5. We have given further consideration to the following on the basis of
further information from the Government. We maintain our opinion[7] that they raise questions of political importance, but again make no
recommendation for their further consideration at this stage:--
Department of Trade and Industry
(16986) 4866/96 COM(96)12 |
(i) Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision
adapting for the second time Decision No. 1110/94/EC on the Fourth Framework Programme for research,
technological development and demonstration (1994-1998); and
(ii) Proposal for a Council Decision adapting for the second time Decision 94/268/EURATOM
concerning the framework programme of research and training for the European Atomic Energy
Community. |
(17531) 10469/96 COM(96)453 |
(iii) Amended proposal for a European Parliament and Council
Decision adapting for the second time Decision No. 1110/94/EC concerning the Fourth Framework
Programme of activities in the field of research, technological development and demonstration
(1994-1998), as adapted by Decision 616/96/EC.
(iv) Amended proposal for a Council Decision adapting for the second time Decision
94/268/EURATOM concerning the framework programme of activities in the field of research and
training for the European Atomic Energy Community (1994-1998), as adapted by Decision
96/253/EURATOM. |
Legal base: |
(i) & (iii)Article 130i; co-decision; unanimity.
(ii) & (iv)Article 7 of EURATOM; unanimity. |
The documents
5.1 These documents cover draft Decisions to provide additional funding for the
Fourth Framework Programme (FP4). When seen by us on 20 November the figure proposed was 700
million ECU (£567 million[8]) but it was expected to be
radically revised through negotiation. The Commission had been invited by the 7 October Research
Council to clarify the position at the 5 December Research Council.
Further information and the Government's view
5.2 In a letter (dated 12 December but not received by us until 9 January) the
Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Trade and Industry (Mr Ian Taylor) says that the
Commission put forward an amended proposal for 100 million ECU (£75 million[9]) and that "in the light of explanations given by the Commission, I gave
the United Kingdom's agreement to the proposal, subject to a statement by the Council and Commission
recognising the need for the Council to examine urgently, on the basis of detailed figures provided
by the Commission, the expenditure pressures on category 3 of the financial perspectives until the
end of the current financing period".
5.3 The Minister welcomes this outcome, noting that the additional funding will serve
UK priorities well and that a portion will be devoted to research on transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies (TSE). In his Explanatory Memorandum on a Commission Communication, on which we
report separately[10], and which sets out an Action Plan on how
the research money might be spent, he tells us that the figure is 35 million ECU (£26 million).
Scrutiny
5.4 Although that Communication promises a second revised proposal from the
Commission, we understand that the Council reached a Common Position on the basis of a letter from
Commissioner Cresson to the Irish President of the Research Council. This unorthodox procedure was
questioned but accepted so that progress could be made.
5.5 We understand that the proposal is likely to be formally adopted on 27 January
and that the European Parliament will start to consider it on 29/30 January. The EP is expected
to hold out for supplementary funding to FP4 of more than 100 million ECU, preferably 200 million.
It may also amend the funding for TSE research to 17.5 million ECU if the supplement remains at 100
million ECU, the additional 16.5 million ECU to be allocated to renewable energy programmes.
Meanwhile the Commission has called for proposals for TSE research projects, having earmarked 9
million ECU from an agriculture budget.
Conclusion
5.6 The paperwork on these documents is not easy to follow but the outcome is
vastly different from the original proposal. What is still lacking is a clear explanation of the
purpose to which the extra funding is to be put, apart from that allocated to research on TSE
(itself a substantial sum).
5.7 It is particularly unfortunate that the Minister's letter did not reach us
until a month after it was written, given that he had agreed the proposal before it had cleared
Scrutiny. We understand why he gave that agreement; but the onus is on the Government to make sure
that we are informed at the first opportunity when agreement is given before Scrutiny is
completed.
5.8 Although it seems likely that a re-examined proposal will eventually emerge,
we shall not clear these documents until we have seen the Common Position text. We ask the Minister
to provide us with this and an update on the progress of the proposals and the Commission's figures
on the financial perspectives.
7.(16986) 4866/96 and (17531) 10469/96; see HC 36-iv (1996-97), paragraph 4 (20
November 1996). Back
8.At £1 = 1.2336 ECU. Back
9.At £1 = 1.3322 ECU. Back
10.(17684) 11759/96; see paragraph 8 of this Report. Back
|