High expectations for UK Presidency
Politicians and regional representatives laid out their expectations of the UK Presidency in terms of research at an ERRIN seminar in Brussels on 29 June. Ben Turner from the UK Permanent Representation to the EU responded with optimism, while making clear the limitations on what the UK will be able to achieve within six months. All participants agreed that endorsement of the Luxembourg compromise on the financial perspectives would have been bad news for research. The 40 per cent cut under the 'Lisbon' section of the budget would have been 'very upsetting' for Polish MEP Jerzy Buzek and 'a catastrophe' for Kurt Vandenberghe, the Deputy Head of EU Science and Research Commissioner Janez Potocnik's cabinet. Mr Turner noted that, had a huge decrease in the competitiveness budget been agreed at the European Council, the Commission would have taken its current proposal on the Seventh Framework Programme for research (FP7) off the table. 'But the proposal is still on the table and the UK will make as much progress as possible on agreeing the technical, non-budgetary aspects of the programme,' said Mr Turner. A number of options are now open to the UK government. Prime Minister Tony Blair could propose an entirely new budget deal, or he could modify the Luxembourg proposal. 'Luxembourg got closer than a lot of people realise,' said Mr Turner. An agreement along these lines would not necessarily result in a huge cut to the proposed research budget, claimed Mr Turner: research is one of several priorities under the 'competitiveness' heading in the budget, and if the total funding envelope for this section were to see drastic cuts, special provisions could be made for research in order avoid reducing funds too much. A number of speakers welcomed the debate that the disagreement on the EU budget has ignited. However, as pointed out by Mr Turner, 'We can't have the debate and agree the budget at the same time!' He added that 'The best outcome could be the worst outcome in terms of timetable [for FP7].' The debate was hailed by the Committee of the Regions' rapporteur on the Financial Perspectives, Sir Albert Bore, as an opportunity to re-focus the policy and budget debates. Mr Vandenberghe welcomed the 'new dynamic' that he said the failure to reach an agreement has brought about. And the debate is not only well received within the UK and Mr Potocnik's staff, according to Mr Vandenberghe. There have been many signals from other countries that they too welcome a discussion on the structure of the EU budget, he said. Mr Buzek called on all those present to lobby their national governments, and in particular science and economy ministers. He has already asked MEPs to do the same, recognising that the Commission and the Parliament have put forward good proposals, and that 'it is only in the European Council that we have a problem'. The MEP was confident that 'we will have help from the British Presidency as it is a Presidency taking care of research and putting it first'. Mr Vandenberghe was equally optimistic, concluding that 'We leave the FP7 proposal in very good hands in the European Parliament, and we can also leave it in the safe hands of the UK Presidency.'