14 Joint programming of research
| (29864)
11935/08
COM(08) 468
+ ADD 1
+ ADD 2
| Commission Communication: Towards joint programming of research — working together to tackle common challenges more effectively
Commission staff working document: impact assessment
Commission staff working document: summary of impact assessment
|
| Legal base | — |
| Department | Innovation, Universities and Skills
|
| Basis of consideration | Letter of 14 January 2009 from the Chairman of the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 16-xxxiii (2007-08), chapter 2 (29 October 2008)
|
| Discussed in Council | 2 December 2008
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Previous scrutiny of the Communication
14.1 When we considered the Commission's Communication on 29 October
2008,[72] we noted that,
in 2007, the Competitiveness Council invited Member States to:
"encourage Research Councils and National Funding Agencies
in Member States, as well as intergovernmental European Research
Organisations, to expand their collaboration and to devise innovative
forms of pooling together their expertise and resources on a mutual
voluntary basis for joint objectives."[73]
In March 2008, the European Council concluded that:
"particular attention should be given to further initiatives
for joint programming of research".[74]
14.2 We also noted that Article 165(1) of the EC Treaty requires
the Community and Member States to coordinate their research and
development activities so as to ensure that national policies
and Community policy are mutually consistent; it also requires
the Commission, in close cooperation with Member States, to "take
any useful initiative" to promote coordination.
14.3 Article 166 of the EC Treaty requires the Council
to adopt a multiannual Framework Programme for Research and Development
funded from the EU budget. The 7th EC Framework Programme
runs from 2007 to 2013 and has a total budget of €50.5 billion.
14.4 The Communication observes that 85% of public
R&D in the EC is programmed and funded by Member States. In
the Commission's view, the fragmented way in which this research
is currently programmed leads to sub-optimal returns. National
programmes sometimes unnecessarily duplicate each other. The differences
between Member States' grant rules discourage researchers from
seeking funds for cross-border projects. And the lack of joint
programming complicates the pooling of data, scatters expertise,
hinders the training and mobility of researchers and slows down
the international dissemination of research results.
14.5 The Commission advocates joint programming.
Each Member State would be free to decide whether and to what
extent it should take part. Joint programming would entail the
definition, development and implementation of common strategic
research agendas based on a common vision of how to address major
societal challenges. It would include both collaboration between
existing national programmes and the joint planning and creation
of new ones.
14.6 The Commission suggests that joint programming
might have three stages: development and political endorsement
of a common vision of the programme and definition of its long-term
objectives; translation of the vision into a Strategic Research
Agenda, with specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-based
objectives; and implementation.
14.7 The Commission emphasises that Member States
would own the process and be responsible for it. The Commission
would be a facilitator and would keep the Council of Ministers
informed of developments.
14.8 The then Minister of State for Science and Innovation
at the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (Ian
Pearson) told us that the Government supports the principles underlying
the Communication and would work with the Commission, Member States
and the UK research funding community on the development of the
mechanisms proposed in the Communication.
14.9 We concluded that the Communication appeared
to be consistent with the requirements of Article 165 EC. Because
the Communication raised questions about the desirability and
practicability of the Commission's proposals, we decided, in exercise
of the power given to us by paragraph 12 of Standing Order No.
143, to ask the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee
for its Opinion on the Communication.
The Competitiveness Council on 2 December2008
14.10 At its meeting on 2 December 2008, the Competitiveness
Council agreed that there should be a pilot study to learn more
about joint programming by applying it to research on neurodegenerative
diseases and to Alzheimer's Disease in particular.
The Opinion of the Innovation, Universities, Science
and Skills Committee
14.11 In response to our request, the Chairman of
the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee (Mr
Phil Willis) wrote to us on 14 January to set out his Committee's
Opinion on the Communication. His letter says that his Committee
believes that:
"the introduction of Joint Programming represents
a logical extension of current initiatives designed to support
the development of a common European research agenda. For example,
with a focus on the pooling of Member States' public research
funds, future Joint Programming actions will complement Joint
Technology Initiatives (programmes of industry relevant research
conducted by long-term public-private partnerships that combine
national, EU and private financial resources within one legal
framework). The focus on the co-ordination of national research
programmes, however, makes widespread political commitment an
imperative if the initiative is to succeed. The need for collective
political support is only increased by the fact that a Member
State's participation in any programming activity will be voluntary.
"To generate commitment to the establishment
of Joint Programming a 'bottom-up' approach is to be taken, with
Member States being asked to propose research areas for co-ordinated
action. In adopting the Commission's communication, the [Competitiveness
Council] … recommended that a pilot scheme be launched with
a focus on combating neurodegenerative diseases, in particular
Alzheimer's. We would advocate that a watching brief be kept as
to the progress of this scheme in order to ascertain the level
of engagement with this initiative by Member States, and to assess
the potential impact of this initiative in changing the structure
of the European research landscape.
"The UK has a world-class science base and
many researchers already benefit from funds awarded under EU Framework
Programme 7. Like the Framework Programme, funds available under
Joint Programming initiatives will be awarded on the basis of
excellence, and there is every reason to believe that UK researchers
will benefit from this new source of financial support. However,
as research funding available under Joint Programming activities
will constitute the co-ordination and pooling of finance that
might otherwise have been allocated via national research funding
mechanisms, we are not convinced that the amount of financial
resource ultimately available to support UK research will increase
as a result of Joint Programming.
"Overall, we believe Joint Programming represents
a valuable step in efforts to reinvigorate the European Research
Area, and maximise the strategic impact of European research,
and that the UK should be supportive of this initiative."
Conclusion
14.12 We are grateful to the Innovation, Universities,
Science and Skills Committee for its clear and cogent Opinion
on the Communication. We draw it to the attention of the House.
In the light of the Opinion, we are now content to clear the document
from scrutiny.
72 See headnote. Back
73
Meeting of the Competitiveness Council on 22-23 November 2007. Back
74
European Council of 13-14 March 2008, Presidency Conclusions,
page 5, fifth bullet-point. Back
|
