European Standing Committee B
Wednesday 5 November 1997
[Mr John Maxton in the Chair]
Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development
10.30 am
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham): On a point of order, Mr Maxton. Having served for some time on European Standing Committee A in the previous Parliament, I need your guidance on matters that may be of help to the Committee.
The Vote Office received notification at midday last Wednesday, 29 October, that two documents would be discussed this morning: Nos. 7310/97 and 10385/97. On Friday, which was a non-sitting Friday, without previous notification--the Vote Office staff assured me that they were surprised--four more documents were added to the list of papers to be discussed, namely Nos. 7192, 7594, 7611 and 7691. Members of the Committee, who were probably in their constituencies on a non-sitting Friday, would not have had an opportunity to pick up those papers until Monday. Furthermore, Mr. Maxton, you were sent two more copies of extra documents on Monday, which members of this Committee did not receive until Tuesday.
Is it usual practice for a Department to be so rude as to provide a Committee with documents at such a late stage? That prevents hon. Members from scrutinising them fully and is a great impertinence not only to members of the Committee, but to you, Mr. Maxton, who must oversee with fairness the workings of the Committee. Will you send a letter of complaint about the incompetence of the Department of Trade and Industry, which resulted in important papers for discussion this morning being delivered at such a late stage to members of the Committee? I do not know whether they have read them, but certainly a few hon. Members will not have had the opportunity fully to scrutinise the papers.
I seek your ruling on the matter, Mr. Maxton, and wish to know whether you will complain not only on behalf of members of the Committee, but on your own behalf, about such rudeness and inefficiency on the part of the DTI?
The Chairman: This is not a matter for the Chair. The provision of documents is a matter for the Department concerned. Documents should be provided to hon. Members as quickly as possible, but that is a matter for the particular Department and it is not a matter on which I can rule.
Mrs. Gillan rose--
The Chairman: I have ruled on the hon. Lady's point of order, but she may have a few more moments in which to make a further point.
Mrs. Gillan: Will it be in order, Mr. Maxton, for you to complain to the Department about its lack of respect for the Committee? Although it is not your responsibility, you have been on the receiving end of such rudeness. I should like you to consider whether you will complain to the Department of Trade and Industry about it providing important documents to the Committee as late as yesterday.
The Chairman: I shall say no more other than that the matter is not one for the Chair. Obviously, it is more convenient if documents are provided on time to give members of the Committee an opportunity to examine them. The Minister may wish in his opening statement to comment on why the papers arrived in different batches.
Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge): Further to that point of order, Mr. Maxton. Will you use your influence to see whether documents which are available to the Select Committee could be made available to members of the Standing Committee? I believe that the Select Committee referred the matter to this Committee before the summer recess, so it should have been possible for the majority of the documents to have been made available to us during the summer recess. You may not have the power to order such action, Mr. Maxton, but members of the Committee would greatly appreciate it if you could use your influence to see whether such arrangements can be made in future.
The Chairman: Documents are available in the Vote Office even if they have not been sent to members of the Committee. As I said, this is not a matter for the Chair. I must tell Conservative Members that their points of order are eating into the time that we have to discuss the matters before us.
Mrs. Gillan: On a new point of order, Mr. Maxton, of which I have given you notice. When finally we received the papers for scrutiny this morning, we were given a list of relevant documents. However, document 5874/97 is not mentioned in that list. Will you clarify that document's status? Are we scrutinising the document this morning, in which case the list is not in order, or has it been appended to the papers to be of use to the Committee? If so, can you say if and when it will come before the Committee for scrutiny?
The Chairman: Again, I say that the list of documents is not a matter for the Chair. I assume that the document is included for the Committee's use but that, as it is not listed, it is not part of the formal discussion. As to when it will be debated, that is a matter for the Select Committee on European Legislation.
Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset): On a point of order, Mr. Maxton. Having spent the better part of last night trying to absorb this material and finding it extraordinarily difficult to do so, and given your helpful clarificatory ruling that, unfortunately, the Chair has no authority to command such papers to be ready on time-I assume that that must mean that the Committee could sit without any papers and that you would not be able to do anything about it--I should like to move that further consideration be adjourned, to give the Committee sufficient time to scrutinise these important documents.
The Chairman: The papers were available in the Vote Office for any hon. Member who wanted to obtain them.
The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): Further to that point of order, Mr. Maxton. Opposition Members have not yet learnt the rules of the game. In opposition, we learnt that, if we wanted papers in order to do our homework for a Committee, we had to go to the Vote Office to get them. I say to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) with the greatest respect that I, too, believe that hon. Members should have papers in time to scrutinise them properly for Committee. Conservative Members are now in opposition and no longer have the luxury of briefings on which their lines are written out. They are discovering that the Opposition have to do their own homework. The papers were available in the Vote Office.
The Chairman: Order. We have now fully discussed that point of order. I cannot take a motion for the Committee to adjourn as the House decided that we should sit this morning. I therefore call the Minister to make his statement.
10.37 am
Mr. Battle: I welcome this opportunity to discuss the European framework programme and the documents, which have been available in the Vote Office for some time so that hon. Members could read and assess them before we considered the matters before us today.
Mrs. Gillan: Will the Minister give way?
The Chairman: Order. The Minister is making a statement and so will not give way.
Mr. Battle: That is the usual procedure of the Committee.
I am grateful to the Scrutiny Committees of the House of Lords and the House of Commons for examining European Union proposals and legislation. It is important that we scrutinise work that is done elsewhere and have proper and full debates, as policy and legislation are formulated not only in this House but in Europe.
Last week, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I met the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology to discuss the wider science picture. It is important that we occasionally focus on the policy area that is before us today, which I believe has not received the attention it deserves from the House.
The framework programmes date from the mid-1980s. The first was set up in 1984 and ran for three years. We are now in the midst of the fourth framework programme, which began in 1994 and runs until 1998. Discussions on the fifth framework programme started in the middle of 1996. I emphasise that, in those discussion, we are now one of 15 countries. We are negotiating for consensus, for a common position, so that we can take programmes forward.
Today we will concentrate on European research, technology and development. I attended the Council of Ministers on 15 May, some days after the general election, to start to tackle, as a new Administration, the Commission's proposals for the management of the programme, and to sharpen the focus.
Today is an especially opportune time to discuss the fifth framework programme as we are at a crucial point in negotiations. I am pleased to say that those negotiations are making reasonably good progress, but there is still a long way to go. The fifth framework programme gives us an opportunity to develop a new approach to framework programme research in Europe, but we must work hard to shape that programme and make it happen.
At the Research Council, which meets next week, we will tackle major issues relating to the structure and shape, the scientific and technological content and management--including user input--of the programme. We have also had initial exchanges on the budget, and how that might be broken down.
I hope that we can reach a common position at the February Council, during our presidency of the Council of Ministers. It would be good if we could sharpen up and agree on the programme. That will be a challenge because the timetable for completion is incredibly tight.
Before dealing with framework programme five in detail, I should like to say a few words about the current programme to spell out what it does. The framework programme funds collaborative research and technology development; it involves universities and companies engaged in science for more than one member state. It is aimed at improving industrial competitiveness, supporting Community policies in transport, the environment, energy and health. It is designed to fund strategic and applied research. It excludes what is now known as ``near-market research'', and basic curiosity-driven research. It covers all areas of science and technology.
The fourth framework programme was divided into 18 sub-programmes, which were largely organised on traditional scientific and technological lines. They are multi-annual programmes that involve major expenditure.
I emphasise that Britain has a strong participation, averaging more than 50 per cent., in such programmes. We have particular strengths in research in agriculture, transport, life sciences and advanced communication technologies, where the figure is as high as 70 to 80 per cent. We are delighted at the level of UK participation--it is high, and we therefore want a strong say in how the programme proceeds. We can make good use of it.
British industry and universities feature strongly in the framework programme. I emphasise that small and medium-sized enterprises account for just over half of industry participants. It is therefore not only big companies which are involved. Figures for UK participants in the framework four programme are: 40 per cent. from industry; 39 per cent. from academia; 21 per cent. from research organisations.
I emphasise that the biggest share of funding goes to industry; the rest is shared between academia and research institutes. Of the proportion going to industry, small and medium-sized enterprises should benefit, given that we want a heightened focus on the work of those enterprises.
The programme so far is a good reflection of the quality of UK research in the private and public sectors. We have contributed and made a strong input into the programme.
| 
