In a report published today (Thursday 6th March), the House of
Lords Science & Technology Committee warns that the EU Commission's
plans for spending on collaborative research and development in
the next five years are unfocused and all-embracing.
"Far from being a selective programme to complement and add
value to the research programmes of Member States, the Commission's
programme is of appropriate scope for the national programme of
a leading scientific nation," say the Lords.
The Lords Committee's report, which follows a four-month study,
comes as the EU Commission gradually unveils its plans for the
Fifth Programme ("FP5"). The Lords support the concept
of the EU Framework Programmes. However:
| - | They are unimpressed by the direct research outcomes to date:
"Similar outcomes could have been achieved by spending the
same amounts of money at national or global level."
|
| - | They are "astonished" at the breadth of the Commission's
proposals for FP5: "We would challenge the Commission to
name an area of research which could not find a place in one of
its categories."
|
| - | They do not accept the Commission's claim to a "distinctive
EU scientific agenda".
|
| - | They find that EU R&D administration is expensive and inefficient,
and call for "foot and branch reform ... in time for the
start of FP5."
|
| - | They see no justification for guaranteeing over 7% of the budget
of FP4 to the EU "Joint Research Centre" (actually seven
centres in five different Member States) as ring-fenced funding,
and are "most concerned" that the Commission seem to
envisage no change for FP5.
|
The Lords identify three matters with serious implications for
the UK, in particular:
| - | FP4 makes inadequate provision for the associated costs of a
funded researcher - so that a university which is too successful
in winning Framework contracts might bankrupt itself.
|
| - | UK universities also have to bear the cost of VAT on Framework
projects, because of a dispute between the Commission and UK Customs.
|
| - | The process of "attribution", whereby every pound
which the UK contributes to FP4 comes off the budget baseline
of the relevant UK Government department, is out of step with
the rest of the EU and gives UK negotiators "an interest
... in failure".
|
The Earl of Selborne, the chairman of the Committee, says: "Unless
the Commission can produce a scientific agenda which is much better
focused, a great opportunity for the Fifth Framework Programme
to deliver real added value to member states' national programmes
will have been lost".
