Mr President, what exactly is the point of the rules on participation? Well, they mean money for research activities, money which – let there be no mistake – comes from the public purse. It is public money, taxpayers' money that funds research activities. Invitations to tender for projects are published, applications are made and, at some point, approval is granted – or not. So what was important for us? First that, when applications are made, the invitation to tender should be clear, unequivocal and straightforward. So that clear, unequivocal and straightforward applications can be submitted. That is why we opted for the two-stage procedure that has already proven its worth in the past. The Commission agreed to this suggestion. Secondly, it is of course important to be able to carry out a quick evaluation, so that people are not left sitting around waiting to hear whether or not their project has been accepted. For us as a Parliament, it was important to include a number of criteria in addition, of course, to the criteria of excellence and innovation. I am thinking here, for example, – what a pity several lady Members have just left – of the role of women in research. It is also important to fund European added value. In other words, if we work together, the total should be greater than the sum of the parts. Working together means solidarity between the Member States in the group. It also means solidarity in liability should something go wrong – not that anyone expects it to. But then again, solidarity should not go so far – as the Commission proposes – as to make all the participants jointly and severally liable. This has now been successfully introduced. Joint liability, but within certain limits. We have managed to find a good compromise between the solidarity needed and the responsibility of the individual participants. Of course payment channels need to be set up so that they are flexible and payments can be tracked. And the money should be paid out in a targeted manner. To give just one example, lump sums, yes, if necessary, but only if they are based on actual additional costs from European research and can be proven, even if the proof is submitted afterwards. In other words, networks of excellence, joint European research area, yes, but not in the form of some sort of collaboration which cannot be properly quantified. Here too we have managed to move the Commission proposal in the direction suggested by Parliament. Another important point for Parliament in the discussion was this: the Commission proposal gave us the impression – and I use the expression advisedly; we discussed this at length and eventually agreed otherwise – that the Commission actually wanted to backtrack slightly. That it simply wanted to say, there is a project coordinator, he gets the money, he is responsible for everything. That is out of the question. We cannot release our Executive from its responsibility. It is liable for the sums which it approves and it alone is directly answerable to the European Court of Auditors. Thanks to input from numerous colleagues on my ideas, we managed to turn a good proposal into an even better final text. I should like to say a few words now about the procedure, because it is quite an unusual procedure. The first report is a full codecision report; the report on Euratom is a consultation report. But let us stay with the first report and codecision. This is a codecision procedure and we shall be adopting a text after just one reading. Why? Because we have had excellent cooperation with the Council and I should like to make a point of naming Secretary of State Marimón here. He interceded with a great deal of personal commitment in order to help us reach an agreement in the talks, in the dialogue. I must say that I also found the Commission most willing to talk. All in all, everyone was very receptive to everyone else's position and we managed to draft a text that was approved by the Council following the vote in committee. In early obedience, as it were, to the vote which, I assume, will be a large majority in favour. This sort of agreement at first reading is only possible if everyone is ready to cooperate and I am most grateful that they were. I should also like to thank all my fellow Members in the other groups. The specific circumstances caused by my temporary disability – I am sure you have all seen me travelling around everywhere – gave rise to tolerance on all sides, on the part of the Commission, on the part of the Council and on the part of the honourable Members, for which my thanks once again, as well as flexibility and innovative working methods – and I wish these qualities of flexibility and innovative working methods on all the participants in the sixth framework programme and on the Commission as it starts its work handing out the money. We shall be keeping a critical but well-meaning eye on this work during the course of next year.

Political group: PPE-DE