 Ladies and gentlemen, this presidency event comes, as we all know, at difficult times for the European economy. To get out of the crisis, it is clear that business as usual is not longer an option. In Europe, we need to aim not only for stability, but at the same time also for growth and shops. As President Barroso put it, there can be no stability without growth and no growth without stability. We need to match budgetary stability with structural reforms and targeted investment to stimulate growth. Europe can't compete with Asia on unit costs. We need to be better. And this means we have to invest in research and innovation. And here we have both an opportunity and a challenge for the European industry. To be quite clear, by industry I mean manufacturing and not services, or what we Germans call Realwirtschaft. And this is a change in the paradigm at European level, where we have, particularly in the Commission, maybe looked for too long time to service industries. But we have to come back on our manufacturing basis. And therefore, research and innovation are crucial elements in the Europe 2020 strategy for a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy. As such, the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth recognize the role that science, research and innovation play in our society and our economies. A key role not only in strengthening the competitiveness of our industry but also in addressing the challenges that our society is facing in terms of health, energy, climate change, resources and food. And this recognition of the value of research and innovation is an opportunity for Europe's industry. But how is this becoming a reality to become more knowledge-intensive and innovative? I would like to outline two important elements which must happen to achieve this. First, we need to invest even more public money in research and development. And also, more has to be done on the private sector, I mean on the industrial side. Usually, we need to invest much more in demonstration activities and other activities closer to the market than before, which will help us to bridge the so-called value of death between technological capacity on the one hand, manufacturing capacity and the markets on the other hand. The commission has been doing exactly this in its recent proposals of FP7. The 2012 calls published last year and the 2013 calls, which will be published very soon, early July. The 2013 calls have already been outlined in orientation papers published in April. You might have them all. And it will be presented in connection with the matchmaking event on Thursday. But more is needed. Horizon 2020's new framework program for research and innovation is an ambitious proposal by the commission, whose aims go well beyond strengthening the Union's science and technology base. It will address needs linked to societal challenges. I've already erased them already, but these challenges are also business cases, which we need to catch. The commission has proposed, therefore, an ambitious, but realistic budget of 80 billion Euro in 2011 prices for this framework program. Of course, additional public investment at national and regional level will be needed too. But recent figures on growth during 2010 show clearly that those member states that invested more in research and development are in general souls that find it easier to get out of the crisis. If you agree to this analysis, then I would like to ask you to lobby your national authorities and your members of the European Parliament. Because at the end, it will be the European Parliament and the European Council who will decide on the budget. But if this public investment is to be a fruit, also much private investment and commitment are needed. But to stick to one element of public investment, we need also to explode the structural funds more towards research and innovation. Indeed, the future cohesion policy of the commission will focus on galvanizing smart specialization that will act as a capacity-building instrument in regions and member states, and therefore, the region and city of Aarhus are well-chosen to demonstrate this. And if you look at the first of the 11 objectives of the proposed structural funds regulation for the future, the first is linked exactly to research and innovation, and the third is linked to SME. But to be frank, we at the European level need your help that member states don't continue spending this money for concrete only, but to invest in the future. This is something which we have to achieve if we want to be successful. This brings me to my second point. We need to do much more in partnership. Member states have to work with the EU. They have to join forces with industry, companies have to join companies, and we have to set common agendas for innovation. We have already made quite some progress on this, and an excellent example in this respect is the work done by the European technology platforms. Some of this work led to successful partnerships implemented as joint technology initiatives and the public-private partnerships which started just over three years ago as part of the European Economic Recovery Package. The strategic alignment of private and public research objectives in the PPPs has increased industrial participation in the European R&D efforts, and it is already producing results. The focus on more industry-elevant activities has allowed industry, including SMEs, to re-engage with the framework program. Industry participation is now higher than 50% with almost half of being SME participation. I actually chair an internal reflection group on the future of PPPs and how to make better use of such instruments, but we need the support and commitment of industry to succeed. And as this PPPs demonstrate that it is possible and allowed that the industry is sitting in the driving seat in steering the research agenda, we believe that this commitment of industry is easier for industry to promise. Existing PPPs may they be contractual ones like the factories of the future, energy efficient buildings or the green cars initiatives, or institutional ones like the fuel cells and hydrogen that are taking my well-continue in Horizon 2020, and new PPPs such as one for the sustainable process industry or the bioeconomy may well be created. The decisive factors in the end, if you put yourself in the position of a minister or parliamentarian, will be to have a convincing strategic research agenda and to demonstrate the leverage industry can provide. I think that will be the main elements for the legislator to decide on PPPs in the future. And we want to achieve that this PPPs should remain industry-driven, yet open and transparent in terms of the engagement with the research community at large. Through broad consultation, they should develop ambitious plans in terms of the research and innovation activities they propose with more emphasis on activities closer to the market, including prototyping, demonstration, experimental development and pilot lines and with clear intentions to exploit project results for the benefit of economic growth and shop creation in ZU. I know that there is the intention to sign a declaration at the end of this conference in which industry will spell out its commitments. This is not only welcome, but also needed at the stage of the political debate. I mentioned this already. Politicians all want to understand what industry is prepared to go for in relation to innovation and particularly industrial innovation paid for by industry itself. And finally, politicians will want to understand what the benefits are for growth and shops. This brings me to the key enabling technologies which form the core of industrial competitiveness. This is why the Commission asked a high-level group to look into nanotechnology, advanced materials, manufacturing, biotechnology, micro and nano electronics and photonics. Many of the recommendations of this high-level group are reflected in the current activities under FP7 and of course in the proposals for Ryzen 2020. We are already supporting development that is closer to the market. We are visibly prioritizing these technologies and their interactions in the proposals for Ryzen 2020. And we are looking at how we can maximize their impact on the value chains going beyond science and technology to demonstration activities. One of the main problems is that these technologies are highly capital intensive and the economic crisis means that raising capital and in particular risk capital is difficult. Ryzen 2020 addresses this issue through the instrument for debt and equity finance but we have also to look much closer what the structural funds can offer in this respect in particular for the regions which need to catch up. But Ryzen 2020 as I said will not be enough by itself. We need all actors to be fully engaged. We can no longer have 27 member states and the EU all working separately. An industry can no longer do one thing while academia does something else. We need in Europe to join forces, setting common agendas and to use every single tool at our disposal. We can't afford to do it differently. And this will bring me to the end of my talk. Europe's future depends on a competitive industry which is able to grow and willing to create jobs in Europe. And this in turn depends on knowledge and innovation and of course a friendly environment fostering this. You can count on the European Commission as your partner in this endeavor but we will need also new support to get this idea of cooperation through at all levels. By that I would like to end. I wish us all a successful conference I thank you for your attention and now I switch becoming the chair again. So I have to ask you whether you have questions to me.