Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-06-13-Speech-2-079"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060613.6.2-079"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I should like to answer succinctly as many as possible of the concerns and issues raised. Firstly, on behalf of the Commission and personally, I should like to thank all the Members for their cooperation and support, for which I am very grateful. The number of speeches made this morning clearly proves that much attention has been devoted to the issues concerned and sends a clear signal as to the importance of European research to the future of Europe and to our lives and economies.
I should say that we are aware of the differences that exist between different countries as regards what we are discussing today. This is not really a discussion about moral issues, but on whether we can establish a system at European level that strikes a balance between the very different national practices, bearing in mind ethical considerations. I truly believe that the Commission’s proposal is going in the right direction.
The European Research Council represents a major change of mindset in Europe. That is why we should all be proud of what we are delivering. I want to try to convey to you how seriously I am taking this. Last weekend Professor Kafatos and I were in the United States and met the presidents of the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Health. I wanted him to be clearly visible on stage and for him to be seen as someone with whom they should correspond and cooperate in the future.
I fully agree that the Cohesion Fund and the Framework Programme on Competitiveness and Innovation should be used hand in hand. Therefore, I fully agree with the inclusion of the concerns of the less-developed regions. We have to improve capacities there. We have to do everything in terms of infrastructure so that they can compete as regards excellence, and we need this excellence because we are in a global race. It is crucial that we understand that.
Fisheries will be a cross-cutting issue on which special attention should be focused, and the Commission has clearly underlined that.
Women are genuinely under-represented and we are trying to do our best to change that.
Technology platforms have vast potential. They have developed from research actions but have already outgrown that purpose and have a role to play as regards lead markets and the European Institute of Technology, etc. They will be a crucial factor.
As regards simplification, this was one of the most difficult tasks I have ever undertaken, but we are pushing ahead as hard as possible on this.
In reply to the question from Mr van Nistelrooij about the mid-term review of the structural funds, I cannot commit myself because this is not in my area. However, it is a proposal in which I have an interest and I see it as a logical proposal which is going in the right direction.
As regards the point on education, we are trying to pay special attention to universities because we believe that they could do more than they are doing now and that sometimes we are not too benevolent towards them.
In conclusion, time truly matters, as some of you have underlined. It is crucial that we deliver the programme on time, so that the implementation rates in 2007 are as high as in the past. That is very important because it is a political affirmation of research and development that would strengthen our hand in future debates, which also link into budgetary issues. We want to go beyond the framework programme and into the European research area. There has been a switch of direction in Europe since the Second World War to a knowledge-based economy. Also, the rules for participation should be addressed very carefully because they are part of this timing issue and we should consider them carefully.
I shall start with the budget and budgetary structure. The difference between the budgets that Parliament and the Council are proposing is now 2%, which is a very minor difference. I believe that we have a common understanding and that agreement on this point should be relatively easy.
The Commission is willing to be flexible and constructive in this trialogue, and wants to make a success of our common endeavours.
Finally, I agree with those of you who feel that the budget should be higher, but at this moment the best thing is to focus on the delivery. If we focus on delivery we can prove that we need more financing in the future and that we can change European reality.
I would like to point out that one must be careful when comparing the Sixth and Seventh Framework Programmes, as these are structured differently and are sometimes difficult to compare. For example, in current prices, there is a 60% increase for actions under FP7, against one of 30% for the old continuity actions. Therefore, an increase of over 30% for certain continuity actions means that we are actually making these clear priorities.
Twenty-five per cent of the actions are new, and approximately 75% of the actions are continuity actions. As regards thematic priorities, we must understand that these will also be addressed by the European Research Council, either now or in the future, but of course we do not know in advance what the structure of those thematic areas will be.
Turning to small and medium-sized enterprises, I honestly have nothing against 15%, but believe that this must come about through political change. That is why I advocate simplification and why I believe that the 15% or 25% additional funding we are offering to small and medium-sized enterprises should result in changes. That is why we must pay attention to their needs, particularly in the work programmes.
Concerning energy, it is clear – as a number of you quite rightly pointed out – that this is one of the major challenges we must address in the future. We all agree on this. However, the Commission’s opinion is that the challenge is simply too serious for us to leave any potential area out of the research – from renewables to hydrogen fuel cells, clean coal, nuclear energy, smart networks and more efficient use of energy, etc.
This a truly important issue, and on the subject of environmental challenges such as climate change, I would say that these are more serious than we are sometimes ready to admit. Practically all our efforts in the field of research should move in a direction that makes our lives easier in the future. If we continue in the current direction we will be faced with some very serious challenges.
I would like to make a few remarks regarding embryonic stem cell research and the European Research Council, which I talked about in my introduction. As regards embryonic stem cell research, if you ask any top scientist about this – as I have done recently – they will tell you that the right approach to addressing major health issues is through a combination of efforts from different sources and origins. That is their clear answer.
I was asked a question on the Eurobarometer on biotechnology. As you know, the Commission regularly conducts Eurobarometer public opinion surveys on issues relating to biotechnology. The 2006 version is currently being finalised and should be available in the next ten days. However, since the question put was a clear one, I can tell you that, as regards the views on embryonic stem cell research across Europe, 55% of the population surveyed approved of this provided there was the usual government regulation or tighter regulation. Seventeen percent did not approve, except under very special circumstances. Only 9% did not approve under any circumstances, and 15% did not know. So, if one were to draw a line, 50% would approve this with tighter regulation, 25% would oppose it, some would allow it under very special circumstances, and 15% do not know. By the way, this is in line with the study published last year on social values as regards science and technology. This study found that over 90% of European citizens believe that medicines and new medical technologies will have a positive effect on our way of life over the next 20 years."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples