7 Amendments of Derek VAUGHAN related to 2011/2107(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the Structural and Cohesion Funds can complement EU research and innovation funds but cannot replace them, and, because the principal aims of the respective funds differ, they should continue to be separate during the future multi-annual financial framework (MFF); further, synergies between these funds are a vital way of ensuring European added value;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the Commission's proposals on extending the use of innovative financial instruments to strengthen the leverage of the EU budget while fully respecting the rights of the budgetary and discharge authorities; asks the Commission to improve access for primary target groups such as SMEs; demands that any SME-specific bank should function under the umbrella of the EIB; expresses its reservations about so-called ‘soft loans’ blurring the distinction between grants and loans, providing this does not divert funds from FP7 funding;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that a risk-averse culture of EU research funding would prevent financing of high-risk research ideas with the greatest potential for breakthroughs, and therefore advocates a trust-based approach with higher tolerance for risk and failure – involving, for example, more frequent use of prizefollow-on funding for particularly successful projects – in preference to a purely results- based approach, which is at odds with the very nature of innovative scientific research;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is convinced that horizontal simplification activities throughout all research and innovation programmes should be one of the highest priorities for the new programme period, and draws attention to the important decisions on simplification to be taken in the ongoing procedure of revising the Financial Regulation, on issues including simplifying the rules on pre-financing and on eligibility of costs and increasing the scope for awarding research prizestroducing a clear set of rules regarding the use of flat rate and lump sum payments, where this is the most appropriate method of allocation; emphasises the need for further simplification of application procedures and control mechanisms, for the benefit of applicants to European research and innovation programmes;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Asks the Commission to build ‘stairways to excellence’ for all potential research and innovation players in those Member States with a low rate of participation in FP 7, including by encouraging more effective and flexible use of the Structural and Cohesion Funds in this respect, including ways of maximising synergies between funds;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Reiterates its position that, with regard to the MFF post-2013, the financial resources dedicated to large-scale projects such as ITER and Galileo should be fixed for the whole programming period and ring-fenced so that any cost overrun must be financed with fresh money through employing budgetary flexibility, as opposed to the redeployment of funds at the expense of other programmes such as research and innovation, and Structural and Cohesion funds;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Strongly supports a further increase in the EU's annual budgets for research and innovation, as these have been proven to deliver excellent European added value and to aid recovery from the economic crisis; emphasises that the Europe 2020 strategy for growth and jobs, adopted by the Council, clearly states the need for additional funds for research and innovation.; emphasises that this should not be at the expense of Structural and Cohesion funds