Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-25-Speech-2-372"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070925.34.2-372"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I am happy to be here tonight to take a very important step with not only your approval but your engagement in proposing and establishing a European Institute of Technology (EIT).
Third, the participation of third countries: we fully agree with the principle of facilitating third countries’ participation in the EIT – this is one of the very important conditions. However, it has to come along with the principle of preference for EU Member States. The EIT is and should remain a European-driven initiative.
Fourth, the participation of the EIT and KICs in the Community programmes: there should not be a shadow of doubt on this. The EIT itself will not seek to participate in Community programmes, nor will its administrative costs be funded by them. The KICs, on the other hand, will be entitled to bid for funds but in no way benefit from privileged access – no preferential treatment. To make this crystal clear, I believe that the right approach would be for the institutions to agree on a political declaration to this effect to be annexed to the proposal.
The financing of the EIT is now the key outstanding issue. You know that last week the Commission adopted a proposal for a revision of the multiannual financial framework to accommodate the needs of both Galileo and the EIT. I hope that this will provide a solid basis for discussions and an agreement by the budgetary authority before the end of this year. This was requested by the European Council in June.
I am looking forward to the discussion.
As you all know, much progress has been made over the last month on this important proposal as a result of joint efforts. I would like in particular to thank Mr Paasilinna, the rapporteur on this issue; the Chairwoman of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, Ms Niebler; Ms Hennicot-Schoepges from the Committee on Culture and Education; and also Mr Böge from the Committee on Budgets, for their relentless efforts and very valuable contributions. Without these contributions we would never have achieved our current status and possible outcome.
The report adopted by the Industry Committee and the text of the general approach adopted by the Council clearly go in the same direction. I think this is very important. It undoubtedly makes it easier to move towards a compromise text. The EIT will provide an environment whereby partners from business, research and academia who are excellent in their respective fields can work together and spur their innovation potential.
We have agreed that the EIT should develop gradually. Two to three Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) will be set up in a so-called start-up phase. Further KICs will then be developed in the second phase, subject to the evaluation of the EIT and KICs’ activities. Long-term strategic activities or policy guidance will be provided by Parliament and the Council through the adoption of a strategic innovation agenda.
Your Parliament report contains useful amendments that clearly enrich the proposal and I thank you for them. By way of example, I welcome the proposal to report to the European Parliament and the Council on the selection process for board members, to ensure that this is done transparently. There is also a proposal to amend the name of the EIT to the ‘European Institute of Innovation and Technology’ but to keep its well-established brand ‘EIT’.
I also welcome those amendments aimed at streamlining the EIT’s financial management in clarifying that the procedure laid down in point 47 of the interinstitutional agreement applies to this setting-up.
The Commission can also support very many of your amendments, either as drafted or in spirit, where we need to adapt the wording. However, we have concerns with some of your amendments suggested by the Industry Committee. I will focus on four main issues.
Firstly, the education aspects. We need to be careful to avoid watering down the education dimension of the EIT, which is a cornerstone and one of the most innovative features of the proposal. We share Parliament’s views that the mobility of researchers and the mobility of students will be instrumental and should therefore be highlighted. But I strongly believe that the wording on degrees and diplomas should remain untouched.
Second, the presentation of the EIT has been established on a pilot-phase basis. I think we all agree that the EIT should develop progressively and be subject to continuous evaluation. However, there should be no doubt as to the long-term vision and commitment of the European Union regarding this initiative. Uncertainty about this point – and especially at the beginning – will threaten the viability of the project altogether."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples