EU Framework Programme for European research and technological development : evidence / Select Committee on Science and Technology.
- Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Science and Technology Committee.
- Date:
- 1997
Licence: Open Government Licence
Credit: EU Framework Programme for European research and technological development : evidence / Select Committee on Science and Technology. Source: Wellcome Collection.
18/254 page 10
![6 November 1996 ] [ Continued negotiation stage to reflect UK interests and has contributed significantly to success in getting UK S&T interests reflected. There is no reason to think that the net effect of EU research has been to the disadvantage of UK researchers or research priorities. CONCLUSION 71. Overall, the government believes the framework programmes have a positive role to play, provided that they are targeted more sharply at results that would benefit EU industry in relation to its competitors into the next century and provide better focused support to key areas of EU policy; and do so demonstrably cost-effectively. Real strides have been made since the inception of the first programme in improving relevance, effectiveness and managerial efficiency, but there is still much to be achieved. We shall pursue the aims set out above, both in relation to the current programmes and in the negotiation of its successor. While it is unlikely that we shall be able to achieve an FP5 which matches the UK’s interests in every respect, we have a strong record of positively influencing the development of EU RTD and achieving key UK objectives. © We intend to continue to do so in future. Office of Science and Technology Department of Trade and Industry 14 October 1996 UK POSITION PAPER ON A FIFTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME SUMMARY The UK considers that the fifth framework programme (FP5) should build on the most effective features of the fourth framework programme (FP4) and the Commission’s task forces. However FP5 should be more clearly focused on research in support of the overall aims of enhanced competitiveness and support for EU policies, including those which bear on quality of life. This paper outlines a possible approach to achieve this, together with more effective delivery of the research and technological development (RTD) priorities that need to be tackled at a European level. Key PRINCIPLES The UK suggests the following key principles should guide the development of FPS. It should: — bedirected towards the key Treaty aims of enhancing competitiveness and suppporting EC policies; — beofascale affordable; — support objective-driven applied strategic research of the highest quality; — have clear and testable objectives; — offer greater involvement to potential users of FPS’s output; and — inaccordance with subsidiarity, only support RTD where activity at a European level clearly adds value that would not otherwise be obtained. OBJECTIVE-ORIENTED THEMES In order to define clear objectives for FPS, the UK suggests that the framework be elaborated in terms of a number of thematic objectives. The UK reaches no definitive view on what these themes should be, but offers (see page 14) some illustrative examples. It is suggested that, once each objective has been identified by the Commission and member states, an advisory group should be set up for each to provide an effective user input to defining the RTD needed in pursuit of each objective. These RTD needs would then be incorporated into specific programmes. The groups would also have a role of strategic oversight during the programme’s implementation. Reflecting the customer interest, these advisory groups would be drawn from industry, member states, the Commission, (including, where appropriate, policy DGs) the scientific and other relevant interests. They would be expected to consult widely. THE SPECIFIC PROGRAMMES / Rather than propose specific programmes for each individual thematic objective, the UK suggests the specific programmes are organised primarily on the basis of the key technologies (eg information technologies, environmental technologies) which would deliver the objectives. The UK suggests that these technologies should not be objectives in their own right but rather be viewed as a means of achieving FP5’s objectives. Illustrative examples of six possible specific programmes are given on page 15. Each specific programme would then direct its research toward contributing to the relevant thematic objectives (see annex A for an](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32218734_0018.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
