Alex Mayer (S&D). – Mr President, a brain drain. That’s what being unable to apply for European Research Council (ERC) funding could trigger according to the University of Cambridge, because it is not just the hard cash that is important, EU funding is key in enabling international collaboration and attracting the very best scientists, and Horizon 2020 also means that University of East Anglia scientists are building prototype, clean, cheap and energy efficient batteries, while at the University of Hertfordshire, Ph.D. researchers are exploring photovoltaic technologies. Today we discussed the successor programme, Horizon Europe for 2021-2027.
Now I appreciate that’s rather far in the future for the British Government, who currently seems to only operate on an hour-by-hour basis, but in or out of the EU, we need to be in the Horizon Europe. Our current reputation is for ground-breaking research, but we know well that reputations are hard won and easily lost.
Rory Palmer (S&D). – Mr President, Horizon funding is making a real difference in my region: GBP 110 million supporting cutting-edge research at East Midlands universities, GBP 37 million to support business and enterprise across the region. This funding is vital, just like the European funding programmes over the years that have underpinned regeneration and economic development, and which have supported important programmes across social priorities like adult learning.
The British Government must now commit to replacing these funding programmes pound for pound. Anything less will not be acceptable. If billions can be found for a no-deal Brexit, then money can be found to replace these EU funding programmes on a pound—for—pound basis. Anything less will not be acceptable. Remain or leave, all areas in my region must get their fair share in the future, and that’s what I’ll be arguing for.
Nirj Deva (ECR). – Mr President, Horizon 2020 has been one of the most extraordinary research vehicles for a long time. Because this might be one of the final times we speak in this Parliament, I wanted to say that the research activities of the European Parliament and the people involved with me over the last 20 years in producing original research for legislation have been phenomenal. I want to particularly thank the following for their innovation and research: Susan Kerr, Ben Harnwell, Rhiannon Price, Daniel Hamilton, Ingrid Grosu, Lin Gai, Liakath Kabir, Armen Andonian, Edward Robinson and Daniel Howard. They have made a significant contribution to the work of this Parliament in the last 20 years working with me.
Adam Szejnfeld (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! „Horyzont Europa” – sama nazwa już jest wspaniała, bowiem oddaje cele, które nam przyświecają – Europa, zjednoczona Europa, ale Europa nowoczesna, Europa konkurencyjna na rynkach światowych, Europa innowacyjna. Dlatego program ten jest godny poparcia, i nie tylko w kwotach, które zaproponowała Komisja Europejska (przypomnę: ponad 84 mld euro), ale my, Parlament Europejski, wnioskujemy, żeby to był budżet w wysokości 120 mld euro.
Chciałbym wskazać na dwie zalety tego programu, chociaż jest ich mnóstwo. Po pierwsze, bardzo wyraźne podkreślenie roli małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw poprzez, chociażby, przeznaczenie aż 70% budżetu Europejskiej Rady ds. Innowacji na małe i średnie przedsiębiorstwa. I po drugie, zmniejszenie luki badawczej. To, co jest bardzo trudne do zaakceptowania w Unii Europejskiej, to to, że są kraje, które mają potężne pieniądze na innowacyjność, badania i rozwój, i te, które mają z tym problem. Teraz możemy wyeliminować tę lukę.
Jan Zahradil (ECR). – Pane předsedající, já jsem velmi potěšen, že ve svém posledním vystoupení na půdě tohoto Evropského parlamentu mohu být pozitivní, na rozdíl od mnoha minulých vystoupení, kdy jsem, podle mého názoru, oprávněně kritizoval různé rezoluce a legislativní akty, které Evropský parlament přijal.
Horizont je přesně tím typem programu, který bychom podporovat měli, pokud chceme udržet krok v oblasti inovací, nových technologií, vědy a výzkumu. Já jsem tedy spokojen s provizorní dohodou o tomto programu, doufám nyní v ambiciózní dohodu v oblasti jeho financování a věřím, že bude naplněna. Chtěl bych také říci, že po odchodu Spojeného království z Evropské unie si přeji, aby zůstalo Spojené království plně začleněno v tomto programu, aby programy pokračovaly bez přerušení, protože jde o našeho blízkého partnera v oblasti vědy a výzkumu.
Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem také s radostí podpořil tuto dohodu, protože v dnešní době každé euro, které investujeme do inovací, výzkumu, vývoje, tak je investice, která se nám zde v Evropě vrátí.
Jsem tedy rád, že byla tato provizorní dohoda udělána, jsem rád, že se pro další finanční rámec navyšuje částka, která by měla být tímto směrem investována, a jsem také rád, že se zpřesnily toky, kterými směry by se ty peníze měly investovat. Investice do ekologie, do stavu klimatu, investice do zdravotnických technologií, vývoje v této oblasti, to jsou podle mě témata, která jsou mimořádně důležitá, a pokud Evropa chce držet krok s jinými velmocemi, které investují velké částky do inovací a výzkumu, tak nestačí jen národní peníze, ale je třeba, aby existovaly takovéto významné evropské pobídky. Takže také tuto dohodu velmi vítám.
Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il nuovo regolamento Horizon Europe rappresenta senza dubbio il programma europeo di ricerca e innovazione più ambizioso mai realizzato.
È certamente un segnale importante quello di destinare il 35 % dei finanziamenti alle tecnologie rispettose del clima: 35 miliardi di euro su 100 totali assegnati per il periodo 2021-2027. Condivido l'approccio mission based, incentrato su obiettivi specifici e chiaramente definiti, come la decarbonizzazione urbana che incontra la necessità riscontrata nell'attuale Horizon 2020, e di concentrare l'attenzione su specifici obiettivi tematici.
Importante anche l'istituzione di un referente unico individuato dalla Commissione per portare dal laboratorio al mercato le più promettenti tecnologie ad alto potenziale e aiutare le start-up e le imprese più innovative a sviluppare le loro idee. Un'unica nota negativa: l'accordo raggiunto non ha escluso formalmente i combustibili fossili dai finanziamenti alla ricerca, il che, in nome di tutte le future generazioni, probabilmente sarebbe stato un atto dovuto.
Silvia Costa (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, credo che sia un'ottima notizia quella dell'approvazione, seppure con accordo parziale, di Horizon Europe con 120 miliardi che è la proposta del Parlamento e spero che il Consiglio ministri lo rispetterà, perché si tratta di investire davvero nella conoscenza, nell'innovazione, nella competitività dell'Europa, ma anche nell'inclusione.
Sono molto felice di due questioni in particolare. Abbiamo ottenuto che fosse inserita scienze sociali e scienze umane in tutti i poli tematici del pilastro sulle sfide globali e la competitività industriale. Sarebbe ben strano che questo aspetto non fosse presente, insieme alla ricerca scientifica e su tematiche diverse.
Secondo, abbiamo ottenuto, e questo è un grande risultato della commissione cultura, l'inserimento di un vero e proprio cluster tematico intitolato Cultura, creatività e società inclusive con un miliardo e mezzo, di cui il 45 % per ricerca nei settori culturali e creativi e 300 invece per il nuovo Cloud Cultural Heritage, che raccoglie la sfida del recente anno sul patrimonio culturale. Questo rafforza il progetto europeo.
Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, where do we get this idea that politicians and officials are best placed to decide where research spending should go? I was a journalist before I was elected here, and I was always getting bumf from people promoting this or that government programme, and I can’t in honesty remember any of them that actually yielded results. If we think of the great tech breakthroughs that we’ve had, the things that have transformed people’s lives – the American tech giants, the mobile phone breakthroughs, the search engines and so on – none of them depended on government grants, any more than did the people who made the Industrial Revolution in the first place. We’ve got locked into this rather sad circle where we ask recipients of this money whether it’s a good idea. Well of course they’re going to say it’s a good idea: by definition, they are the beneficiaries. But is this really the best way with a limited budget to be deploying it? I’m all in favour of spending money on education – there are some things, obviously, we should do collectively – but when I hear Members of this House suggesting that success is measured by the size of the budget rather than by any real world output, I wonder whether we have our priorities right.