Doslovný záznam ze zasedání

Úterý, 15. ledna 2013 - Štrasburk

7. Doba vyhrazená pro otázky Komisi

  President. − The next item is Question Time with the Commission. I would like to welcome colleagues and also Commissioners Kroes, Geoghegan-Quinn and Vassiliou. The topic is innovation, research and development, especially in the framework of Horizon 2020.

Just to remind you of the ground rules. Questions are taken exclusively on a catch-the-eye basis. The officials are taking notes of those who wish to take the floor. Members have one minute to put questions, 30 seconds for a supplementary. The Commissioner has two minute to reply if only one Commissioner is speaking. If more than one Commissioner replies, each one has one minute.

Two other points. The Conference of Presidents is discussing on Thursday revisions to the procedures at Question Time to try and make it a little bit fairer. Secondly, Mrs Kroes has notified me that she unavoidably has to leave in the middle of Question Time and I have accepted her explanation for that.

  Christian Ehler (PPE). - Madam Commissioners, thank you for being here in the Parliament. I think we are in a situation where we should raise public awareness in Europe on the question of the research programme and specifically of its importance for jobs and growth. My question is, since we are now in the midst of the discussions in the trialogue on that issue, what is your overall impression on the negotiations with the Council on its willingness to fulfil its own proposals when it says it would like to spend 3% of GNP on research and development issues and would therefore boost the opportunities for jobs and growth in Europe by means of research and really driving Europe towards leadership in research and development, on a worldwide basis as well?

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − I think one of the issues that has been raised again and again in Parliament and in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) in particular is the issue of gender balance. Today you will see that you have three Members of the Commission who are all women here present, and I think that is a big step forward. However, to return to your question, I would have to say in general that, while individual Members of the Council have been very supportive of Horizon 2020 and of the whole area of research and innovation, it being the area from which growth, jobs, sustainability will come in the future, at the same time the discussions on the multiannual financial framework have been disappointing from that point of view.

I can understand that Member States have their own particular priorities and I can understand that the net contributors feel that their biggest priority is to reduce the overall budget, but I would have expected and I think Parliament would have expected that within that reduction people would look at the policy areas that create jobs, that create growth and that give the kind of development potential to the European Union that will enable it to remain a global player in this whole area. So from that point of view, I would have to say that I am disappointed. However, this Parliament has been the key ally of the Commission on the proposal that we have put forward and I would very much like to pay tribute and compliments to the Members of Parliament because they have been steadfast in their support for this policy area – and I know that you will remain steadfast. We honestly depend on and need your support really strongly during his particular debating period.

I think Parliament recognises and has from the very beginning that research and innovation have the potential to release the kind of investments that are required in the European Union but that investors need to understand and to know that there is a stable platform right into the future where they can invest and they know they will get a return on that investment and that the European Commission and the European Union will support that. Thank you for your support and we really need that support to continue.

  Judith A. Merkies (S&D). - Geachte drie commissarissen, dank voor uw talrijk optreden hier en voor het laten zien van genderevenwicht. Innovatie hoort onze prioriteit te zijn in Europa en toch zien wij dat het anders is. Wij zien dat de begroting gehalveerd dreigt te worden. Wij zien dat er weinig aansluiting is tussen het beleid van de verschillende lidstaten en dat er weinig toezicht is, opdat de regels die wij elke keer weer nieuw uitvinden en nieuw op de markt gooien, werken.

Het gaat vooral om de implementatie. Wij hebben vorige week in Nederland met een nieuwsartikel over energiezuinige auto's gezien dat die energiezuinige auto's helemaal niet zo zuinig zijn als zij lijken, want dat er heel veel wordt getweaked, zeg maar, aan de raampjes, aan de omstandigheden, de temperatuur, waardoor uiteindelijk dat wat de consument wordt voorgeschoteld iets heel anders is dan daadwerkelijk werd bedoeld. Die energiezuinige auto is helemaal niet zo zuinig als hij voorgeeft te zijn. Die regels zijn dus af en toe misleidend, liever gezegd, wij geven daaraan te veel flexibiliteit.

Hoe gaat u ervoor zorgen dat die regels ook goed worden uitgevoerd? Want dat is af en toe veel belangrijker dan nieuwe regels.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I think in relation to each of the elements of Horizon 2020, particularly in the societal challenges, we have laid down very clearly what those challenges are, and we have said within those challenges that there are certain areas that are hugely and vitally of concern to the European Union. Within that, energy will consume – if I can use a pun – a large proportion of the funding, as we have set out in the EUR 80 billion budget proposal.

I think that if one looks at energy security throughout the world as a whole, it is an issue of major concern to governments everywhere. Therefore, I believe that what is being done on the energy side by Commissioner Oettinger, with support from us, is highly important. It is highly visible, and it also is a matter of Member States coming together, coming to the table and realising that in supporting different aspects of energy policy they are going to have to look not just within their own economies, but at the European economy as a whole. That, of course, is the basis on which the funding on energy policy comes under Horizon 2020. It is funding for what is in the best interest, and in the critical interest and strategic interest of the European Union. I expect that, as always, we will have a tremendous discussion in the Council in relation to this.

Also within Horizon 2020, obviously simplification is a crucial issue and one of the issues that has been mentioned again and again in the European Parliament discussions. Therefore, I think that better application of the rules comes with simplification, if we really want to have true simplification. I think that will assist in the kind of issues and challenges that you mentioned.

  Judith A. Merkies (S&D). - Dank u wel commissaris, toch ben ik niet tevreden met uw antwoord. Het gaat mij namelijk helemaal niet zozeer om het energiebeleid, het gaat mij om de vraag hoe u gaat zorgen dat de regels werken. The proof is in the eating. Niet in het maken van de regels, maar in de uitvoering. En die is simpelweg met té veel regels teleurstellend.

In dit geval heb ik alleen maar het voorbeeld "energie" genomen en of het nu gaat om de etikettering van energiezuinige apparaten, energiezuinige auto's, over stillere of energiezuinige autobanden, de consument wordt hier simpelweg misleid. Tussen de lidstaten is te veel verschil en er is te veel vrijheid voor de fabrikanten om de regels zeg maar naar hun eigen hand te zetten. Daar wil ik graag paal en perk aan stellen en hoe gaat u dat doen?

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − I think that it is very important that we engage with industry and with manufacturers. We need to engage with the regulators in the Member States and that obviously will be done by us insofar as it relates to Horizon 2020 and the research policy and by Commissioner Oettinger insofar as it relates to pure energy policy. We are working very closely together to ensure that the implementation of the rules is as simple and as clear as possible so that we do not have this wiggle room as you refer to it.

I also think that standardisation is really important. This is an issue, as you well remember, in innovation union, for example in the flagship, where we talked about faster standard-setting and standardisation in general, working not just within the European Union and not just within the European continent but with other continents and across the Atlantic in particular, to put in place the kind of standards that are necessary.

So I think we have to come at the issue which you raised from several different angles: from our own policy area, from the energy policy area and also from the overall standardisation policy area.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE). - My question is again to Ms Geoghegan-Quinn. No single country can solve the problems of the world on its own. I specifically refer to problems such as climate change, food security and tackling chronic diseases. In this context, Commissioner, what plans does the Commission have under Horizon 2020 to further intensify international cooperation in the fields of research, innovation and science? Linking into this, I would also like to ask: how is the Commission prioritising unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, which we all agree is at catastrophic levels rights across Europe now?

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − International cooperation in the area of research and innovation is absolutely crucial and critical. We cannot as you rightly said solve problems alone whether they are on the health side, the energy side, the food security side – whatever aspect of research and innovation is involved we have to work together. We have to work across borders in Europe and we also have to work with neighbours all around the world.

We have had an international cooperation policy over many years in DG Research but as you know last September we launched our new international cooperation strategy paper. We are looking at having a much better focus on what we do in terms of scope and scale and we are looking also at the flagship initiatives in which we are involved. We have S&T agreements around the world with very many countries as well as individual ones and we are now looking at whether to continue with individual S&T agreements or to more or less concentrate on regional S&T agreements.

Recently, I had the great privilege of visiting South Africa and launching the second phase of one of our flagship initiatives, the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) in the company of Ms Carvalho from the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE). There I saw for myself the difference that relatively small amounts of European funding can make in the townships where they are struggling to cope with finding solutions to HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.

I think we have to be strategic in the way we cooperate. We have to have flagship initiatives like EDCTP in other areas around the world and we also have to remember at all times what the strategic interest of the European Union is. I think there is a huge area of cooperation in which we should be involved. Youth unemployment is not an area in which I am directly involved, but it is an area in which the Commission as a whole is consumed at the moment. Commissioner Andor obviously takes the lead and is putting forward various initiatives. I understand that this is one of the key priorities for the Irish Government during its presidency for the next six months.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE). - Thank you for your reply, Commissioner. Following on from that, as more and more knowledge is created in third countries, what instruments are offered under Horizon 2020 to entice researchers and investors to the European Union? What measurable markers will you put in place to make the Union the most attractive location for carrying out research and innovation and to assess our progress on an ongoing basis in this regard?

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − We need to be able to prove internationally that Europe is a good place to come and work and a good place in which to invest. Horizon 2020 is all about creating the landscape and the architecture to prove to investors and researchers that Europe is a place to come and invest.

For researchers, for example earlier last year I had the great opportunity of meeting about 80 European researchers who are working in the Harvard MIT area of Massachusetts. During this meeting, I asked them where they would like to see themselves in ten years’ time. Each one of them said they would like to see themselves at home and I asked whether this meant their own Member State, and they said that it meant the European Union. I asked what was preventing this from happening, and they said that it was because everything is unclear. Their career profile was unclear. Mobility was difficult. Taking a funding grant with them across borders is impossible so they need us to put in place the kind of landscape that is necessary to encourage them to come back.

That is what Horizon 2020 is doing. That is what it is about and that is what the European Research Area is all about. It is creating that level playing field so that people feel that it is a good place to do business and that they should be here.

The European Research Council is a perfect example of a case in which we have the organisation that is now accepted worldwide as the barometer for excellence. It funds researchers, no matter where they come from, to come and do their research in the European Union. The grants are substantial, and it is a huge badge of honour, not just for the researcher, but indeed, importantly, for the institution within which the researcher operates.

So I think if you look overall at Horizon 2020 and what we are doing in the whole area of research, together with my colleagues, it shows that we are putting in place the kind of climate and the kind of architecture where people feel comfortable to come and invest because they will get a return. They know what the rules are and they know there will be a stable environment into the future. Also for researchers, they know that we are putting in place the kind of environment in which they feel comfortable working.

  Vicky Ford (ECR). - I would like to ask the Commissioner her views on the changes that this Parliament’s committee has made to the allocations of the budget for science and research. I support investment in research. It is critical to drive innovation and growth, and it is also critical to meet society’s biggest challenges. One of those challenges, for example, is food.

Food poverty is not just an issue for developing states, in my own region there are more than double the number of families needing help with food bills than there were a year ago. The Commission’s original proposal was EUR 4.7 billion invested in food research; this Parliament has cut that by 10%. They have also sliced money of health and transport just when our small companies and families are finding the cost of transport unaffordable. I believe many of the changes made by this committee were made to get short-term political headlines without thinking through the long-term impact. What is your view, Commissioner?

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − Ms Ford, first of all, it would be invidious of me to comment on any changes that have been made by this Parliament or indeed by the Council while we are at the beginning of a trialogue. I do not think you would expect me to come down on one side or the other. Let me say that the Commission has put forward a budget proposal and the Commission stands by that budget proposal. The Commission’s officials and myself will fight for that proposal as we go forward in the trialogue. Of course, we are open to discussion, as we always are. We look forward very much to the support of Parliament in those discussions, but that is the basic fundamental position of the Commission. We stand by the proposal that we put forward.

Of course I understand the question of food security and price of food and so on. If one looks at the kind of statistics that are out there – that by 2030 the world will need to produce 50% more food and energy, together with 30% more available fresh water – those figures are frightening. They are figures that dictate that we must concentrate very seriously on policies that can mitigate the kind of challenges that are in front of us. Therefore, for us, when we set down our budget proposal, we were very conscious of these grand societal challenges that are out there. As you say, they are not just challenges in the developing world – they are challenges that are right with us in parts of Europe now.

It is crucial that the kind of proposal that we put forward is supported in a very strong way. I look forward very much to the trialogue discussions with Parliament, and I also look forward to the Council facing up, in the discussions in the trialogue, to these actual challenges that are in front of us now.

  Vicky Ford (ECR). - In advance of our first trialogue meeting, please will you help us by putting some analysis behind what the potential impact will be of the changes that Parliament’s committee has proposed on how science could be funded, and what the impact of those reallocations could be on the research that is happening on the ground in our laboratories and in our businesses.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − Certainly my understanding of any discussions and dialogue in the trialogue will be that each side would have to put forward – well certainly the Commission would have to put forward – the impact that cuts would have in the different areas. I think exactly what you ask for will be something which will be done in the trialogue. I very much look forward to Parliament and the Council engaging in a real way in these discussions.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). - I would like to ask the Commissioner how she can justify the proposed increase in funding in Horizon 2020 for security research. I note that research carried out by a policy department of this Parliament concluded that, in the current framework programme, it is mostly large defence companies that are the main beneficiaries. These large defence companies, of course, are the merchants of death responsible for one-third of the world’s arms trade. The examples of Elbit Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries, which have received tens of millions of euros in European taxpayers’ funds, surely illustrate the point. These are firms involved in the building of the Israeli apartheid wall and involved in supplying the drones and war planes that terrorise the Palestinian people.

How does this funding tally, how does it square, with the rhetoric of the Nobel-Peace-Prize-winning European Union? Would the Commissioner not agree that Elbit Systems and Israel Aerospace Industry should be explicitly excluded from Horizon 2020, and that the armaments industry in general should not receive any taxpayer funding?

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − In times of unprecedented transformations and, indeed, growing global interdependencies, Europe is confronted with major socio-economic challenges which significantly affect Europe’s future. Some of those challenges include the many forms of insecurity, whether it is crime or violence or terrorism or cyber attacks or privacy abuses for example – and indeed other forms of social and economic disorder.

For security in particular, the social sciences and humanities have the appropriate tools, and indeed also have the methods, to contribute to addressing the intricacy of these challenges. That enhances the social dimension of security policy and research. It is important to realise that the areas in which research funding is provided is civilian in nature at all times. That does not mean, however, that funding which is given for the civilian aspects of security may not be used in other ways, but we do not have control over that. What we have control over is the fact that we fund the civilian dimension and aspect of this policy area.

There is huge growing concern now. Vice-President Kroes, who is here, has a particular strategic interest in cyber-security for example, and she may want to add something when I am finished, because this is an area to which we need to pay particular attention. There are a number of significant incidents which have arisen in the Member States that you and I know best in very recent terms which show that this is an area in which we really need to support research and provide funding.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). - I thank the Commissioner for her answer. I have to say that I do not think there is any social dimension whatsoever to the activities of Elbit Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries. The Commissioner might elaborate on the social nature.

I welcome the statement by the Commissioner that the reality is that funding provided for supposedly civilian aims goes to armaments companies and there is nothing to stop that funding, which is is paid for by European taxpayers at this time of austerity, being used for military means at a later stage, and this also applies to the innovations that have been developed. Would the Commissioner not agree that this is part of a process of militarisation of Europe that is ongoing and includes the development of battle groups? And does the fact that the Irish Government is going to coordinate this militarisation process not make a mockery of any semblance of neutrality?

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − I do not know what I can say that will convince you about the funding aspects of the framework programme up to now and what the funding aspects of Horizon 2020 will be other than to repeat once again that we do not engage in the funding of other than the civilian dimension of security. We are very conscious of this and always have been, and we have ethical responses within the directorate-general in relation to this whole area. We are conscious that the funding – the money that comes from the European taxpayers – needs to be used in research and innovations that add to the well-being of the European Union, that provide the kind of growth and innovations and sustainability that is required within the European Union. But we do not have control, which I think you accept, if those innovations or that research is then used in for military purposes. We do not fund military research in any way.

We are very conscious of the sensitivities in relation to the funding of research in Israel. As you know, this Parliament and the Council signed up to a proposal or protocol in relation to what that funding might be. Obviously in the course of the discussion on Horizon 2020 if Parliament and the Council wish to change that in any way, then it will be up to Parliament and the Council to do that, but we do not operate in any way outside what has been agreed and sanctioned by Parliament and the Council in this area. I think that as a Member of Parliament you have a particular role and a particular voice to play when that discussion comes up.

  Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the Commission. − I could not agree more with what Ms Geoghegan-Quinn mentioned in talking about cyber security. It calls for another mindset, so to speak; it is no longer the old-fashioned definition of military activities, rather it is talking about all those actions and activities that are connected with services that are made for our society. I am talking about water services, energy, etc.

I would also take this opportunity, to say that this is connected to what we are discussing this morning. It started with creating jobs and talking about a future economy. The future economy of Europe is connected with research and innovation; otherwise we cannot beat our competitors outside Europe. I can assure you they are alert. I am talking about South Korea, Taiwan, the People’s Republic of China, and what they are spending on research and innovation is nearly double what we are.

Having said that, there is also a connection with the issue of jobs and the younger generation in particular. If we are talking about new areas – for example ICT – where research is being focused, it is new industrial areas where we can play a major role as Europe. I am talking about photonics, nano-electronics, micro-electronics. All of this relates to research and innovation, otherwise we are losing, and we are losing opportunities for the younger generation too. So, please be aware that a different mindset is needed when talking about all those phases we are faced with.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE). - Immediately with three Commissioners, it is so much and so rich. Let me focus on the EIT, the European Institute for Innovation and Technology. We have wonderful researchers. We have great researchers, but a lot of our activities and high-earning capacities are flowing away around the world, and we should keep them here. So the question is: can we step up the EIT not only through those KICs, but also through having more regions and more universities forming regional innovation clusters? I know that you have been hesitating for rather a long time with regard to taking my ideas on board. Can you be precise now? Do we extend? Do we get them on board in the new approach?

  Androulla Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − First of all let me say that it is exactly for this reason that the EIT was created. For many years Europe has been investing quite rightly in research – and we should continue doing that – but in comparison with our competitors from around the world we are lagging behind in innovation. We have excellent research centres, excellent universities and very dynamic businesses, but we do not innovate, we do not produce products and services directly to the market.

This is exactly the purpose of the EIT. I know that you are a great supporter of the EIT, but coming from a less developed part of Europe I fully share your concern that, for the time being, the EIT and its KICs are concentrated more in the core countries of the European Union. Believe me, our purpose – and that is why we have made it one of our three priorities for the future of the EIT – is to extend the knowledge and the benefits that are being acquired from the KICs to the less developed areas of Europe.

I know that one of the amendments put forward by Parliament is the creation of the regional innovation schemes. I support that, but let me be frank: we should try to do this, but not to the detriment of excellence, because EIT is based on excellence and the KICs, in the way they are created, are bottom-up partnerships and unless we have excellence in certain areas we cannot have a full-fledged KIC in that area.

However, at the same time we want to give the chance to experts, in the various regions of Europe, to work together with existing KICs and the EIT in order to transfer this knowledge to the less developed areas and gradually help in building these regional innovation schemes which you are proposing. So I am in favour and we have to discuss the details of these schemes.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE). - Additionally, to both Commissioners now present, the question is that 2014 will soon be here and we have to prepare our new programmes. What I am hearing in the countries is that there is too little enthusiasm for your new approaches. Can you come forward with an intelligent communication strategy in the coming months? 2014 is a new year of programmes and elections, so can you wake up the Member States with a communication?

  Androulla Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − Let me say that we have already started awareness-raising activities in the various Member States, because you are absolutely right: there is ignorance about this. When I speak about the EIT, people do not know what it is all about. That is the only way that we can mobilise the expertise that there is in the various regions, and that is why I am vigorously promoting awareness-raising activities in the various countries.

  Francesco De Angelis (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Signor Commissario, desidero sollevare tre questioni veloci: vorrei sapere se l'attenzione dedicata in Orizzonte 2020 al principio del trasferimento tecnologico quale volano per l'innovazione, sia un punto di partenza o di arrivo per il prossimo periodo di programmazione.

Secondo punto: credo che sia fondamentale per la competitività investire di più e meglio nelle politiche per lo spazio; è importante aderire a programmi di ricerca e bisogna dare concretezza al programma GMS, perché è una risorsa decisiva per monitorare lo stato del cambiamento climatico e dell'inquinamento atmosferico.

Infine, nell'ambito delle priorità, occorre orientare di più e meglio gli investimenti verso lo sviluppo delle piccole e medie imprese, quelle più innovative, che sono una risorsa importante per lo sviluppo economico per il lavoro.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − I would imagine that technology is always going to be the starting point. If we look at the start of FP7 and the technologies that were available then, we can see there has been such enormous development in technology, whether you are talking about the future emerging technologies or the ones that are of enormous significance now and will be going forward, like nanotechnology and biotechnology, for example.

Therefore, investing in technology is key for us. Regarding the key enabling technologies, we had a high-level group which examined the key enabling technologies. These, in a way, are the primary responsibility of Vice-President Kroes. But working together, we have pushed forward what we consider to be an ambitious programme in the whole area of technologies. For example, the framework conditions in which all of these can operate are going to be very important, and innovative financial instruments are going to be crucial for those who want to further develop these technologies.

Together with the European Investment Bank – you will be aware of the risk-sharing finance facility where the larger ICT companies have gained significantly – we have now learned that we can provide – and indeed have provided – an instrument, the risk-sharing instrument, which is primarily aimed at small and medium-sized enterprises.

We think that, if we have listened carefully – which we have – to the technology companies, this is what they have said. They talk about all the issues that were raised during the discussions that we had on the innovation union flagship for example, as issues that prevent them from further developing within Europe. So we have tried to push aside the obstacles that are there and that prevent all the innovations that Commissioner Vassiliou talked about from taking place. So together we have worked to push those obstacles aside – the patent, the standard setting, public procurement issues, and so on. Obviously, from our point of view, financial instruments are a key part of that kind of support for those companies involved in these technologies.

  Kent Johansson (ALDE). - Herr talman! Tack så mycket för förslaget från kommissionen som har ett tydligt fokus på innovations-, småföretagande- och förenklingssträvanden. Nu är vi ju inne i förhandlingarna i trialogen och jag ska be att få kommissionsledamöternas synpunkter, inte be dem döma mellan de olika förslagen, men komma med synpunkter. Till exempel, när det gäller EIT och KIC-arna har parlamentet i sin position satt större fokus på mer konkurrens och innovation i själva urvalsprocessen för att stimulera mer och ytterligare konkurrens och innovation. Jag skulle gärna vilja be om kommissionsledamotens kommentar på det förslaget från parlamentet i vår position.

Den andra frågan gäller deltagandereglerna. Här har parlamentet prioriterat att programmet ska leverera och vara effektivt i förhållande till de pengar vi satsar. Rådet har föreslagit ett lönetillskott medan vi har diskuterat mer synergier med strukturfonderna, och jag skulle vilja ha kommissionens kommentarer i samband med våra försök att bredda programmet till fler medlemsländer. Bör man jobba mer med forskarlönerna och stöd till dem eller jobba mer med systemet kring strukturfonderna? Gärna kommissionens kommentarer till de båda varianterna och synpunkter på att bredda deltagandet. Tack.

  Androulla Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − As you very well know, the money that goes to KICs and the EIT makes up only 25% of their budget. The remaining 75% comes from other sources, either from industries – which contribute quite a lot of money – or from regional or national funds. Of course, we do not exclude the possibility of those funds also coming from Structural Funds. What you are proposing with the regional innovation schemes is very much related to the absorption of more Structural Funds from the EU. I think we should make the most of it, but the advantage of the EIT, as I said before, is the leverage money that is created by the very small amount of 25% of what needs to be invested for them to grow and be sustainable.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − As regards getting more people involved, I think the main aspect of that has to be first of all providing the incentives. So whether it involves grants or prizes or financial instruments, I think all of those have to be tailored to meet the requirements. As regards widening participation, excellence is not everywhere but it can be found anywhere. I think what we have to do is to develop that excellence, and this is why we are very happy that Parliament has put such an emphasis on widening participation and on using the synergies between Horizon 2020 and the cohesion funds, for example.

I think that is crucial, because Horizon 2020 funds on the basis of excellence, and that will not be watered down in any way; but the cohesion funds need to be used for capacity-building. We have put in place and are putting in place the elements that are required to widen participation, whether it is teaming or twinning, further advances in the whole cost programme or using the two funds for funding the same project but different aspects of it, which was not possible up to now. And of course the European Research Area Chairs, which are also very important.

We have put together a full package to widen participation, and I know that the newer Member States are particularly interested in utilising those elements of Horizon 2020. I do not think we should ever put a quota on what is acceptable for participation in Member States, but I think we need to encourage excellence to grow when we find it.

  Kent Johansson (ALDE). - Herr talman! Tack så mycket för kommentarerna. Jag har en kompletterande fråga när det gäller EIT och KIC till kommissionsledamoten. Som nämndes här är det en oerhört stor insats som företagen gör i det här sammanhanget. Jag gör den bedömningen att företagen också, trots den ekonomiska krisen, är beredda att kanske göra ännu mer insatser inom det här området kring KIC-arna. Jag vill ställa frågan: delar ni också den bedömningen?

När det gäller deltagandereglerna tycker jag att vi nu kommer att ha en väldigt intressant situation här, där rådet mera presenterat hur vi ska bredda detta med hjälp av individuella insatser kring forskarlönerna, och parlamentet kanske har en position som innebär att vi ska hitta synergier på det mer strukturella området med hjälp av sammanhållningspolitiken. Det är en intressant diskussion som vi har framför oss där vi kan byta erfarenheter och göra en bra lösning framöver. Tack.

  Androulla Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − You know very well that when we are deciding on the themes for the new KICs, visibility and clear rules are very important for us. This is what makes it attractive for business to participate. And that is what I have been insisting on, in the inclusion of the EIT in Horizon 2020, because this flexibility and these clear rules are very important for industries.

That is why I believe that we cannot decide that we should have another four KICs or five or six KICs without also specifying the themes, because that is what makes it attractive to business – and for other partners for that matter, such as research centres and education institutions – to participate: visibility, clear rules and flexibility.

  Romana Jordan (PPE). - Imam vprašanje, ki je pravzaprav nadaljevanje enega od prejšnjih.

In sicer me zanima več o ukrepu teaming. Z njim bomo uvedli okvir za sodelovanje med odličnimi raziskovalnimi inštitucijami in manj razvitimi evropskimi regijami.

Od Komisije pa bi želela izvedeti več, na kakšen način si predstavlja, da bo izvajala teaming.

In drugo vprašanje, kdaj lahko pričakujemo natančnejša določila o tem ukrepu, predvsem s stališča, katere regije lahko sodelujejo in kakšna kombinacija evropskih sredstev bo zahtevana, se pravi kombinacija med kohezijskimi skladi in pa programom Obzorje 2020.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − Teaming and twinning are very important elements of the widening participation part of the proposal. In looking at how this might operate, obviously we are very conscious of the fact that twinning aims at significantly strengthening a defined area of research in an emerging institution. When we talk about teaming, we are aiming at the creation of new centres of excellence or a significant upgrade of existing ones that are working in, and are part of, a low-performing Member State or region.

When you ask me when the very detailed elements of this proposal might emerge, I would expect them to emerge during the course of the trialogue discussions with Parliament and the Council. I think there is, particularly in Parliament, huge interest in, and support for, this whole area of policy. We have had a number of discussions in the Council on widening participation, and particularly those Ministers from the newer Member States were very anxious to be able to tie down exactly what each of these proposals meant. So it was not just talk, or a proposal that we threw out there; behind the proposal there are specific actions that need to be taken so that we can prove that, when you put policies in place, it is possible to widen participation and to get a greater family of researchers and institutions into the framework programme. That is what I think you will see during the course of the trialogue discussions.

  Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D). - Señor Presidente, señoras Comisarias, como ponente del nuevo programa marco Horizonte 2020, tras la aprobación de la propuesta por el Parlamento, creo que podemos afirmar que nuestra visión no se aleja demasiado de la propuesta de la Comisión, y coincidimos también en que este es nuestro principal instrumento para ser competitivos en ciencia e innovación y, por tanto, en conocimiento, lo que, según todos los expertos, es imprescindible para salir de la crisis.

Sin embargo, todo ello ―usted lo ha dicho muy bien, señora Comisaria― requiere inversión suficiente y, de momento, la tendencia en muchos Estados miembros es a reducir la inversión en estos ámbitos y hay constantes amenazas que anuncian que el nuevo marco financiero plurianual reducirá el presupuesto para Horizonte 2020.

Lo que quisiera preguntar es si la Comisión tiene datos sobre cómo una posible rebaja perjudicaría no solo al programa en su conjunto, sino también a su impacto en la competitividad, en el crecimiento y en la creación de empleo de la Unión Europea, porque ello podría poner rigurosamente al Consejo ante la evidencia.

En relación con la imagen de la Unión Europea, en caso de rebaja, ¿no cree, señora Comisaria, que sería muy perjudicial para la imagen de Europa también? Porque Europa, una vez más, estaría mostrando poca credibilidad debido a la diferencia entre una retórica que apuesta por la inversión en ciencia e innovación y una práctica que se aleja de tal propósito.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − Thank you, Ms Madurell, for all the hard work that you are doing with your fellow rapporteurs in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy to support Horizon 2020.

You have made a good point. It is one that we certainly understand very well within the Commission. I said in response to Mr Ehler’s question at the very beginning that, while Member States themselves have made crucial decisions in relation to continued investment in research and innovation – if I talk about the net contributors for example for a moment – it seems that, when they come to the collective table of the European Council, the same kind of urgency is not being pursued in relation to investments in research and innovation. Of course, a significant number of Member States have reduced, as was rightly said, investment in research and innovation.

So in fact for many Member States the only investment, or a substantial amount of the investment, that will be made in research and innovation will come from the European funds. That is another reason why we need a really good, strong budget as the Commission has proposed. Any reduction can damage the programme itself and will damage different elements of the programme. While I am not going to go into the discussions that are ongoing in relation to the MFF here, I would like to reassure Members of the Parliament that I have personally – as have my officials and my colleague Commissioners who are here today and other colleagues in the research family – been using all the powers of persuasion that I have at the very highest political level in Member States, and at the highest level in the business and research community, to impress on those who are going to come to that MFF table how crucial investment in the future economy of the European Union is.

If I just look at one figure, for example, EUR 1 billion less of funding for Horizon 2020 would mean that 600 SMEs would not be in projects, or 500 projects would not be launched. That is perhaps the only figure that I should engage in here. That is why it is crucially important, as I said, even when net contributors want to reduce the overall budget, that within that proposal they look crucially at what is good for growth, jobs and sustainability within the European Union. If they do, and when they do, I think that they will see that investment in research and innovation provides growth and jobs and is the economy of the future.

  Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D). - Señor Presidente, señora Comisaria, sabemos que usted comparte la preocupación de este Parlamento. Solo un comentario más, porque en las próximas semanas la credibilidad y el futuro de Europa están en juego.

Solo quiero decir que voy a hacer un llamamiento desde aquí al Consejo exigiendo una propuesta seria y responsable que apueste decididamente por la ciencia y la innovación. Es mucho –como hemos dicho todos– lo que está en juego: nuestro crecimiento, la creación de empleo y nuestro sistema social, del que tanto presumimos, todo ello depende de una economía dinámica, competitiva y basada en el conocimiento.

Señor Presidente, aunque el Consejo no está presente, yo le pido que usted, como Presidente de esta Cámara, le haga llegar este llamamiento.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − Can I just add to that, Ms Madurell, that I feel that the Members of the European Parliament have a really crucial role to play in all of this, because all of you interact on a regular basis with the governments in your own Member States. I think that Members of the European Parliament are highly respected by their governments and therefore should use the opportunity to impress upon those that come to that MFF table, as I refer to it, how important and crucial it is in helping us to remain a global player to secure a good, strong budget for research and innovation in the European Union.

Vice-President Kroes talked about what is happening in Korea, the United States, China, Singapore – a whole lot of areas of the world where they see that research and innovation is the key to exit a financial crisis. I think it would be a pity if the European Union lost this opportunity that it has now to really strongly invest in the whole area of research and innovation.

  Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL). - As you know, Commissioner, my party – Sinn Féin – has been arguing for a more joined-up approach on the policy of innovation, research and development in Ireland, both North and South.

As a low-performing area, only 424 companies out of a business space of 70 000 invest in R&D in the North of Ireland, and many of the SMEs have no understanding or awareness of their eligibility to take part or to avail themselves of the opportunities. Therefore, while Invest NI, without doubt, has much more to do to increase that awareness (and I think they need to look quite closely at what Enterprise Ireland has been doing, so that we can avail ourselves of the opportunities), I would like to hear more about how SMEs are going to understand the simplification process that you talked about, the flexibility that you said is going to be applied, the role that you see the Commission having in facilitating the increased engagement of SMEs – particularly (I have to say) in a low performing area like the North of Ireland. In particular, do you see a strategic role for the Commission in encouraging and facilitating an all-Ireland synergy in this area?

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − Ms Anderson, I very much understand the challenges that there are in Northern Ireland in the whole area of research and innovation, and in fact one of the first visits that I made when I became a Commissioner was to Northern Ireland to explain to Ministers and officials the real opportunities that there were for funding under the framework programme and for getting companies and researchers to apply for funding under the research programme.

I am very pleased at what I have seen happening over the last 18 months, in that there is a real engagement from the authorities in Northern Ireland, from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister down – engaging here in Brussels, engaging in Belfast with those of us who have gone over to work with the Executive, and indeed yourselves and each of your colleagues that are here from Northern Ireland working with the Northern Ireland Office representation here in Brussels.

I think Northern Ireland is like quite a number of areas of the European Union where the information did not get across really well. So that is the first thing: that Invest Northern Ireland, plus ourselves in the Commission and yourselves as public representatives, have a role to play in explaining what is available, and how you go about applying.

Many up to now felt that the rules were just too complicated, it was too much trouble; and in good times obviously they applied to their own governments, their own authorities. That day has passed now and they are coming back to the European Union, so I think there is an onus on us to communicate what is available, to explain how to apply, to organise for them to come here and visit, to meet those people in the Directorate-General that are involved in the various areas, whether it is health or energy or agriculture or fisheries, whatever the area might be that is of interest.

I think it is also important for Northern Ireland to look at its own strengths and say: ‘What areas are we really strong in? And if we are going to be smart and if we are going to specialise then we should specialise in those particular areas’. I think that is really a process that is happening at the moment.

The simplification will be crucial for SMEs, a one-stop-shop where they do not have to submit applications in triplicate, where they understand exactly that the red tape has been cut, that in relation to costs there will be a new system in place – in other words, all of the elements of simplification that we carried out ourselves, all the elements of simplification that Parliament helped us with in the revision of the financial regulation, for example, and other simplifications that will come when Horizon 2020 is finally approved.

All of that is an indication of how serious we are in the Commission about this time really having a true simplified procedure, a simplified application framework available which will bring more and more people into the programme.

  Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL). - I look forward to working well with your officials, particularly by way of sharing the kind of information that we need to get across to the SMEs. As a junior minister who attended the meeting at which you put on the table the opportunities that exist for the North and how those opportunities need to be maximised, I hope that we can organise such a visit for the SMEs and I would like to play a part in that.

Recognising the benefits of the synergies that exist that should allow business and higher education and the public research institute to benefit from the strategic framework of Horizon 2020, I am thinking of a research institute like CTRIC in my own area where I live – in Derry – and many, many others. I would like the Commission to say what we could do to maximise those synergies in terms of Horizon 2020 so that, when I am encouraging SMEs to come here, and hopefully involved in organising such a visit, we can share that kind of information with them.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − Yes, I think sharing of information is crucially important, and showing them the elements of simplification that are particularly directed at SMEs. This is something we can help you with. Anytime you simplify, an SME is truly delighted that this has happened.

We also will have in place an instrument like the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) programme they have in the United States, which again is crucially important for SMEs. We will have the financial instrument that I talked about earlier, the risk-sharing instrument, which is targeted at SMEs, and we will also have the national contact points which are there already for SMEs, but they obviously will be reinforced. I think there are a lot of elements there that are particularly directed at SMEs. We had a target in the last framework programme of 15% of the funding going to SMEs. As you know last year we passed that target and we were very pleased with it. We have proposed a target in Horizon 2020. I am sure that will be one of the elements of the discussions in the trialogue, but we are very conscious of bringing more and more SMEs to the table and into the framework programme.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). - Tisztelt Biztos Asszonyok! A strukturális alapok és a keretprogram közötti szinergiát biztosító rendelet végrehajtása nem volt zökkenőmentes, és nem hozott egyenletes sikereket. Bár az EU-2020 stratégia pártfogásába vette ezt a modellt, egyetértek azon képviselőkkel, akik úgy gondolják, hogy pénzügyi stabilitás és humánerőforrás-stabilitás nélkül ez a keretprogram nem vezethet sikerre. Egyetértek azokkal is, akik azt mondják, hogy ebben növelni kell a kkv-k szerepét, mert fontos a foglalkoztatás területén ez a szerep.

Nem hallottam a mai vitában azonban egy másik aspektusról, ami legalább ilyen fontos: a női vállalkozásoknak a kérdése, és a női kutatóknak a kérdése. Meggyőződésem, hogy ez az új terület nem csak új látásmódot, hanem egy új innovációt is hozhat ehhez a területhez Kérdésem a biztos asszonyokhoz, hogy kívánnak-e ezzel a területtel külön foglalkozni, nem is úgy, mint az egyenjogúság kérdése, és tudom, hogy biztos asszony nem támogatja a kvótát, de a kiválósági modellen túl hogyan lehetne pozícióba helyezni például a női kutatókat, női vállalkozókat? Várom a válaszukat.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − Can I just say on the last point that the Commission has a policy in relation to quotas of women on state boards which is fully supported by every single member of the College of Commissioners, including every single one of the women. That is the first point I want to make.

My second point is that, in relation to women, we are very conscious that in the whole research area we have a high percentage of women coming out of college and getting involved in the research area, and then a period of time during which that high number falls away and in which it is very difficult them for them – and sometimes impossible – when they decide to come back into the workforce to get back into research. So we are very conscious that we need to do something to stimulate that and make it easier. We have various proposals in place for doing that.

But one of the crucial elements is that in the whole area of STEM education, which is a problem and a challenge for all the Member States, it is an even bigger problem to get girls involved in this whole area. So we proposed a policy, ‘Science: It’s a girl thing’, which we launched last year. In the autumn we rolled out in a number of Member States a very successful communication drive in relation to this whole programme. We have a Facebook page with 28 000 ‘likes’, of which 70% are girls between the ages of 13 and 18. That is the exact target age group that we have for ‘Science: It’s a girl thing’ because that is when students make decisions about their future and where they would like to study. That means in effect that we are reaching our target.

The roll-out in a number of Member States of ‘Science: It’s a girl thing’ and the proposals that we have is very important. From a gender point of view generally, if you look at different areas of the programme, there is a higher percentage of women involved in certain aspects of the framework programme – health, for example, is an area where a lot of women are involved and continue to be involved. However, I think that we need to focus on getting more women involved in science at a very early age. I had a great privilege over the weekend in the Member State that I know best of visiting the BT Young Scientist & Technology Exhibition, where again and again the number of young women who are enthusiastic, involved, have their projects, are confident and can describe in great detail what their project is about is amazing. But we lose them somewhere along the way when they leave education. I think that is an area that we need to concentrate on and certainly we are putting the proposals in place, together with the support of the Commissioner responsible for education, Commissioner Vassiliou, who has been particularly interested in the whole area of gender and how girls get involved in this whole area of research and innovation.

I think we have done a lot. There is a lot to be done, but I think it is also a national responsibility and that governments – and in particular education departments of governments – have a crucial role to play. They need to take their responsibility and we will support them in whatever responsibility they take.

  Androulla Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − In addition to what Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn said, I would like to add that, as Commissioner responsible for education, it is one of our priorities to encourage from the very early stages –in primary schools – to encourage young girls to show inclination and interest in science, in mathematics, exactly the fields we need most. This, of course, also goes for the higher level of education, and in EIT of course we place special emphasis on that.

I will give you a very concrete example: in the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions under Horizon 2020, we have put as one of our priorities the encouragement of women researchers. We set a target of 40%, which I am very pleased to say we have achieved. This year we are aiming even higher. Why? Because we can create a very conducive atmosphere and climate for women to participate; we recognise maternity rights – we give women the same rights when they come back after a career break – so it is a very conducive environment for women.

This year we have introduced a special prize for Marie Curie Actions, and I am very pleased to say that out of the three people who were awarded the prize, two were women.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). - Elnök úr, egy nagyon rövid jelzés csak. Köszönöm biztos asszonyoknak ezt a válaszát. Azt szeretném Önöktől kérni, hogy szélesebb körű nyilvánosságot biztosítsanak ezeknek az információknak és ezeknek az elemzéseknek az eredményeinek, hogy a nemzetállamok szintjén és a kutatók szintjén is mind többen kaphassák meg ezeket az információkat, és az előrehaladásnak ezt a fokát is megkaphassák.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − You can be assured that we are very conscious of the fact that we need to communicate what our policies are. In this area I think the ‘Science: It’s a girl thing!’ policy is particularly important. As I said, it got a lot of publicity at the beginning, when it was launched. It is now being rolled out over a number of Member States – last autumn, for example – very successfully. We are using social media because we think that social media is a really important aspect, and an area in which young women, as well as all young people, get a lot of their information. It is also important to say that the web is available in all of the languages, so there is no excuse at the moment for people to say they could not understand what was on the webpage. It is available in all of the languages and we are, you can be assured, very conscious of the fact that we need to communicate what we are doing because it is, we believe, a very positive policy area.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). - Signor Commissario, si è parlato molto oggi della contraddizione tra gli obiettivi e le disponibilità di risorse. Io non ho dubbi sulla vostra reale intenzione: però devo dirvi che non ho la sensazione che l'intera Commissione sia con voi. E allora un atto formale, da parte del Presidente della Commissione, che rivendichi le disponibilità di risorse finanziarie che servono alla realizzazione dei vostri obbiettivi, forse potrebbe aiutare a fugare questi dubbi e queste perplessità.

La seconda questione che volevo porvi è relativa al rapporto tra le politiche e gli obiettivi che si vogliono realizzare. In una fase di crisi ci devono essere delle priorità: penso che la priorità dell'Europa oggi consista nella difesa del suo sistema produttivo e la sua innovazione. Se questo non viene definito e non c'è coerenza tra le azioni che vengono svolte da alcuni Commissari e da altri, si rischia di avere tantissime buone intenzioni ma di non arrivare ai risultati auspicati.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − I think first of all you need to be reassured that the Commission is fully behind the proposal that it presented, which included a proposal of an EUR 80 billion investment in research, innovation and science. I also think it is important to state here that one of the most avid supporters of investments in research and innovation has been President Barroso himself. From day one when I got this job, he made a very clear statement in which he stated that we do wonderful research in Europe, but we have failed to translate that research into innovations. He told me that my job would be about clearing the obstacles which are in the way of making that happen. In all of the public pronouncements that he has made, he has been very clear that the investment and the economy of the future is investment in research, science and innovation.

In relation to prioritising, I agree with you entirely, it is very important that, rather than putting out a proposal which scatters small amounts of funding over a very large area, it was important for us to decide which priority areas we needed to focus on. What are the challenges which are facing not just Europe but the world? What are the areas that are in Europe’s strategic interest? This is indeed what we have said: strategic programming for us means the whole research family within the Commission working together strategically to programme for the future. I think that is a huge development. It is an area in which you have not just all of the Commissioners working together, but you have all of the services also working together to ensure that what we do is done in a strategic way.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, volevo aggiungere un'osservazione: ho parlato non a caso di beni produttivi come obiettivo primario nella difesa dell'assetto tradizionale della nostra parte di mondo e del suo rilancio. Ma vorrei aggiungere anche il settore dei servizi, perché in molti servizi noi abbiamo assolutamente bisogno allo stesso modo di innovazione. Infatti, quando i servizi funzionano, quel territorio attrae investimenti. Allora bisogna rompere questa tendenza a considerare l'innovazione e la ricerca come destinati, se non esclusivamente, prevalentemente a un ambito che è quello della produzione dei beni. Anche i servizi hanno lo stesso valore.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − In fact that was one of the reasons why, when we defined what innovation meant, we were very particular that we did not confine ourselves to manufacturing or ICT for example, but that in fact we had the broadest possible definition of innovation, which included services, design, the public sector and all aspects of our policy area. We have worked on that basis, and in the flagship Innovation Union initiative we have set out very clearly that all of these aspects of policy are included in the definition of innovation.

So I agree entirely with what you say. It is not just about manufacturing, important as that is as an industrial area in Europe, but it is also about services and all the other aspects where we need innovations to get ahead.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). - Señor Presidente, provengo del País Vasco, que ha hecho en estas tres últimas décadas una apuesta profunda por la innovación y la investigación aplicada. Con poco más de dos millones de habitantes, disponemos de dos grandes corporaciones tecnológicas, que son Tecnalia e IK4, que emplean a 5 000 investigadores, el 40 % del output de la investigación industrial del Estado español, y de cuatro parques tecnológicos con 14 000 empleados y 403 empresas.

El programa Horizonte destaca el papel de las regiones en la implementación de esta estrategia a través del principio de especialización inteligente. Por ello, quiero saber cómo se va a plasmar en realidad operativa y con qué grado de interlocución se va a aplicar este principio.

En la Europa de los Estados, me preocupa lo que pueda pasar cuando regiones con esta vocación industrial e innovadora están ubicadas en Estados con otro tipo de tejido productivo y modelo de desarrollo económico. También quiero saber qué medidas se están adoptando para promover las etapas finales de la I+D+I a fin de lograr un impacto más rápido y claro en la aparición de nuevos productos y servicios.

Finalmente, ¿qué opina del necesario adelanto a 2014 de la puesta en marcha de la comunidad del conocimiento e innovación para manufacturing? Esto es lo que están pidiendo los centros tecnológicos que se dedican a la aplicación, a la innovación y a la investigación en el País Vasco.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − I agree. When I talk about the fact that we do not have excellence everywhere but we can have it anywhere, the Basque region is obviously a beam of hope in the context of all of the regions in Europe. They have very much applied themselves to the kind of smart specialisation that the Commission talks about now. I think that this has worked very well for the Basque region.

The WIRE Conference will be coming up during the next six months, giving the innovative regions of Europe an opportunity to come together, to have discussions, to look at their policies, to see how those policies can be worked together, where they can cooperate, and what elements of the European policy are preventing the kind of smart specialisation that they would like to see developing. If one looks from a manufacturing point of view at the key enabling technologies for example, they have, as you know, the largest budget line within the Horizon 2020 policy.

There is a real opportunity for those innovative regions to first of all further develop themselves, but also share their knowledge and the aspects of their policy with other regions in Europe that are not doing as well and have not focused and are not looking at specialisation in the way that the Basque region has.

Certainly I would support very strongly what you have said. I think that in the policy that we have put forward we are rewarding those that have done well but we are encouraging those that have not done as well to come into the programme.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). - Señora Comisaria, le pedía también su opinión sobre la necesidad del adelanto de la fecha de 2018 a 2014 en el caso del manufacturing. Esto es vital para el sector tecnológico del País Vasco.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − When I responded I referred to key enabling technologies which, from a manufacturing point of view, are the future of Europe. We very strongly support key enabling technologies. We have done this in the high-level group, which was chaired by Vice-President Tajani and had Vice-President Kroes and myself as members, where European industry and industry which is not European but is working in the European space were very much involved. There are crucial proposals laid out in that final report which will be worked on as we move forward. For us, manufacturing is very important. I think that what is happening in an area as innovative as the Basque region is something that needs to be supported strongly.

  President. − That concludes Question Time.

I am grateful to Commissioners and to colleagues. I apologise to those who were not called. As I said, we are discussing a new procedure for Question Time to make it more transparent and more fair.

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. GIANNI PITTELLA
Vicepresidente