10. We have given further
consideration to the first two of the following on the basis of
further information from the Government. We maintain[25]
our opinion that they raise questions of political importance,
but now make no recommendation for their further consideration.
We consider that the third of the following raises questions
of political importance, but make no recommendation for its further
consideration. We suggest that all three documents would be relevant
to a debate on the Community's research and technological development
policies:-
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY
|
(17494)
9578/96
COM(96)332
|
Commission Communication Inventing Tomorrow - Europe's research at the service of its people.
|
|
(17731)
11886/96
COM(96)595
|
Commission Working Paper Towards the Fifth Framework Programme: Additional Material for the Policy Debate.
|
|
(17932)
6198/97
COM(97)47
|
Commission Communication Towards the Fifth Framework Programme: scientific and technological objectives.
|
Introduction
10.1 The Commission issued
a Communication Inventing Tomorrow - Europe's research
at the service of its people in 1996 to generate debate on
the structure and content of the Fifth Framework Programme (FP5)
which will begin in 1999 when the Fourth Framework Programme ends.
When we considered it on 20 November[26],
we concluded that we would not wish the House to miss an opportunity
to influence the Commission's proposals, but that it would be
helpful for European Standing Committee B to have to hand the
report which the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and
Technology was preparing. This has now been published.[27]
10.2 We also asked the
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science and Technology
(Mr Ian Taylor) to provide us, when the Lords reported, with a
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum on the progress of the Commission's
work on FP5.
10.3 On 22 January 1997
we considered a further paper from the Commission Towards the
Fifth Framework Programme: additional material for the policy
debate[28].
In it the Minister
said that he hoped that the Commission Working Paper, due in January,
would clarify the Commission's ideas, which remained very general.
We commented that in his Explanatory Memorandum there was no
sign that the Government was making any practical input to the
debate.
10.4 The Minister has
now given us a progress report in the form of an Explanatory Memorandum
(dated 4 March) on the expected Commission Working Paper, Toward
the Fifth Framework Programme: Scientific and Technological Objectives.
He provided an unofficial copy, and tells us that it will
be discussed in Working Groups prior to the production of the
formal proposal which the Commission intends to produce at the
end of March. The official text has since been deposited and
appears to be identical.
The document
10.5 Introducing the
paper the Commission says that in Inventing Tomorrow it
underlined its readiness to mark
"...a distinct
break with earlier Framework Programmes, by focusing efforts to
a greater extent, by improving the consistency of the overall
approach and by paying greater attention to the exploitation of
results and the management aspects."
10.6 The first Working
Paper Inventing Tomorrow provided more detail on the proposed
structure and instruments for implementing the programme, while
this second Working Paper is designed
"... to give
a more detailed idea of the possible content of the 5th
Framework Programme and the scientific and technological objectives...."
10.7 The paper describes
the EU's research and technological development policy, as provided
for in Article 130f of the Treaty on European Union, as "based
on the twin principles of scientific and technological excellence
and relevance...". It describes the "two inseparably
linked objectives of this policy as:
(1) to maintain
and enhance the research potential of European laboratories, universities
and companies; and
(2) to ensure
that European research serves the EU's economic and social objectives.
10.8 The criteria for
selecting the content of the programme are set out, with strong
emphasis on a particular effort being made on "selectivity
and concentration on a limited number of areas and objectives".
10.9 In his Explanatory
Memorandum (dated 4 March) the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State for Science and Technology at the Department of Trade and
Industry (Mr Ian Taylor) comments that:
"Another recurring
theme is the need to ensure co-ordination, both within the various
parts of the Framework Programme, and also between FP5 and other
Community activities such as the Structural Funds and programmes
designed to assist third countries. Also emphasised is the need
for flexibility to be built into the Programme in order to allow
the possibility of responding to new needs and scientific developments".
10.10 The Commission
suggests that the Fifth Framework Programme should be structured
around three large research programmes based on the themes:
(1) "Unlocking
the resources of the living world and the ecosystem".
The key actions envisaged under this heading are "health
and food", "control of viral and infectious diseases",
"the cell factory", "management and quality of
water", "environment and health" (epidemiology,
reducing the impact of harmful substances and pollution, climate
change) and "new rural and coastal areas".
(2) "Creating
a user-friendly information society". Key actions: "services
for the citizen", "electronic trade and new methods
of work", "multimedia contents" and "essential
technologies and infrastructures".
(3) "Promoting
competitive and sustainable growth". Key actions: "products,
processes, organisation", "sustainable mobility and
intermodality", "perspectives in aeronautics",
"marine technologies", advanced energy systems and services,
"the city of tomorrow".
10.11 As the Minister
explains in his Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission proposes
to organise the technological content into "key actions"
which would target research effort on defined goals, and "generic
technologies" which would support the key actions and comprise
work distinct from the key actions and potentially of a more fundamental
nature."
10.12 At the end of the
paper the Commission mentions exploiting Article 130k, l and n
of the Treaty to implement activities which are of interest to
certain Member States only. If any is decided on the basis of
these Articles, each would require a specific Decision. If no
supplementary programmes are envisaged, the adoption and implementation
of FP5 should require twelve Decisions, around half the number
required for FP4.
The Government's view
"The UK welcomes
many aspects of the Commission's proposals, in particular its
goal-directed approach and recognition of the need for greater
concentration and focus. Nevertheless the UK has deep concerns
about some of the underlying principles, and the proposed programme
structure and organisation.
"The UK is concerned
that the selection criteria used to choose technological objectives
do not rigorously respect the principle of subsidiarity, are too
concerned with broad social objectives and not sufficiently concerned
with European competitiveness. FP5 needs to be securely anchored
to the objective set out in Article 130f of the Treaty, of research
in support of competitiveness and EU policies. In particular
there need to be much more clearly defined links to EU policies.
The emphasis on research excellence is welcomed but the UK believes
that undue emphasis is placed on the role of fundamental research
outside the proposed key actions. This should remain the domain
of Member States alone.
"In terms of
programme structure and management, the UK has strong concerns
that, the IT area apart, the proposed structure will not be workable
in terms of day to day management, or allow effective expression
of the interest of RTD users. Each of the large thematic programmes
covers a very broad area of research equivalent to several separate
programmes in the current Framework Programme (FP4) and the Commission
give no real indication of how they propose to achieve co-ordination
within the large programmes. The UK is also concerned that a
structure on these lines will undermine Member States ability
effectively to oversee the management of the Programme.
"The UK is concerned
that the Commission proposals lack any commitment to increase
the exposure of the JRC [Joint Research Centre] to competition.
The JRC should be set a clear target for the funding it should
win competitively. The UK does not accept the Commission's proposal
that in FP5 the JRC should have 'at least a strong role as
in FP4'. It is the UK view that success in the market place
and demand from customers should determine the role of the JRC
in FP5."
10.14 In response to
our comment that the Government appeared to have made little practical
impact to the debate, the Minister says:
"In fact, the
Government has been active in making its views known to the Commission.
Following the presentation of the UK position paper in July 1996,
officials have been pressing the UK line with the Commission at
Ministerial/Commissioner and official levels in all fora, including
both the management committees of the individual programmes and
the high-level working committee on science and technology (CREST).
In addition, the UK has pressed its priorities and comment on
emerging Commission proposals at the Research Council meetings
of 7 October and 5 December 1996. Discussions of the current
Commission Working Paper are ongoing and UK officials will continue
to explore opportunities to influence the Commission formal proposal
in bilateral meetings and at CREST meetings in February and March.
The Government shares the Committee's concern that, despite this
effort, the Commission has been apparently reluctant to take into
account the strongly expressed views of the UK and other Member
States in developing its proposals for FP5".
Conclusion
10.15 The Community's
Research and Technological Development activities account for
a considerable slice of those Community funds which are not spent
on agriculture and structural projects. It is vital, at a time
when Europe is striving to retain at least its present
world ranking in its scientific and technological performance,
that these funds are wisely spent. The Commission opened up the
debate on the next framework programme, and subsequent papers
suggest a willingness to take account of reactions to the debate
in developing its plans. It would be disappointing if this initiative
did not result in proposals which enjoyed the full support of
the Member States, and if the failings of FP4 were replicated.
10.16 We have considered
whether to recommend these documents for debate in European Standing
Committee B but have decided that a more practical approach, given
the imminent Dissolution of this Parliament, would be to clear
these documents and suggest that they would be relevant to a debate
on the Community's RTD policies. The Commission's formal legislative
proposal, due in late March, does not seem likely to receive swift
approval so there should be ample opportunity for debate in the
new Parliament before a Common Position on it is agreed, if our
successors wish to recommend it for debate.
10.17 We ask the Government
to inform us if the Commission's formal proposal is delayed.
25 (17494) 9578/96; see HC 36-iv (1996-97), paragraph 6 (20 November 1996); and (17731) 11886/96; see HC 36-x (1996-97), paragraph 5 (22 January 1997). Back
26 (17494) 9578/96; see HC 36-iv (1996-97), paragraph 6 (20 November 1996). Back
27 EU Framework Programme for European Research and Technological Development, 2nd Report, HL Paper 49 (1996-97) (25 February 1997). Back
28 (17731) 11886/96; see HC 36-x (1996-97), paragraph 5 (22 January 1997). Back
|
