Select Committee on European Legislation Ninth Report


FOURTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME: ADDITIONAL FUNDING

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

 


© Parliamentary copyright 1997
Prepared 28th January 1997