RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURES
(21264)
—
|
Draft Council Resolution on research infrastructures.
|
| Legal base:
| — |
| |
| Department: |
Trade and Industry |
| Basis of consideration:
| SEM of 12 June 2000 |
| Previous Committee Report:
| HC 23-xx (1999-2000), paragraph 7 (7 June 2000)
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| 15 June 2000 |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared |
Background
12.1 On 7 June, we considered an EM from
the Minister for Science and Innovation at the Department of Trade
and Industry (Lord Sainsbury) on a draft Resolution which invited
the Commission to provide immediate support, that is funding,
for two research "infrastructures" under the 'Quality
of Life and Management of Living Resources' programme of the Fifth
Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development
(FP5). The infrastructures concerned are the European Bioinformatics
Institute (EBI) and the European Mouse Mutant Archive (EMMA).
12.2 Both these research infrastructures
received funding from the Biotechnology programme of the Fourth
Framework Programme (1994-1998) (FP4). This included "core"
funding, but in December 1998 the Research Council agreed unanimously
to specifically exclude running costs and core funding from the
'Quality of Life' programme. Subsequently, both EBI and EMMA submitted
proposals which included core funding costs. These were peer reviewed
by independent evaluation panels and judged to be ineligible under
the rules of the current Framework programme (FP5).
12.3 The Minister's view was that the Resolution
was unacceptable, inappropriate and unnecessary. Furthermore,
EMMA was not a legal entity and therefore ineligible to receive
funding directly. We agreed and did not clear the document.
The Supplementary EM
12.4 Since the Minister's EM of 6 June,
the draft Council Resolution has undergone a number of significant
amendments and the Minister has submitted an SEM giving details
of an unofficial revised text. There is no longer any question
of it providing for core funding but, he says, the Commission
has introduced a change to the Work Programme of the 'Quality
of Life' Programme, enabling research which has an innovative
content to be funded, in principle. This would release funds which
could be diverted to core funding. He comments:
"...the Government acknowledges
that the revised text is a significant improvement to the working
text on which the previous Explanatory Memorandum was based. For
example, the current draft has deleted the unacceptable reference
to providing immediate support for identified facilities, which
would clearly have breached the rules of fair and open competition
in the Framework Programme, based on calls for proposals. The
reference in the original text to the Community becoming a significant
contributor to important European facilities, providing them with
a specified fraction of their costs, has also been deleted. In
addition, the title of the draft Resolution now clearly refers
to life science infrastructures (in the original version it referred
to infrastructures generally). The new text of the last paragraph,
inviting the Commission to find short term means to overcome the
problems identified, has in practice already been addressed by
Commission action..."
12.5 The action to which the Minister refers
is the change mentioned above. This does not guarantee more funds
for EBI and EMMA. Applications will have to be made under the
FP5 rules. The purpose of the Resolution will be to lend extra
weight, emphasising the importance which the Council attaches
to these research infrastructures. The Minister says that the
Government continues to have strong doubts about the desirability
of such a Resolution, given that the conditions of support for
research infrastructures are set out in the Fifth Framework Programme
and the Specific Programme. But he comments:
"In view of the improvements
made to the text, partly at the request of the UK, and the possibility
of further drafting changes being proposed at the Research Council
meeting on 15 June with a view to making the text more neutral
still, in terms of references to specific infrastructures, the
Government considers it would be appropriate to await the outcome
of the discussion at Council before taking a final decision on
whether to support a Resolution. This will also enable the Government
to take into account the extent of support or opposition among
other Member States."
12.6 The revised draft was examined by COREPER
on 31 May.
Conclusion
12.7 We deplore any attempt by the Council
to exert political pressure on decisions for support taken under
the Fifth Framework Programme. These should be taken under the
rules of the Programme, which provide for the applicant's case
to be carefully made, and accepted after peer evaluation, and
not in response to political considerations.
12.8 We recognise that the Resolution
is less damaging in its present form, so we shall not keep the
document under scrutiny and now clear it. But we believe that
it could set an unfortunate precedent and we are concerned that
the Presidency still wishes to push ahead with it. We, therefore,
urge the Government to continue to try to persuade the other Member
States to oppose adoption of it.
|
