Select Committee on Science and Technology Second Report



SECOND REPORT

25 February 1997



  By the Select Committee appointed to consider Science and Technology.

ORDERED TO REPORT

EU FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

FOR EUROPEAN RESEARCH AND

TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT


CHAPTER 1 EU RESEARCH POLICY


INTRODUCTION

  1.1     The Framework Programme for European Research and Technological Development is the European Union's five-year plan for expenditure on research and related activities. It embraces research to underpin EU policies, and research for the general good. Some of the research is carried out "in-house" in the EU's Joint Research Centre (JRC), and some is put out to competition between groups of researchers from around Europe; it is a fundamental condition that each group must include researchers from at least two different Member States of the EU. The Fourth Framework Programme (FP4), 1994-98, is now over half way through; it costs around 3,500 MECU (£2,520m) per year, around 4 per cent of the total EU budget (Q 323). The United Kingdom's notional contribution to the cost of FP4 is £391m for 1996-97; this may be compared with total planned Government spending on civil science and technology (including FP4) in 1996-97 of £3,785m. The Fifth Framework Programme (FP5) is now under negotiation.

  1.2     If industrial competitiveness and the quality of life are to improve across the European Union, this will depend, as much as upon anything else, on scientific research and technological development. The record of the United Kingdom in research is an enviable one; our record in development and taking discoveries to market is perhaps less to be envied. The present and future shape of the Framework Programmes are therefore very important for the United Kingdom.

  1.3     Research and development are central to industrial competitiveness. Europe's competitors, Japan and the USA, have acknowledged this by announcing increases in their public research budgets. The Commission's thoughtful working paper, Towards FP5: Additional material for the Policy Debate (p 12), concludes that "Given this outlay by our competitors/partners, we must ensure a substantial rate of investment in public and private research spending in Europe."

  1.4     United Kingdom researchers have been keen participants in the Framework Programmes. In FP3 (1990-94), the United Kingdom produced more participating research teams than any other Member State (H.C. Deb. 31 January 1997 col. WA 414), and in the main areas of FP4 United Kingdom research teams are involved in over 75 per cent of projects (p 2).

  1.5     Whether the United Kingdom gets out of the Framework Programmes more than she puts in is difficult to say. This is partly because the Commission publishes no figures to show receipts by each Member State, and partly because the nature of collaborative research is such that any such figures would be misleading. The Rt Hon William Waldegrave MP, then Minister for Science, told this Committee in 1993, "We do rather well. We do not talk juste retour[1] in this programme but we actually do better than juste retour, in terms of the money that goes in through the Brussels mechanism and wins more jobs for British scientists than "technically" it should".[2] In evidence to this inquiry, the OST explained the difficulty of calculating a United Kingdom "balance" on Framework funding (pp 5-6). They concluded, "Estimates suggest that currently UK receipts are of the same order of magnitude as the UK's contribution to that part of the overall budget that is available to Member States" (i.e. not counting the ring-fenced budget of the JRC-see below).

  1.6     The Committee last addressed the issue of European research in its report on the European Community Fourth Framework Programme for R&D in 1993.[3] Since that time a number of significant changes have occurred which are relevant to the funding and organisation of research at both the national and European Union (EU) level. In the United Kingdom the Office of Science and Technology has lost Departmental status and been moved to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI); the Technology Foresight exercise has attempted to put a focus on research priorities in many sectors; and there has been a series of major reviews of Public Sector Research Establishments (the `Prior Options Reviews'). In Europe the number of EU Member States has increased to 15, with more countries keen to join; Mme Edith Cresson is now the Commissioner for research, education and training, and Professor Jorma Routti has succeeded Professor Paolo Fasella as Director-General of Directorate-General XII (DG XII).[4] European Union research priorities have also taken a new direction with, for example, a strong emphasis being given to the development of an information society; FP4 is halfway through, and negotiations are beginning on FP5. This report is a contribution to the debate on FP5.

FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES

  1.7     EU research policy is intended to promote the international competitiveness of European industry, to complement Member States' national research efforts and to support other EU policies. It is founded on Articles 130f-p of the Treaty of Rome, inserted in 1987 as part of the Single European Act and expanded as part of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. It is subject to the principle of subsidiarity.[5]

  1.8     EU research policy is implemented through research programmes which bring together companies, universities and research centres from different European countries in joint research projects. The research themes covered are defined in multi-annual Framework Programmes.[6] The Framework Programmes evolved from an EEC decision in 1984 to improve the co-ordination of its research initiatives. Activities in the nuclear sector, including research into nuclear fusion at the Joint European Torus (JET), are covered by the parallel EURATOM framework programme; the two Framework Programmes are legally distinct, but are generally spoken of as one, and are so referred to in this report.

  1.9     There have so far been four Framework Programmes, as follows:

  Framework Programmes 1-4

  MECU   £m*
  FP1   1984-87   3750   2212
  FP2   1987-91   5396   3777
  FP3   1990-94   6600   4686
  FP4   1994-98 12300   9594

  * At mean exchange rate of first year.

  1.10     The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) has analysed the changing priorities of the first four Framework Programmes.[7] Energy (nuclear and non-nuclear) was the major theme of FP1, but has received a declining proportion of the Programmes which followed, whose dominant theme has been information technology. The increasing budget of successive Programmes is due partly to activities which were carried on outside one Framework being brought within the scope of the next; but, even comparing like with like, FP4's budget is 150 per cent of FP3's.

  1.11     The three objectives of FP4 are:

    --   to develop scientific and technological excellence in Europe, with the aim of responding to the needs of industry and improving the quality of life in the Member States;

    --   to promote scientific and technological cooperation in Europe; to improve the coordination of research efforts undertaken by the Member States and to exploit the results of research projects;

    --   to contribute to the implementation of other Community policies (environment, transport, etc).[8]

  1.12     FP4 consists of 15 specific research programmes, support for the Joint Research Centre (JRC) (see below) and a number of other activities which are listed below. The initial budget for FP4 was 12,300 MECU; it was increased by 800 MECU on the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden. There was provision for a further 700 MECU in 1996; in the event the Council of Ministers agreed to an increase of just 100 MECU in December 1996; this has still to be approved by the European Parliament. The current total budget for FP4 is therefore 13,200 MECU (£9,504m at the current rate). According to the OST, FP4 represents around 4 per cent of the total EU Budget; it is equivalent to about 3 per cent of the aggregate public and private sector R&D investment of individual Member States in 1993, or about 9 per cent of their total non-business R&D investment in 1993 (p 1).

  1.13     The United Kingdom's notional contribution to FP4 for 1996-97 (notional, because Member States' contributions to the EU budget are not formally subdivided) is £391 million. This is approximately the same as the gross funding from the Government's Science Budget for the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)[9]; it is about 6.5 per cent of total planned United Kingdom Government expenditure on science (£5973m), or 10.3 per cent if defence research (£2188m) is excluded (pp 1 and 210).

Component Parts of FP4
ACTIVITY ACRONYM   MECU1   £m2
Telematics TAP   898   647
Communication technologies ACTS   671   483
Information technologies IT   2057   1481
Industrial and material technologies IMT   1818   1309
Measurements and testing SMT   307   221
Environment and climate   907   653
Marine sciences and technologies MAST III   243   175
Biotechnology BIOTECH   588   423
Biomedicine and health BIOMED   356   256
Agriculture and fisheries FAIR   728   524
Non-nuclear energy JOULE-THERMIE   1067   768
Transport   256   184
Targeted Socio-Economic Research TSER   147   106
Co-operation with non-Member States and international organisations INCO   575   414
Dissemination and optimisation of results INNOVATION   352   253
Stimulation of the training and mobility of researchers TMR   792   570
Nuclear fission safety (EURATOM) NFS   441   318
Controlled thermonuclear fusion (EURATOM) FUSION   895   644

  1  Values after accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden

  2  At current rate

  1.14     Although FP4 is only at its mid-way point, and much of the research that it is supporting has only begun very recently, planning for FP5 is already well under way. Inventing Tomorrow, published by the Commission in July 1996, was of the nature of a Green Paper on FP5. It proposed a slight change of direction, beyond "technical achievement" towards "meeting basic economic and social needs"; this would mean involving end-users in project design, putting more into demonstration, and giving more encouragement to exploitation. It set three "general parameters": time from research to market, which is getting shorter, blurring the boundaries between "basic" and "applied", "pre-competitive" and "near-market"; subsidiarity; and budgetary efficiency in the run-up to EMU. It laid down various "requirements" for EU research: to satisfy the expectations of the public; to improve employment and competitiveness; to push back the frontiers of knowledge through world-class science; and to improve the general climate for research and the partnerships between science, industry and the public.

  1.15     According to Inventing Tomorrow, FP4 was "proving extremely attractive", with numerous projects and participants, and indeed as a consequence a high and rising failure rate for proposals. Member States and others commended the Framework Programmes not only for particular successful projects, but also for their contribution to networking and mobility of researchers. However, "Merely continuing FP4 would not be appropriate"; FP5 must be more focused, concentrating on topics which matched the concerns of Europe as a whole and the activities of the EU, while including some new themes.

  1.16     For the actual content of FP5, Inventing Tomorrow proposed just three priority topics:

    --   life sciences and the environment;

    --   the "information society"; and

    --   sustainable growth in fields including products and services, energy, transport, agriculture and fisheries.

  1.17     It also proposed three "horizontal activities" partly interwoven with the priority topics:

    --   "improving human potential", embracing training, mobility and networks of scientists, socio-economic research and foresight;

    --   encouragement of innovation, targeting smaller firms; and

    --   involvement of researchers from non-Member States.

  1.18     Inventing Tomorrow committed the Commission to improved procedures for FP5: fewer programmes and committees, scope for adjustments as needs and opportunities change during the life of a programme, simpler internal processes and contract procedures, shorter deadlines for selection, contracting and payment, more transparent criteria for selection, continuous monitoring, and a means of dialogue with participants (possibly via the Internet). It also envisaged greater flexibility by means of generic technology programmes and task forces (see below). It concluded by inviting discussion. Inventing Tomorrow was presented to the Council of Research Ministers on 7th October 1996.

  1.19     In November, the Commission issued a Working Paper, Towards FP5: Additional material for the policy debate ("Towards FP5": COM(96)595, ISBN 9278-11892-3). It proposed criteria for selection of programmes within each topic: need, opportunity, and above all "high European value added". Programmes proposed to be carried over from FP4 would be assessed for both outcomes and continuing justification. Co-ordination would be improved on three levels: within the Framework Programme; with other EU policies, especially the Structural Funds and the programmes of assistance for non-Member States; and with national programmes. Flexibility during the course of FP5 would be improved by continuing foresight, annual adjustment of programmes, and a small "free space" or contingency fund (see p 128). Oversubscription would be reduced by focusing the programmes, advertising their intended content more clearly, and pre-screening. On the crucial question of quantum, Towards FP5 made no bid, beyond citing significantly the current rise in public sector R&D spending in Japan and the USA. Towards FP5 was presented to the Council of Research Ministers on 5th December 1996.

  1.20     In February, the Commission issued a further Working Paper, Towards FP5: Scientific and Technological Objectives ("Towards FP5 2"). The full text is printed in the volume of evidence accompanying this report (p 223).

  1.21     Under each of the priority topics, or "thematic programmes", proposed in Inventing Tomorrow, Towards FP5 2 proposes a set of "Key Actions", as follows:

      (a)  Unlocking the resources of the living world and the ecosystem

    --   Health and food (including food safety and nutrition)

    --   Control of viral and infectious diseases (including AIDS)

    --   The "cell factory" (i.e. biotechnology)

    --   Management and quality of water (both ground and surface)

    --   Environment (including pollution, radiation, toxic substances and climate change) and health

    --   New rural and coastal areas (i.e. agriculture and fisheries)

      (b)  Creating a user-friendly information society

    --   Services for the citizen (IT applications for education and training; health services; the old and the disabled; access to public services; environmental management; and transport management)

    --   Electronic trade and new methods of work (including payment systems and security)

    --   Multimedia contents (i.e. electronic publishing, language systems, information management)

    --   Essential technologies and infrastructures

      (c)  Promoting competitive and sustainable growth

    --   Products, processes, organisation (for efficient and sustainable industry)

    --   Sustainable mobility and intermodality (i.e. transport)

    --   New perspectives in aeronautics

    --   Marine technologies (ships; marine energy and minerals)

    --   Advanced energy systems and services (including nuclear fusion)

    --   The city of tomorrow (including urban transport, construction, conservation and social organisation)

  1.22     To complement and support the Key Actions, each thematic programme is also to embrace "general activities for the development of generic technologies and basic research". In "The living world", the priorities for these general activities are to be ageing, degenerative diseases including cancer, genetic disorders; genome research and neuroscience; health systems, safety at work, drug abuse, bioethics; global change; and satellite observation. For "The information society", the general activities will involve technologies for data creation, representation and manipulation; virtual reality; quantum, photonic and bioelectronic technologies for large-scale integration; high-performance computers, and super-intelligent networks. The general activities under "Competitive and sustainable growth" are to include new materials; standards, measurement and fraud prevention; and nuclear safety.

  1.23     Each thematic programme is also to make more provision than in FP4 for support for research infrastructure: large facilities, networks and centres of excellence. For "The living world", these will include biological collections and clinical testing centres; for "The information society", advanced high-flow electronic networks; and for "Competitive and sustainable growth", computing centres and databases, wind tunnels and test laboratories.


1   The concept, frowned upon by the Community-minded, that what a Member State gets out of an EU programme should bear some relation to what it puts in. Back

2   Science and Technology White Paper, 8th Report 1992-93, HL Paper 106, Q 29. Back

3   European Community Fourth Framework Programme for R&D, House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology 1st Report, HL Paper 5, Session 1993-94, ISBN 010-400594-7. Back

4   DGXII is the Directorate-General of the European Commission with responsibility for Science, Research and Development. Professor Fasella was the head of DGXII for 14 years until January 1996. Back

5   "The Community shall act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by this Treaty and of the objectives assigned to it therein. In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community. Any action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of this Treaty." Treaty of Rome as amended, Article 3B. Back

6   An excellent review of the first four Framework Programmes is presented in POST, pp 9ff. Back

7   POST 3.6. Back

8   Research and Technology: FP4 (1994-98) European Commission, 1995. Back

9   £386m: Allocation of the Science Budget 1997-98, Department of Trade and Industry, 15 January 1997. Back


 


© Parliamentary copyright 1997
Prepared 5 March 1997