Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-03-Speech-3-137"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991103.9.3-137"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is actually very simple to write a report like this, because it consists of precisely one sentence: it recommends that Parliament should vote for the report. It also recommends that this decision should be forwarded to the Council and Commission. So I could just sit back and stop talking now, after just 20 seconds. On the other hand, it is certainly worth asking why we need this agreement right now. We all know from experience that cooperation with Russia, with Russian researchers, has constantly improved and increased in recent years, both in terms of the number of researchers and as regards budget lines. However, cooperation has been spread over a number of different programmes, including, and this is just one example, the INTAS programme – the International Association for the Promotion of Cooperation with Scientists from the new Independent States of the former Soviet Union.
A few years ago I was rapporteur for the INTAS programme, and I must say that for me it was an excellent example of how it was possible to build up a cooperation network despite adverse technical conditions and despite poor infrastructure. Besides that, it was also a very good example – I am mentioning this to you, Commissioner, in case you were not yet involved in those days – of how researchers can take research policy into their own hands, which did not always best please the Commission officials at the time!
Nevertheless, I believe that the experiment as it was carried out at that time was worthwhile. We now have the EUREKA and COST programmes and the ISTC in Moscow, for example, and we need to provide a more formal framework for all this cooperation; that is also the point of this agreement. We will also make sure that the agreement is actually implemented in accordance with the principles set out in Article 3. It must be of mutual benefit. This is not about development policy, it is about cooperation in the field of research. There must be a timely exchange of information, of all information which may affect cooperative activities. There must be a balanced realisation of economic and social benefits by the Community and the Russian Federation.
Although we now have this improved structural framework, we still need to emphasise several points. For one thing, in my conclusions, I have accepted the proposal from the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities. We have assumed that the need to increase the involvement of women in the projects financed will actually be taken into account, although it has to be said that Russia is not exactly at the bottom of the class in this area.
Secondly, we recognise the need to increase private sector involvement in the drawing up and implementation of programmes, and also the need to aim for closer cooperation between the relevant parliamentary committees of the parties to the agreement. There is sometimes a lack of concrete political dialogue. We could also perhaps use modern means of communication somewhat more, so as to reduce travel costs and allow rapid ad hoc contacts.
As a Parliament we would like to stress that we expect the Commission to provide us with an overview of all cooperation activities between the European Union and Russia in the field of research and technological development. We have already asked many specific questions, and we are now awaiting detailed answers. Cooperation on nuclear matters is excluded from this agreement, and I consider that to be quite right and proper. We would, however, like to mention here that these matters have been the subject of separate EURATOM negotiations, and that we are also expecting clear and unambiguous information from the Commission about these, as was indeed promised to us.
I do not think this is the right place to use rejection of a research agreement as a means of signalling to Russia that we expect concrete and rapid efforts to achieve a peaceful solution in Chechnya. There are other political means of achieving that. Nevertheless, I have to agree with Mr Brok: it can never feel so painful as it does now to vote for an agreement, even if rationally we fully support the objectives behind it! So I really am in two minds, and I would just like to cautiously mention that."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples