77.Research policy is a shared competence between the EU and Member States, as outlined in the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU (TFEU). Both the EU and Member State governments legislate and adopt legally binding acts in this area. A number of mechanisms have been established by the EU to support science and research. Researchers and organisations within the 28 Member States (MS) of the EU are able to apply and participate in these mechanisms. In addition, some non-EU countries are able to participate. A total of 13 Associated Countries contribute to Framework Programme budgets in proportion to their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which enables their researchers and organisations to apply for Horizon 2020 (H2020) projects with the same status as those from EU Member States. We return to consider Associated Country status in Chapter 6.
78.Furthermore, a number of Third Countries participate via individual Science and Technology Cooperation Agreements with the EU. This group of countries includes the industrialised and emerging economies and several developing countries. These countries participate to a lesser extent than Member States and Associated Countries.
79.The EU funding system for science, research and innovation is complex. We heard a number of times about the bureaucracy that is encountered when applying for EU funds or engaging with EU programmes. The submission from the Pirbright Institute expressed such concerns:
“The demands of the EU in terms of record keeping are onerous and require full original records of every aspect of the costs associated with the grant. This level of record keeping seems to be proportionately more important than the actual science achieved when reporting back to the EU progress and especially in agreeing the final provision of funds to support the science.”
80.We were told that EU grant management can be time-consuming and require specialist knowledge. The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute stated:
“The Grants and Contracts Managers at the Sanger Institute noted that EC grants occupied disproportionately more of their time than UK grants and that the whole process could be better streamlined.”
They also commented, however, that the significant benefits from EU grants made the extra effort worthwhile.
81.The Royal Society of Biology pointed out that:
“UK Government and EU research funding streams are not readily comparable. EU funds are managed across many large scale projects and therefore incur increased administrative burden.”
82.A simplification project has been underway across EU funding schemes in order to streamline the processes involved. There was broad consensus that efforts being made by the EU to simplify engagement are to be encouraged.
83.The timeframe and recognition of interdisciplinary research within EU funding frameworks both received praise. The Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC) suggested:
“It is important that long-term recovery in Europe, including the UK, is accompanied by a long-term plan for investment in research and innovation. Long-term Framework Programmes offering consistent, long-term funding like Horizon 2020 are an important part of this picture.”
84.The University of Cambridge indicated that interdisciplinarity is dealt with efficiently within EU funding frameworks:
“The EU research programmes more widely aim to support the inherent interdisciplinarity of research—to recognise not only that there are global problems which need tackling across geographical borders (the challenges posed by an ageing population for example), but also that research itself is inherently interdisciplinary.”
85.In order to inform our investigations, we sought a diagrammatic representation of the main ways that the EU supports science and research. However, we could not find such a figure, so we have created Figure 2 below from the evidence we received, European Parliament briefings and informal discussions with the UK Research Office. This figure attempts to capture the principal mechanisms established by the EU to support science and research. We are aware that some specific research areas are not shown. Environmental research is an illustrative example. In this case, funding can be found throughout H2020, particularly the Societal Challenges pillar. A number of EU partnerships, including Joint Programming Initiatives (JPIs) and Article 185 initiatives, also address environmental issues.
Note: in some cases, only key subsets have been included for clarity. An explanation of acronyms can be found in Appendix 5.
86.The EU supports science and research through five main mechanisms, as highlighted in Figure 2, namely:
87.Some of these programmes involve grants, some are methods of financing and others are platforms designed to facilitate collaboration and connections.
88.Horizon 2020 (H2020) is the EU’s flagship programme for science and innovation. It replaced a series of Framework Programme funds (the last being Framework Programme 7) in 2014. It will run from 2014–20 and has a budget of approximately €74.8 billion. As shown in Figure 2 above, H2020 consists of seven main pillars:
(1)Excellent Science, including:
(2)Industrial Leadership, including:
(3)Societal Challenges, including:
(4)Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation
(5)Non-nuclear direct actions of the Joint Research Centre (JRC)
(6)European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)
(7)Science with and for Society
89.H2020 is managed by the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (DG RTD). There are seven other DGs with a research dimension (Energy, Communication, Agriculture, Education and Culture, Growth, Home Affairs and the Joint Research Centre (JRC)) that share ownership and responsibility for the Programme with DG RTD.
90.Funding is mostly allocated competitively through calls for proposals to which researchers and organisations can apply. Criteria for allocating funding vary and include scientific excellence, alignment with a number of strategic objectives (grand challenges), geographical and disciplinary diversity and potential for commercialisation. European Research Council (ERC) funding, part of the Excellent Science pillar, is unique as it is awarded solely on the basis of excellence—grants have neither thematic priorities nor geographical quotas.
91.Figure 3 below shows EU estimated expenditure on research, development and innovation for the period 2014–20, including a breakdown of expenditure within Horizon 2020 as well as a breakdown of the Excellent Science pillar of Horizon 2020. Funding for other connected programmes and partnerships is not included as many of these operate on different timescales and/or are funded via aspects of H2020.
92.Some of the EU’s Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) are used to support research and innovation. Although a large proportion of these funds are spent on projects such as building infrastructure, support for research and innovation activities is now also one of their priorities. Of the five types of ESIF (hereafter referred to as structural funds)—the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), European Social Fund (ESF), Cohesion Fund (CF), European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)—only the ERDF and, to a lesser extent the ESF, are eligible for funding research and innovation. Activities funded include the construction of research infrastructure, support for technology transfer and research intensive businesses and skills programmes. An estimated €40.2 billion of structural funds will be allocated to research and innovation activities over the period 2014–20.
93.Structural funds are allocated via a different process than that for H2020 funds. Allocation criteria include GDP per capita and applications from individual Member States are also considered. As will be discussed in paragraph 112, we have found the topic of structural funds supporting science and research to be complex.
94.We heard that synergies between H2020 funds and structural funds for research and innovation capacity are being increasingly explored by the European Commission. Professor Dame Anne Glover told us:
“On the structural funds, what the Commission has asked all Member States to do is to develop a smart specialisation policy. In order to support that, they have a smart specialisation panel.”
95.The European Commission provided us with some clarification on the purpose of smart specialisation:
“Smart Specialisation can be defined as ‘place-based approach to innovation, rooted on knowledge assets’. In other words it is ‘a strategic approach to economic development through targeted support to research and innovation’. It gives priority to investments in research and innovation activities that play to the regions’ (or country’s) existing or potential strengths, and thus ensures a more effective use of public funds while stimulating private investment. It focuses on the real growth drivers of the country/region.”
“The ultimate goal of smart specialisation is to achieve improved innovation ecosystems and a higher impact of the funds.”
We will return in paragraph 112 to the topic of structural funds for research and innovation, and the amount that the UK receives.
96.Alongside H2020 and structural funds, there are a number of sectoral research and development programmes as well as other connected programmes that are related to science and research.
97.Sectoral research and development programmes involve space research, nuclear energy and coal and steel production. The total research budget for these programmes is about €5 billion over the period 2014–20, of which the majority (€4.5 billion) is for research into nuclear energy.
98.Other connected programmes include initiatives such as Erasmus Plus (the EU’s student exchange programme) and the Enterprise Europe Network (EEN). The latter aims to help small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) make the most of business opportunities in the EU.
99.Also included in other programmes that support science, research and innovation is the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI). EFSI is a new addition to the system. We are aware of concerns within the science community in the UK regarding the repurposing of H2020 funds in order to finance EFSI.
100.The last of the five mechanisms outlined in Figure 2 is partnerships. The EU has established a number of strategic partnerships in order to further science and research. These include collaborations across Member States such as the public-public partnerships termed the Joint Programming Initiatives (JPIs) and collaborations across sectors such as the public-private partnerships termed the Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs). A notable example of the latter that was brought to our attention is the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI); the IMI brings together academic researchers and the pharmaceutical industry. JTIs receive part funding from H2020 and JPIs are able to apply for H2020 funds.
101.A further type of partnership is the so-called Article 185s. These are named in reference to a section of the TFEU and are another type of partnership that brings together Member States. Again, these are part funded by H2020.
102.The EU funding system for science and research is complicated and there are many ways in which the EU aims to fulfil its shared competence in research policy. This complexity means that UK researchers can struggle to navigate through the system. We welcome the efforts made by the European Commission to reduce the complexity and administrative burden, though their effectiveness to date is unclear.
103.According to data provided by the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE), the Royal Society and others, between 2007 and 2013, the UK received €48bn from the EU; of this, €8.8bn was for research, development and innovation. Over the same period, the UK contribution to the EU was €78bn, of which €5.4bn has been indicated as being for the EU’s R&D budget.
104.The UK can be considered as a net contributor to the EU overall, but a net receiver of EU funding for science and research. Figure 4 below show the flow of funds between the UK and the EU between 2007–13.
When these figures are considered, it can be determined that a little under one fifth (18.3%) of the funds the UK received from the EU between 2007–13 was used to support science and research. Clearly, science and research are a significant dimension of the UK’s membership of the EU.
105.During the period 2007–13, the UK was a net contributor to the EU overall, but a net receiver of EU funding for research. Given that just under one fifth (18.3%) of the funds the UK received from the EU during this time were used to support science and research, we consider that science is a significant dimension of the UK’s membership of the EU.
106.Data on allocations under Framework Programme 7 (FP7), which ran from 2007–13 as the precursor to H2020, are almost complete and offer a reliable indication of comparative performance (in terms of competitive funds for research) across Member States. Most respondents to our inquiry quoted data from this time period and thus we will do the same.
107.The UK’s comparative performance in terms of funds received for science and research varies depending on whether only Framework Programme (FP) funds are considered or whether the sum of FP funds and structural funds (those designated for research and innovation) is considered. In the case of the former, the UK performs very well; both in absolute terms and when adjusted on the basis of national GDP.
108.The process by which FP funds are awarded has a high level of transparency whereas that which decides the allocation of structural funds for research and innovation is less clear. The evidence with regards to excellence-based FP funding was consistent; however this was not the case for the evidence received in relation to structural funds.
109.We received data regarding the total EU funds for R&D awarded to Member States presented in a variety of ways. These included: total FP7 monetary values; FP7 funds normalised for GDP, population and Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI); the sum of FP7 funds and structural funds for research and innovation; and the sum of FP7 funds and structural funds normalised according to the factors previously outlined. Figures 5–11 below illustrate a variety of ways in which the data can be displayed.
Source: Royal Society, UK research and the European Union: The role of the EU in funding UK research (December 2015): [accessed 5 April 2016] and Eurostat Gross domestic product at market prices (2015): [accessed 5 April 2016]
Source: Royal Society, UK research and the European Union: The role of the EU in funding UK research (December 2015): [accessed 5 April 2016] and Eurostat Newsrelease First population estimates (July 2015): [accessed 5 April 2016]
Source: Royal Society, UK research and the European Union: The role of the EU in funding UK research (December 2015): [accessed 5 April 2016] and Eurostat Gross domestic product at market prices (September 2015): [accessed 5 April 2016]
110.Appendix 7 also includes a further presentation of the data as submitted to us by the Royal Society.
111.As can be determined from the Figures above and Appendix 7, the UK’s comparative performance in terms of securing EU funds for science and research differs depending on whether FP funds or the sum of FP and structural funds is considered. We explored structural funds for research and innovation in some depth and found this area to be somewhat opaque.
112.Structural funds are awarded based on regional GDP per capita. Regions are classified into three categories:
113.The UK is not positioned to benefit greatly from structural funds. Professor Alex Halliday, Vice-President, Royal Society, indicated this and outlined some areas in the UK that do receive structural funds:
“Parts of the UK get that funding, such as Cornwall, parts of Scotland and parts of Wales, where there has been a need for investment, and the European Union has been providing some of that funding for infrastructure. However, the scale of what is needed in the UK compared with what is needed in some of the other countries in the European Union is not the same at all.”
114.Dr Mike Galsworthy, Programme Director of Scientists for EU, argued that FP funds and structural funds should be considered separately. He suggested to us that the awarding of these funds to less scientifically developed nations increases research capacity and thus provides an increased number of facilities and skilled researchers for the UK to collaborate with and benefit from. He said:
“By conflating the two, you merely look at the finances of it rather than the value of the whole system, and I believe the value of the whole system is clearly beneficial because it is well structured.”
115.Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, Chair of the Russell Group’s EU Advisory Group, and Vice-Chancellor, University of Cambridge, succinctly highlighted the fundamental dichotomy that this area presents:
“This is a major topic within the European Union that goes to the heart of that debate—the competitiveness issue as opposed to the level playing field issue. These are two fundamental principles, and this particular theme often finds itself involved in a contretemps between those two ideals that Europe proposes.”
116.The purpose of the designation of a portion of structural funds for research and innovation projects is to elevate the broader science capacity and capability across Member States. The Minister of State for Universities and Science, Jo Johnson MP, told us:
“structural funds are about helping disadvantaged, more deprived areas of the European Union to develop the capabilities to be competitive and eventually to be in a position where they are capable of competing for the science streams of money.”
117.It is expected that Member States with lower scientific capacity and capabilities will utilise structural funds in such a way that it will enable them to be more successful in applying for FP funds, i.e. funds based on scientific excellence. Jo Johnson MP, however, was unable to confirm to us whether any assessment had been done so far at Commission level in order to determine if the use of structural funds in this way has been effective. There appears to be no evidence that the awarding of structural funds for research and innovation has resulted in an improved success rate, or increased application rate, to FP7 or H2020.
118.Despite many assertions that the UK performs very well in terms of EU funding for science and research, it has proved challenging to define unambiguously the level of EU spending on R&D in the UK and how this compares with other Member States. We have been able to verify the UK’s position as a high receiver of funds in terms of Framework Programme funding only. When the portion of the EU’s structural funds designated for research and innovation are taken into account, we have found it more difficult to assess the UK’s position.
119.The purposes of competitive Framework Programme funds and structural funds for research and innovation are different. By designating a portion of structural funds for research and innovation, the European Commission aims to boost scientific capacity across Member States and increase the success rate of applications for competitive Framework Programme funds from regions with weaker economies. While we commend this approach, we are concerned by the apparent lack of evidence as to whether this spending has actually raised the scientific competitiveness of recipients. We recommend that this evidence should be assembled by the European Commission.
120.The UK is the top performer across Member States in terms of securing European Research Council (ERC) funding, i.e. funding awarded solely on the basis of excellence. Professor Dame Helen Wallace, representing the British Academy, highlighted that the humanities and social science community in particular benefit disproportionately well from this part of the Excellent Science pillar of H2020.
121.Professor Sir Mark Walport, Government Chief Scientific Adviser, said of ERC funding:
“The European Research Council in its existing form recognises to a significant extent the emphasis of the UK and some other countries in Europe on supporting the brightest and the best.”
122.Figures 12 and 13 below show the amount of FP7 funding awarded to the UK per sector alongside UK expenditure on R&D by source of funding.
123.As can be determined from Figure 12, the university sector was the largest recipient of FP7 funding for science and research in the UK between 2007 and 2013. Figure 13 shows that, in the same time period, FP7 funding amounted to 3% of the UK’s total expenditure on R&D. We heard from universities that this funding is equivalent to having another Research Council.
124.In the UK, 64% of research and development is conducted by businesses, yet businesses attracted just 18% of the total funds awarded to the UK through FP7. This is below the EU average and much lower than countries such as Germany and France. We return to this this issue in the next section of this chapter.
125.We received submissions from a number of research institutes, organisations and laboratories that emphasised the importance of EU funding to their research portfolios. Submissions from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, the National Physical Laboratory (NPL), the John Innes Centre, the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) and the Met Office emphasised the importance of EU funding streams and cited the financial contributions from EU-level funding programmes to their operations.
126.As previously mentioned, 64% of R&D in the UK is conducted by businesses yet this sector attracted just 18% of the total funds awarded to the UK through FP7. Figure 14 below shows a comparison between FP7 funding awarded to businesses in the UK and in key competitor nations Germany and France, alongside the EU average.
127.Participation of UK businesses in FP7 was below that of Germany and France and also below that of the EU average. However, this low participation was not uniform across the spectrum of UK business. The Royal Academy of Engineering highlighted UK SME participation to us:
“Interestingly, SMEs accounted for 13.7% of the UK’s total FP7 budget share, which is greater than France at 11.94% and similar to Germany at 13.54%.”
It appears that it is large businesses that are particularly underrepresented in the UK’s EU funded research and innovation portfolio.
128.Dr David Hughes, Global Head of Technology Scouting, Syngenta, offered a view from a large business:
“My impression is that Horizon 2020 was not really designed with big companies in mind. I think it was designed to encourage collaboration, primarily in the private sector, with small and medium-sized enterprises.”
129.We explored the difference between the participation of large businesses in Germany and the UK with Professor Siegfried Russwurm, Chief Technology Officer & Member of the Managing Board of Siemens AG. Professor Russwurm suggested that there are a number of cultural differences between the two countries that could account for the difference. He proposed that UK businesses are traditionally more self-sustaining while German businesses interact more closely with Governments and intergovernmental institutions. He suggested that there is considerable expertise in Germany in dealing with business-Government interactions and that there are a number of supportive industrial associations.
130.It was also suggested that one of the reasons that UK business participation is low is due to inadequate support from the UK Government for applying for funds. Support was previously provided by the, now disbanded, Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). Responsibility lies with the Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and Innovate UK. Professor Ric Parker raised concerns with regards to this change in the support system for businesses:
“The RDAs, through their innovation funds and their innovation boards, did a lot to stimulate engagement in Europe from the business community. The LEPs that have replaced them no longer have that prime objective and the funding to achieve that, so we are seeing less stimulation of UK industry to engage in the European programmes, which is regrettable.”
131.While we do not view the support previously provided by the RDAs as necessarily optimal, we recognise that it may have deteriorated with the advent of the LEPs. Professor Parker highlighted the role that Innovate UK has to play:
“It is part of the formal remit of Innovate UK, if you look at their charter, to help in this way. Again, that is very London-centric and tends to be a website people can go to and it really needs to spill out into the regions a bit more.”
132.We are aware that changes made to H2020, in light of business interaction with FP7, to facilitate business interaction have been welcomed by some. The submission from EEF—the Manufacturers’ Organisation, suggested that UK business participation in H2020 was proving more successful:
“The programme is deliberately more geared towards industry, and this is paying off. The proportion of funding going to the private sector has increased from 24% to about 28%. A large share of this has gone to SMEs. In particular, the new SME instrument is benefiting smaller UK companies.”
133.Syngenta, however, remain reluctant to engage with H2020 projects. They outlined the reasoning behind this as:
“the number of administrative processes that must be adhered to along with the unacceptable requirements surrounding any intellectual property generated through these projects. Therefore, as a company, we are unlikely to ever lead a Horizon 2020 bid and would only consider engaging in any Horizon 2020 projects where the intellectual property considerations made commercial sense.”
They highlighted further misgivings about the H2020 scheme:
“Additionally, we believe the primary focus of the Horizon 2020 funding is misdirected. Often the questions being asked are very narrow, too focused and consequently fail to look at the bigger picture and address the fundamental issues. Looking at details in isolation without investigating how this then impacts the problem as a whole can lead to all sorts of poorly structured and inaccurate conclusions being drawn.”
134.As alluded to previously, we did not receive sufficient evidence to make statements across the entire spectrum of sectors within the business community. However, from the range of evidence that we did receive, we discovered that the relevance of H2020 and EU schemes in general varies between industry sectors. We heard from Steve Bates, Chief Executive Officer, BioIndustry Association, that Horizon 2020 may arguably be working better in biomedicine than in the agro-industry area.
135.We are concerned that the participation of large UK businesses in Framework Programme 7 lagged behind that of key competitor nations such as Germany and France and was below the EU average. We recognise that participation in Horizon 2020 may be greater. However, we remain concerned, particularly in the light of the abolition of the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and introduction of the Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), that UK Government support for businesses in engaging with EU funding schemes may be weaker than in some other Member States. The integrated approach adopted in other countries such as Germany could be viewed as a good model and a basis for a programme of benchmarking. For their part, however, we urge businesses to engage fully with the opportunities afforded by EU funding. We recommend that the UK Government benchmarks its level of support for businesses, large and small, wishing to participate in EU programmes with that available in other Member States and put forward proposals for improving UK performance.
58 See Appendix 6 for a list of Member States.
59 Thirteen counties have Associated Country status, including Norway, Israel and Switzerland (see Appendix 6 for a list of Associated Countries). A bilateral agreement is in place between each country and the EU; some are seeking to become EU members while some have chosen not to be.
60 Countries that have signed S&T cooperation agreements with the EU (correct March 2015): Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Egypt, India, Japan, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Tunisia, Ukraine (an Associated Country December 2015), United States.
61 Written evidence from the Pirbright Institute ()
62 Written evidence from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute ()
63 Written evidence from the Royal Society of Biology ()
64 Written evidence from the Association of Medical Research Charities ()
65 Written evidence from University of Cambridge ()
66 European Parliament Briefing, Overview of EU Funds for research and innovation (September 2015): [accessed 12 April 2016]
67 The sum of the funding as part of the Excellent Science pillar does not exactly correlate to the constituent figures due to rounding.
68 Royal Society, UK research and the European Union: The role of the EU in funding UK research (December 2015): [accessed
12 April 2016]
69 (Prof Dame Anne Glover)
70 Written evidence from the European Commission ()
71 Written evidence from the European Commission ()
72 Royal Society, UK research and the European Union: The role of the EU in funding UK research (December 2015): [accessed
12 April 2016]
73 These numbers are not exact because these programmes do not all run within the same timeframe.
74 Horizon 2020 funding was set to be cut by €2.7bn to support EFSI, with no guarantee that the equivalent funding would be spent on research and science through EFSI. However, successful representations from across Europe ensured the impact of the cuts was reduced, with €500m being ring-fenced. Hence, €2.2bn was deducted from the initial Horizon 2020 budget to help fund EFSI.
75 The financial contributions from the UK to EU science and research cannot be determined definitively because the UK’s contribution to the EU contains no formally hypothecated amount for research and development (R&D). The contribution can, however, be inferred by calculating the proportion of EU expenditure devoted to R&D and assuming that the UK contribution includes the same proportion of spend.
76 Written evidence from the Campaign for Science and Engineering () and the Royal Society ()
77 Field-weighted citation impact divides the number of citations received by a publication by the average number of citations received by publications in the same field, of the same type, and published in the same year. The world average is indexed to a value of 1.00. Values above 1.00 indicate above-average citation impact, and values below 1.00 likewise indicate below-average citation impact.
78 FP7 funds are quoted in billions of euros for the time period 2007–13; structural funds refer to those designated for research and innovation and are quoted in billions of euros for the time period 2007–13; population data figures relate to 1 January 2015; GDP figures are quoted in euros per capita for the time period 2007–13; and FWCI figures relate to 2012.
79 Field-weighted citation impact divides the number of citations received by a publication by the average number of citations received by publications in the same field, of the same type, and published in the same year. The world average is indexed to a value of 1.00. Values above 1.00 indicate above-average citation impact, and values below 1.00 likewise indicate below-average citation impact.
80 Royal Society, UK research and the European Union: The role of the EU in funding UK research (December 2015): [accessed
5 April 2016]
81 European Commission, Structural Funds (ERDF and ESF) eligibility 2014–2020: [accessed 12 April 2016]
82 (Prof Alex Halliday)
83 (Dr Mike Galsworthy)
84 (Prof Sir Leszek Borysiewicz)
85 (Jo Johnson MP)
86 (Jo Johnson MP)
87 (Prof Dame Helen Wallace)
88 (Prof Sir Mark Walport)
89 (Prof Sir Leszek Borysiewicz)
90 Office for National Statistics, UK Gross Domestic Expenditure on Research and Development, 2013 (March 2015): [accessed 12 April 2016]
91 Written evidence from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute (), the National Physical Laboratory (), the John Innes Centre (), the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology () and the Met Office ()
92 Written evidence from the Royal Academy of Engineering ()
93 (Dr David Hughes)
94 (Prof Siegfried Russwurm)
95 (Prof Ric Parker)
96 (Prof Ric Parker)
97 Written evidence from EEF—The Manufacturers’ Organisation ()
98 Written evidence from Syngenta ()
99 Written evidence from Syngenta ()
100 (Steve Bates)