Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, before I begin my speech as general rapporteur for the Sixth Framework Programme on Research, I must first express my heartfelt gratitude to all those who have helped me in this difficult task. As you know, this is an important programme. It has a provisional budget of EUR 17.5 billion, including Euratom. I would like to thank the Swedish and Belgian Presidencies, the European Commission, Commissioner Busquin, Mr Westendorp, the Secretariat of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the ITER Committee, the administrators of the different groups, my assistant Gaëlle Le Bouler, the shadow rapporteurs of the ITER Committee, the draftsmen of the opinion, the shadow draftsmen of the committees consulted and the group coordinators. I think that I am now in a position to declare that together we have completed a truly remarkable task. I am sure you will all agree with me on this. You will express your view when we vote. I am sure that the result will not be the same as the outcomes of the votes on the Fourth, and especially the Fifth Framework Programme on Research and Development. I believe that the results of our work can largely be attributed to two guiding principles. Firstly, in my capacity as rapporteur I have always wanted to be the representative and spokesman for a broad majority in Parliament. In addition, Commissioner Busquin was, from the start, willing to support the framework and the overall budget of the project. In addition to this support, we have received many proposals for adjustment. These have resulted from our wide-ranging consultation with the European research sector, European politicians and all the organisations and citizens with an interest in the European research sector. I can personally list more than 250 meetings, talks and discussions on this project and this report since the beginning of 2001. Furthermore, I have tried to ensure transparency during work on this project. I have published all available information and views on the subject in real time on my website. In recent months, this website has been visited more than 3 000 times per month, excluding the summer holiday period. Clearly, all of us, myself included, have agreed to set up a genuine European Research Area and all the necessary structures, including the Joint Research Centre, on the basis of the Framework Programme on Research and Development. We have agreed too that we need to act upon the idea of European added value, as proposed by the European Commission. But, at the same time, we have all declared that we should take into consideration another aspect of added value: the added value of giving research a European dimension. This supplements the accounting added value of the European Commission. As I have already said, we should not allow there to be any perception or feelings of exclusion, and we should back researchers who believe that their work needs to be carried out at a European level. All this translates into two new, secondary priorities. Firstly, there is the fight against major diseases. This goes hand-in-hand with research on the human genome, with its anticipated results for health. Secondly, we need to consider terrestrial and maritime transport. The objectives here are to improve links between different means of transport, and to improve flexibility, security, efficiency, and coherence. In this regard, the quality and improvement of the environment are important considerations. So far as the functioning of the framework programme is concerned, there are proposals to ensure that there is a smooth transfer between the old instruments of the Fourth and Fifth Framework Programmes and the Commission’s three new instruments. In addition, there is the fourth ‘stairway of excellence’ instrument. Further, all this translates into a compromise on the specific programmes involved. The proposal is for a single programme with eight sub-programmes. This will increase coherence while providing sufficient scope for participation and adequate control. There are also specific measures to improve professional life and mobility for researchers, while taking account of the requirement to strengthen the role of micro-enterprises and small and medium-sized businesses. As regards the Euratom section, the majority of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy also agreed on the principles and the structure of the Commission’s text, especially regarding the need to ensure security of energy supply, risk reduction, and the processing of nuclear waste. Lastly, the majority of the Committee on Industry agreed on the importance of research on nuclear fusion. They also agreed on the need to construct an experimental reactor soon, and for it to be located in Europe if possible. This is necessary so that we may have some chance of meeting our energy requirements in fifty years’ time. Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament will today establish a firm and sound position after our first reading. I am delighted that progress has not been hindered by what occurred on Monday evening. The situation where the adoption of my reports would have been dependent on the conclusions of the Temporary Committee on Human Genetics has been avoided. By midday I hope that we will also reach agreement on ethical rules and on stem cell research on supernumerary embryos. The vote today could also benefit the debate and votes to be held on the Fiori report during the November sitting in Brussels. In this, we must be guided by common sense and tolerance and respect the views of others. The result of the votes held by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy on 16 and 22 October has already been noted by the ‘Research’ Council of 30 October, judging by its final communiqué. A new ‘Research’ Council will publish its common position next December. I hope it will then be possible, through the codecision procedure, we will be able to reach a common decision by favouring informal discussions. I would not like to place a bet on our not needing to resort to conciliation. We might or we might not. However, I would like to reiterate this point: the sooner we finish our work in 2002, the sooner partners working in the research sector will be able to prepare and so ensure the best possible transition to the Fifth Framework Programme. Also, the sooner we finish our work, the sooner we will be able to develop international partnerships with candidate countries and associated countries, and pursue all our other international ventures. I would like to finish where I began, by thanking all those involved in this splendid project. I call on the Commission and the Council to listen to us, and, more importantly, to ensure that they understand us. Our demands are not unrealistic; neither are we engaged in politics here. They are proposals by European citizens, considered and debated at length. We therefore call for them to be studied. Further work will of course need to be undertaken when it comes to the final agreement, but for the moment we simply need to be free to define our own position. I would like to conclude by reminding you of an objective set in January. We set out to turn this work into an opportunity for a wide-ranging debate to strengthen the important link between science and society. We set out to convince people that, although science does not have all the answers, we cannot hope to tackle the world’s greatest problems without science, research and researchers. I hope that our work will have made a positive contribution in this regard. I also hope that it will provide the Commission and the Council with proposals from the European research sector which will form the basis of a Sixth Framework Programme on Research and Development for Europe in 2002. I really believe we should call it the Sixth Framework Programme. The programme will be innovative, realistic, and effective. It will be a firm foundation for the development of the European research sector, a sector we all support. (Applause)

Political group: PSE