6. We consider that the following raises
questions of political importance, but make no recommendation for
its further consideration at this stage:--
Department of Trade and Industry
(17494)
9578/96
COM
(96) 332 |
Commission Communication Inventing Tomorrow -- Europe's
research at the service of its people. |
| Legal base: |
-- |
The Commission Communication
6.1 The aim of the Communication is to generate
extensive debate on the future structure and content of the Fifth
Framework Programme (FP5) of research and technological
development which will start in 1999. The responses will provide
guidelines which will serve as the basis for the detailed
proposal which the Commission will put forward later.
6.2 The Commission says that hitherto research
priorities have been dictated largely by technical
considerations, but that now they should be directed towards
meeting the basic social and economic needs of the EU citizen.
It quotes the objectives for the Framework Programme set out in
Article 130f of the Treaty of Rome and notes that the guiding
principle has been that Community action must add value to what
can be achieved at national level. It suggests that FP5 should
aim to satisfy the expectations of the EU's citizens for
sustainable growth and improved quality of life, to have a
positive impact on employment and competitiveness, to extend the
frontiers of knowledge in key areas and assist the creation of
a more favourable climate for research and innovation in Europe.
6.3 On the basis of these objectives, the
Commission attempts to draw up a list of criteria against which
it should be possible for greater selectivity to be applied to
FP5. Taking as one priority topic Research at the service of
the people, the paper identifies three themes:
i. Unlocking the resources of the living world
and the ecosystem.
ii. Creating a user-friendly information
society.
iii. Promoting competitiveness and sustainable
growth.
The Commission suggested that these should be complemented,
as a second priority, by "horizontal" activities
concerned with the development of the EU's human resources for
science and technology, improving the participation of SMEs and
promoting the exploitation of results, and with promoting the
contribution of the EU's research and technological development
to international co-operation.
6.4 Under the heading Implementation, which
the Commission regards as the third priority, it says that the
time has come for a greater concentration of resources and
greater effectiveness. It argues that institutional support
would be improved if decision-making procedures were simplified
through adoption of research policy and programme proposals by
qualified majority. The Commission will advocate this at the
Inter-Governmental Conference. A reduction in the number of
research programmes and committees would also simplify matters.
It envisages a small number of horizontal programmes based on
generic technologies, and suggests that an extended range of
mechanisms for implementation could be used, including task
forces and instruments to promote co-operation in research
between Member States. It acknowledges the need for improvements
in the management and administration of the programme to increase
cost effectiveness and reduce delays. Other issues stressed in
the paper are the need for flexibility to respond both to new
advances in science, and to new priorities and needs, and for
better co-ordination both of EU research with policies in other
areas, and between EU and national research efforts.
The Government's view
6.5 In his Explanatory Memorandum (dated 16
October), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science
and Technology (Mr Ian Taylor) says that:
"The UK notes that this is a highly preliminary
paper that will be followed by further papers setting out the
Commission's proposals in more detail, and in due course the
Commission's formal legislative proposal for the Fifth Framework
Programme. While it welcomes a number of emphases of the paper,
for example the stress on greater selectivity of research topics,
on scientific excellence and greater efficiency in programme
management, it views a number of others, for example the role
outlined for basic science in the programme, more cautiously.
Overall however, it considers the proposals insufficiently
developed to allow comments of substance: the paper's ideas are
highly general and give only vague indications of the likely
shape and contents of the Fifth Programme. The UK hopes that the
Commission will proceed to elaborate these initial ideas without
delay so that the tight timetable for the negotiations on the
Fifth Programme can be maintained".
On the question of subsidiarity, the Minister adds that:
"The UK will seek to ensure that, as in FP4, the
Fifth Framework Programme only funds research that can only be
done, or can only be effectively done, at the European level and
where value is clearly added by carrying out such research at
that level."
POST report
6.6 The Parliamentary Office of Science and
Technology (POST) published a paper in October entitled The
European Union and Research -- EU Framework Programmes and
National Priorities which examines the history of the
programmes, noting the 50% increase in the budget of FP4 over its
predecessors and the addition of two new areas of funding --
targeted socio-economic research and transport. It points out
that, although the sums devoted to the Framework programmes are
significant[15], they are
small compared with the total spent in Member States (some 3%).
It looks at how successful the programmes have been, says that
a well-developed objective system of evaluation has not yet been
devised, and asks what their real purpose should be. It includes
examples of what the objectives might be for FP5, which we
reproduce below.
House of Lords inquiry
6.7 Sub-Committee I of the Science and Technology
Committee of the House of Lords is beginning an inquiry into the
Framework Programme and European Research with a view to
making a report to that House early in 1997. In its invitation
to submit evidence it lists a number of questions which we also
reproduce below.
Conclusion
6.8 The Minister describes the Communication
as giving only "vague indications" of the likely
contents of a Fifth Framework Programme, but we consider that the
Commission paper does provide a platform for a thorough
examination of the future shape and content of this major EU
programme while it is still at an early formative stage.
6.9 The Minister says that he hopes that the
Commission will proceed without delay and we would not wish the
House to miss an opportunity to influence its proposals.
However, as the House of Lords Committee is due to report in
early 1997 it may be helpful for European Standing Committee B
to have its Report before debating the document. We also ask the
Minister to provide us with a Supplementary Explanatory
Memorandum on progress in the development of proposals by the
time the House of Lords Committee reports. We shall report again
once we have this further information.
ANNEX A
POSSIBLE EXAMPLES OF OBJECTIVES FOR FP5
| --Intelligent business and administration:
innovative use of information systems for competitiveness in
business and public services. |
| --Agile enterprise: developing the responsive,
adaptable business. |
| --More efficient, clean and sustainable processing
industry: advanced manufacturing and processing with least
environmental impact. |
| --Energy for tomorrow's Europe: Cheaper, more
secure energy for Europe's industry and citizens. |
| --Better construction: delivering better value to
construction industry customers. |
| --European aeronautics for world markets:
technologies for the safer, more efficient, more environmentally
friendly plane. |
| --Towards tomorrow's car: technologies for the
environmentally friendly, more efficient vehicle. |
| --The informed citizen: empowering the citizen
through easier access to information for culture, leisure and
self-development. |
| --Molecular and bio-technologies for competitiveness
and quality of life: innovative products, processes and
treatments. |
| --Sustainable farming and fishing: underpinning
European policies and regulations. |
| --Sustainable transport: safe, environmentally
friendly transport systems for accessibility, mobility and
choice. |
| --Supporting EU environmental policy: to support
the implementation of the European Community Programme of Policy
and Action in Relation to the Environment and Sustainable
Development (AP5). |
| --Strengthening the single market: developing the
European test and measurement infrastructure for makers and users
of standards.
|
ANNEX B
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
Sub-Committee I
Framework Programme
Sub-Committee I is beginning a new inquiry into the
Framework Programme and European Research, with a view to
making a report to the House of Lords early in 1997. The
Sub-Committee invites written submissions on the questions listed
below.
Direction
1. What lessons should be derived from the Fourth Framework
Programme?
2. Should there be a Fifth Framework Programme? If so, what
should be the main objectives or focus and how should the
priorities be set?
3. What should be the balance between basic and applied,
pre-competitive, and near-market research funded through a Fifth
Framework Programme?
4. What should be the role of Task Forces in a Fifth Framework
Programme?
5. Can it be demonstrated that the UK gets clear value for
money from participation in the Framework Programme and, in
particular, what has been the impact on industrial
competitiveness, social and economic sectors?
Priorities
6. What should be the role and priorities of the Joint Research
Centre, and how should its activities be funded?
7. How should the EU meet its "cohesion objective"
of enabling SMEs and Member States with less scientific expertise
to benefit from the Framework Programme, while ensuring that the
highest scientific standards for EU research are met?
Funding and administration
8. Does the European Commission have the adequate expertise and
the mechanisms to support the Framework Programme?
9. Is the current length of Framework Programmes too long and
would they benefit from shorter time frames with more flexible
funding? Alternatively, should the Programmes be longer?
10. Should Task Forces have ear-marked funds to support their
own research programmes?
11. How should the UK allocate funding for the Framework
Programme and other EU research initiatives to ensure that UK
researchers are not disadvantaged?
15. 12.3 billion ECU (£9.89 billion) over
5 years for FP4. Back
|
