Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-02-24-Speech-4-009"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050224.3.4-009"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I would like to thank you, and in particular the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, for this opportunity to discuss in plenary the issue of doubling the research budget.
The last confirmation came in the proposal of the Lisbon mid-term review. It spells out clearly the importance of investment in research and development. On behalf of the European Commission, I can therefore confirm not only our strong commitment to research, but also that we will do everything to achieve the doubling of the research budget.
Second, does this doubling take account of the programme's duration, inflation, enlargement and the need to support new actions? I am very grateful for these questions. It is good that we clarify these fully justified issues. FP7 will be the principal financial tool for realising the ambitious objective of driving productivity growth and ensuring competitiveness through knowledge. When I speak about the doubling of funds I am talking about doubling the budget of FP7. This figure does not include related Community programmes such as Mr Gunther Verheugen's programme for competitiveness and innovation.
Our proposal will not simply be a doubling of the initial FP6 budget. It will be built on the basis of the yearly amount to be spent on research during the period 2007-2013 compared to the yearly estimated amount for FP6, and revised following accession. This means doubling on a yearly basis regardless of the duration of FP7. Moreover, in the Financial Perspectives these amounts will be adjusted for inflation according to our general calculation methods.
Enlargement is one particular issue. In the area of research, enlargement was a reality long before the Accession Treaty was signed. The current candidate countries also participate in the Framework Programme. I could, therefore, answer this question by saying that it is true that enlargement has been taken into account, but I would have to add immediately that it is not only in the budgetary figures that enlargement needs to be taken into account.
I want this programme to be built on excellence, because I know this is also a strength of the new Member States. However in addition, I want this programme to be an enabling one that allows the use of the full research potential in the new Member States and creates an active and effective link with the Structural Funds. Additional new areas of research are included and are part of the justification for doubling the funds.
Thirdly, will the FP7 proposal cover basic research, space research and security research? To be brief, our FP7 proposal will be all inclusive, i.e. there will be no mechanisms outside the framework programme. Let me make an important addition here. Parliament has highlighted that the complementary objectives of continued reinforcement of existing EU research support, on the one hand, and of support to new areas of research that are of interest to the EU, on the other, require adequate funding.
In other words, it would not be possible to strengthen existing activities in an efficient way and, at the same time, introduce widely supported new activities, such as the European Research Council and technology initiatives, if the research budget was not doubled. Doubling will enable us to take a decisive step forward in our overall research policy and in continuing support for the European Research Area. Agreement on the substance of future research activities necessarily implies agreement on adequate funding for these activities.
Fourthly, how will the Commission try to influence the debate on the Financial Perspectives to achieve the doubling of research funds? In order to underpin the debate on the Financial Perspectives, the Commission will present its proposal for FP7 on 6 April. This will help Parliament to give its preliminary reactions to the Council that your rapporteur, Mr Borg is planning to present during the May part-session. It will also allow the ministries for research and science to have an initial discussion at the Competitiveness Council on 18 April. The Commission proposal will provide sound justification for doubling the budget for FP7, based on a detailed and thorough assessment of the impact of the research and development instruments on investment in growth and jobs.
I will list the two main reasons for doubling the funding. The first – and, for me, the most important set of reasons – is the need for the European Union to be credible in delivering the renewed Lisbon Agenda on growth and jobs. This includes the need to deliver results on the 3% GDP target for research and development that was mutually agreed in Barcelona. Doubling the funding is one of the crucial steps towards a more growth-oriented European Union budget.
The second set of reasons is more specific to research and development spending. Firstly, we need high public spending on research and development because it is an important source of R[amp]D investment and for its strong leverage effect on private investments in research and development in the future.
I start by saying how happy I am that Mrs Locatelli's report on the future of European research received almost unanimous support from the ITRE committee on Monday. This report, which I understand will be voted on in the March part-session, gives us an excellent grounding in preparing the formal Commission proposal for the new framework programme. I would particularly like to thank two members of the committee, Mr Chichester and Mrs Locatelli.
Secondly, we need more R[amp]D funding at EU level because of the strong added value of European research funding through the critical mass of resources, sharing of knowledge and facilities, strengthening excellence through close cooperation, competition at European level, the coordination of national activities and support for European Union policies.
Let me add to that the fact that we are currently rejecting an unacceptable number of excellent proposals purely because of the lack of financial resources. In addition, there is the need and willingness to fund new category and activity initiatives which demonstrate high value added impact at EU level without, however, endangering existing ones. Finally, we should not forget the very simple fact that the costs of research itself are also growing.
Your fifth question was whether the duration of FP7 should be synchronised with the Financial Perspectives to ensure a better coordination of planning activities?
Reaching the goals that I have described will require a long-term view and commitment. That is why the Commission will propose that the duration of FP7 should be the same overall as the next Financial Perspective for 2007-13. We should take stock mid-way through the programme to ensure that FP7 continues to respond to the needs faced by the European economy and citizens. By doing so we will introduce more stability on the one hand, and more flexibility on the other. Both factors are needed.
I should also like to take this opportunity to underline the exemplary execution rates in the research budget. The current execution rates are close to 100%. We have proved in the past that we can effectively manage constantly increased FP budgets. We are aware that the challenge to managing the doubling of the funds is demanding, but we are determined to provide proper answers. Simplification and rationalisation of procedures are greatly needed. Administration and modernised management, including externalisation, will provide answers to this challenge.
The proposals in the field of research are at the core of the delivery of the new Lisbon Agenda. That is the only way we can succeed. The time for delivery is now. Building a knowledge society is probably the best, and perhaps only, way to sustain the European social model without having to make a trade-off between economic growth, social cohesion and environmental protection. The first and foremost policy priority for the Union is thus to strongly support the three sides of the knowledge triangle – research, education and innovation – and to ensure that the triangle operates in the most favourable framework conditions.
The change in the structure of the European budget in favour of more growth and competitive oriented expenses in the direction proposed by the Commission is thus crucial. This structural change to the European budget should also be followed by the Member States in their budgets. The doubling of funds in the European budget should not be seen as compensation for the reduction of Member States' efforts. On the contrary, it should be an example followed by the Member States. Their effort is necessary. If we do not make the effort now, we will have to make it later; but it will be more difficult later and it could even be too late.
I intend to do my best to achieve the vision I have described because I believe it is the right one. We can bring it to life by working together. That is why I ask for your support. I trust that I will receive it, for the sake of the European model of life and for the sake of Europe's future.
Allow me first to underline that today's discussion is not just important for research. It is a debate about nothing less than our credibility to reach the Lisbon objectives, and is a crucial debate for both our institutions only a few weeks before Europe hopefully agrees on the financial means for the next decade.
The discussion about the new Financial Perspectives is a moment of truth and the question of sufficient funding for European research is an essential part of it. This is because research is about knowledge, and knowledge is truly a European strength in global competition. Let me explain.
Some of our trading partners are competing with primary resources, which we do not have. Some compete with cheap labour, which we do not want. Some compete on the back of the environment, which we cannot accept. The only way for European enterprise to build sustainable leadership is to exploit the knowledge triangle fully: the creation, transmission and use of knowledge through research, education, training and of course innovation.
My strong conviction is that European enterprises will only achieve competitiveness and leadership on global markets if we rapidly put Europe in the lead as an economy and as a knowledge society. We are strong in knowledge, but we can become even stronger if we pool our efforts in an intelligent way; if we give full emphasis to excellence; and if we use the full research potential throughout the EU – old, new and future. This is what I want the next research programme to stand for.
Knowledge does not only mean more competitive businesses. It also brings continuous progress to society: progress in fields such as health; preservation of the environment; and sustainable energy supply. All of these rest largely on the progress of knowledge. In view of this, the questions you raised are indeed the right ones.
First, will the Commission fight for the doubling of the research budget? The answer is yes. In February 2004, when launching the debate on policy challenges and budgetary means of the enlarged Union, the Commission emphasised the role research will play in building our common future and consequently proposed the doubling of the budget.
This was reaffirmed in the Commission's communication on the Financial Perspectives last July and President Barroso confirmed the approach to this House last December, when he endorsed the Financial Perspective that had been proposed by the Prodi Commission."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples