Suggestions for improvement of
the JRC
170. The CBI told the Committee "a
ring-fenced budget should be scrapped […] JRC functions should
be open to full competition from other research organisations
across Europe."[261]
The CBI, as did GlaxoSmithKline, considered that the JRC, as it
is now, should be replaced by a European Network of centres of
excellence offering the best quality independent advice and evidence
to the Commission and other users.[262]
171. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical
Industry (ABPI) suggested that the creation of an European Chief
Scientific Adviser, together with a smaller more efficient JRC
office could deliver information necessary for European Policy
making with greater efficiency and would "provide a focal
point for European research efforts." The Commission needs
access to scientific advice, but this should be done through open
competition across member states.[263]
172. The Government told us that there have
"in the past been concerns that the JRC lacked a clear customer
focus and did not provide good value for money. However, since
the arrival in April 2001 of the current Director General, Barry
McSweeney, steps have been taken to improve the management culture
and customer focus."[264]
173. Dr Robert Leslie, who acted as an external
scientific auditor for one of the JRC institutes in 2000, commented
"it is appropriate and essential that they have to compete
for some of their core funding […] some of their old staffing
policies and ring-fenced funding, contributed to a certain complacency
and lack of scientific rigour and incisiveness." However,
Dr Leslie agreed with the Government that the new director (one
of the architects of the Marie Curie Fellowship Programme) would
be likely to have a large impact on the cost effectiveness of
the JRC.[265]
174. The Director of Science Strategy of
the JRC, Mr David Wilkinson, told the Committee in Brussels that
there was no need for a Chief Scientific Advisor as the JRC performed
this function for the Commission. A five year assessment of the
JRC was due to report in early 2004 and the conclusions would
inform the formulation of FP7.
175. Although the Commission should have
access to scientific advice, the Committee remains unconvinced
that the Joint Research Centre fulfils this role adequately and
efficiently with its current structure. An advisory service needs
to be informed by research but is unclear why it requires a research
capacity. We believe that it would prove more effective to end
the ring-fenced funding of the JRC and establish open competition
for the provision of advice to the Commission. This would then
be peer reviewed to ensure the Commission is receiving advice
of the highest quality.
176. When responding to the Report of
the Five-Year Assessment, due in early 2004, the Government and
Research Councils should press the Commission for a more accountable
system of advice and a decision on the future of the JRC which
does not involve further reviews and the time delay that would
cause.
251 
