Select Committee on European Scrutiny Thirteenth Report


A EUROPEAN RESEARCH AREA


(21013)
5643/00
COM(2000) 6

Commission Communication: Towards a European Research Area.
Legal base:
Document originated: 18 January 2000
Forwarded to the Council: 24 January 2000
Deposited in Parliament: 1 March 2000
Department: Trade and Industry
Basis of consideration: EM of 17 March 2000
Previous Committee Report: None
To be discussed in Council: June Research Council
Committee's assessment: Politically important
Committee's decision: Not cleared; further information requested

Background

  12.1  The Commission analyses the current state of European research and seeks to stimulate a debate on what should be done about it. It describes the situation as "worrying" and concludes that there is a lack of a European policy on research. National and Union research policies overlap without forming a coherent whole. A broader approach is needed, particularly with enlargement in mind. A Europe of 25 or more countries will not be able to operate with the methods used so far. Action must be taken urgently.

The Commission's analysis

  12.2  Europe does not make the best use of its scientific potential, yet research is important for job creation in the longer term. There is a need to build on existing research efforts if Europe is to remain globally competitive, the Commission says, and provides statistics to show the current position of the EU relative to the US and Japan, and of the Member States relative to one another. These highlight the extent to which the EU is underinvesting and to which European research is understaffed, employing few researchers in comparison with the United States and Japan. We reproduce a few of the tables and graphs from the document below.

  12.3  Some of the elements which make this a gloomy picture are:

  • the average research effort stands at 1.8% of EU GDP, though differences between Member States are significant. The figure for the United States is 2.8%, and 2.9% for Japan;

  • the gap is increasing, with the difference between the EU and the US in total expenditure amounting to 60 billion euro in 1998, as against 12 billion in 1992;

  • the trade gap in 'high tech' products is increasing; and

  • the number of degree-level European students in the United States is twice as high as that of American students in Europe, and 50% of Europeans studying for doctorates stay on in the US, some for ever.

  12.4  However, the Commission says:

     "... research and technology account for 25 to 50% of economic growth and have a strong influence on competitiveness and employment and the quality of life of Europeans. If technological progress creates the jobs of tomorrow, it is research which creates the jobs of the day after tomorrow."

  12.5  The image that Europeans have of science is less positive than it was. It seems to inspire as much anguish as hope. Yet Europe produces a third of the world's scientific knowledge and is in the forefront in some areas, such as medical research and chemistry.

Suggestions for action

  12.6  The financial instrument for implementing the EU's research policy is the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (RTD) (1998-2002)[37]. The form and content of the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) will have to be thoroughly rethought. Meanwhile, the Commission says:

    "The full panoply of instruments available to the Union should be brought into play;

    "—  practical instruments, such as databases and information systems;

    "—  structures and mechanisms of exchange of information and experience: working groups, networks of experts and operators;

    "—  financial instruments;

    "—  legal instruments, Regulations and Directives;

    "—  policy co-ordination instruments, making for a genuine political debate and culminating in recommendations or resolutions from the Council.

    "The range of possibilities provided by the Treaty (joint ventures, supplementary programmes, participation in national programmes, in particular) should be re-examined."

  12.7  The approach taken in the employment sector, based on guidelines, national plans of action and presentation of joint reports on implementation, could be taken as a model, the Commission suggests.

     A European Research Area (ERA)

  12.8  This concept, advocated by the new Commissioner for Research, Philippe Busquin, is for a more coherent approach to RTD to overcome the current fragmentation and duplication of effort in Europe. A number of suggestions are made in the Communication for creating this area. The Commission recognises that

    "EU programmes contribute only 5.4% of the total public R&D expenditure, so that a European policy must be based on the principles of 'subsidiarity', (that measures must be taken at the level where they will be most effective) and [provide] 'European added value' (concentration on action which is best performed at a European level)."

  12.9  Part of the Commission's argument is that Europe needs to move beyond the current static structure of "15+1" (15 national programmes + 1 EU) towards a configuration in which the Member States and the Commission work jointly to ensure that RTD contributes to the achievement of a knowledge economy in Europe.

  12.10  A list of actions proposed is annexed to the document. These are summarised by the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry at the Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury) in his Explanatory Memorandum of 17 March:

    "The Communication outlines 19 specific themes for action under 7 headings which encompass a very broad range of R&D issues at a high level. Of these themes, some of the more important potential elements in ERA are seen by the Commission to include:

    "—  the creation of a frontier-free area for research;
    "—  networking of centres of excellence;
    "—  developing a European approach to large research infrastructures;
    "—   action on patents;
    "—  easier access to risk capital;
    "—  better co-ordination of research between Member States;
    "—   encouraging the mobility of researchers;
    "—  the Commission playing a rôle as co-ordinator and catalyst; and
    "—  Member States to open up their national research programmes to non-nationals."

The Government's view

  12.11  Commenting on the Communication, the Minister says that it will provide a timely stimulus to the debate on the development of the Sixth Framework Programme and on the longer term issues facing European science and innovation policy. The Government, he says,

    "... agrees that to enjoy fully the benefits of the knowledge economy, we will need to promote excellence in European R&D and its exploitation by European-based companies."

  12.12  He adds:

    "There are some themes, notably greater mobility of young EU researchers and networking of centres of excellence, whose high profile in the Communication is fully consistent with UK policy.

    " The Communication also indicates development of the Commission's analysis with respect particularly to the rôle of basic research and to co-operation in science policy-making between Member States (especially in the development of large facilities). It is premature to take a firm position on any of these suggestions until their practical application becomes clearer through the on-going discussion and debates. In any case, if and when any of these suggestions become formal proposals, they will be the subject of future Explanatory Memoranda."

Consultation

  12.13  The Commission has placed the Communication on the Internet and invited comments. The DTI's Office of Science and Technology is running a public consultation on the Sixth Framework Programme and the future direction of European research.

Conclusion

  12.14  The Minister has provided us with a sound Explanatory Memorandum which gives us the information which we need at this stage of the consultation. We just regret that it arrived too late for our consideration before the Lisbon Summit on Employment, to which the Commission expected to present the Communication. It was adopted by the Commission in mid-January but not deposited until 1 March 2000. We ask the Minister to explain this delay.

  12.15  The Communication is intended to stimulate debate and we should be interested to see any formal response to it from the Government. We note that the Minister believes that the Communication is timely in relation to development of the Sixth Framework Programme. We ask him what scope the Government believes that there is to bring other instruments into play, as the Commission suggests.

  12.16  We also ask the Minister to report to us on the outcome of the informal debate on the Communication by Research Ministers in March and to provide us with an Explanatory Memorandum on the areas of work on which the Commission is expected to seek the Council's assent, in good time for us to consider it before the June Research Council. Meantime, we shall not clear this document.


37   Official Report: European Standing Committee B Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development , 5 November 1997; and (18822) - ; see HC 155-xvi (1997-98), paragraph 12 (11 February 1998). Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 26 April 2000