Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

[**Avis juridique important**](../../../editorial/legal_notice.htm)

*|*

# 91996E2540

**WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2540/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Fourth research and technological development (RTD) programme** 
  
*Official Journal C 083 , 14/03/1997 P. 0024*

  

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2540/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (8 October 1996)

Subject: Fourth research and technological development (RTD) programme

The Commission proposes that the scientific and technical content of the specific programmes in three of the areas which it identifies as being a priority - namely, life sciences (vaccines and viral diseases), trains and railways systems of the future, and maritime systems - be adjusted with a view to focusing research measures on clearer targets and ensuring that the programmes are properly coordinated with one another.

However, in view of the criteria which have been established and of the new budgetary resources available, it makes no provision as yet for the allocation of additional budgetary resources to those areas.

Unfortunately, the Commission has not made use of the new financial opportunities provided by the first review of the fourth framework programme. Would it not agree, therefore, that, together with the budgetary authorities, it should give practical effect to the EU's stated intention to give priority to those policies likely to boost employment in the medium and long term and, furthermore, that it should look into the feasibility of specific research projects considered to be a priority being implemented under complementary programmes cofinanced by the Member States most directly affected?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (19 November 1996)

The Commission's proposal for a financial supplement to the fourth research and technological development framework programme ((COM(96) 12. )), stated that a supplement of 745 MECU - taking account of the enlargement decisions - would indeed be justified on the basis of research needs. However, the proposed supplement of 700 MECU took account of the pressing demands of other policies on a constrained Community budget and the principles of sound financial management.

In practical terms, the present constraint on the feasible size of a financial supplement for the framework programmes remains the current financial perspective of the Community, and specifically the ceilings for expenditure for 1997 and 1998 under category 3 (internal policies). The Council has now made clear that it will not agree to a revision of the financial perspective, and the Commission, having examined the budgetary situation, has concluded that, without prejudice to the outcome of the 1997 budgetary procedure, a sum of at least 100 Mecu will be available up to the end of 1998. The Honourable Member will be aware that the Commission, for its part, both in its proposals relating to the modifications of the financial perspective and in its proposal on the financial supplement to the 4th framework programme, has attached great importance to the need to support policies which will contribute, in the medium or long-term, to the creation of employment.

Under the fifth framework programme, the feasibility of complementary programmes will be examined.

[Top](#document1)