reconciles both the wishes and the limitations of the three institutions. I reiterate that, in no way, of course, do I wish to introduce harmonisation of rules for ethics at European level. The Commission simply wishes to push forward European research, whilst respecting the prerogatives of each Member State and their parliament. There is no surprise there, in an area which is highly characterised by cultural and philosophical diversity and where the approach has always been and will always be the respect for opinion, values and sensitivities, within the boundaries of universally acknowledged principles."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples