Outcome of the First Reading of a Proposed Decision Concerning the Seventh Framework Programme for Reseach (2007-2013) (link)

June 22, 2006

Brussels, 21 Jun 2006

Full text of Document 10374/06
Suite of documents 10374/06

I. INTRODUCTION

The rapporteur, Mr. BUZEK (PPE-DE/PL), presented a report containing 317 amendments to the proposal for a Decision, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Turism. In addition, other Members of the Parliament tabled 42 further amendments at the plenary sitting.

II. DEBATE

The joint debate on the Commission proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and the Council concerning the seventh framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) and the proposal for a Council decision concerning nuclear research and training activities took place on the 13th of June at 9.00 am.

Mr. POTOCNICK , representing the Commission, opened the debate by stressing the fact that about two thirds of the amendments proposed by the European Parliament could be accepted by the Commission. Nevertheless there were a number of issues where his institution has a divergent point of view, such as the treatment of space and security, participation of SMEs or mobility within the same country, among others.

He pointed out also that the revision requested by the European Parliament by 2008 would be at a too early stage of the programme's implementation. Furthermore, there is no legal base permitting such review through the codecision procedure. An independent body, the creation of which is proposed by the Commission on the base of Article 171 of the TEC, should perform such a review on 2010

Mr. BUZEK (PPE-DE/PL) presented his report regretting the limited budget allocated to the 7th framework programme. He affirmed his support for the basic outlines of the Commission proposal, which introduced new ideas and instruments, but still represented a continuation of the 6th framework programme for many issues.

He identified the following priorities for the EP:

  • Excellence of programs chosen - taking programs to different countries.
  • Need to train scientists in Europe.
  • Promote research by small and medium enterprises.
  • Technology innovation.
  • Energy and health.
Even though the EP amendments have been greatly reduced, a large number of compromise amendments have been proposed. They refer to the following issues such as Budget, research on embryos, the European Research Council (ERC) (which should be totally independent), participation of SMES in research activities, promotion of scientific activities in Europe avoiding the emigration of researchers to other countries, treatment of security and space.

The 7th framework programme is an important instrument for the implementation of the Lisbon strategy.

Last, he expressed his wish that the 7th programme should apply from the first of January 2007.

Members of the European Parliament speaking on behalf of different parliamentary committees expressed the following view:

  • Ms. XENOGIANNAKOPOULOU (PSE-GR), from the BUDGETS committee, indicated that even though the budged allocated to the 7th programme could not be considered enough, it should be taken into account that it has been increased in some areas such as participation and energy.

  • Mr. SMITH (Verts/ALE-UK), from the REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT committee expressed the view that the development perspective of research should be reinforced.

  • Mr. BERMAN (PSE-NL) , from the AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT committee pleaded in favour or an extension of the results of research to the countries belonging to the 3rd world, and considered that economic research should be a chapter in itself.

  • Ms. MIGUELEZ RAMOS (PSE-ES) from the FISHERIES committee considered that the budget for fisheries was not enough

  • Members of the - LEGAL AFFAIRES committee expressed opposing points of view. Mr. SAKALAS (PSE-LT) expressed his support for embryo research for therapeutic purposes, but was contradicted by Ms. BREYER (VERTS/ALE-DE) who underlined that the JURI committee had refused the financing of such research by the EU.

  • Ms. THOMSEN (PSE-DK), from the WOMAN'S RIGHTS AND GENDER EQUALITY committee stressed the need to promote the involvement of women in research, a field where they are underrepresented.

[...]

[Public Info Net automatically generates links to Council Register documents where an appropriately formatted document number is given. However, the document may not be available for public use and/or it may not be loaded on the Council Register yet.]

Council Register

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments