House of Lords - The Effectiveness of EU Research and Innovation Proposals

The Effectiveness of EU Research and Innovation Proposals - European Union Committee Contents

CHAPTER 3: Consultation with Stakeholders

The challenge of consultation

29. A large number of regional, national, and European organisations are involved in economic and social activities which are linked to R&I.[45] The British Academy argued that it was almost too much to ask, for the European Commission to be aware of all the relevant stakeholders in each area and for them all to be consulted. Despite this obvious difficulty, the majority of evidence we received indicated that the EU does a good job consulting with stakeholders in the development of EU strategies and projects on R&I.[46] The Government, large businesses, and organisations with a history of engagement with the EU were the most positive in their responses to this question, while SMEs, some trade associations and professional bodies raised concerns.

30. The British Academy emphasised that consultation on R&I does not just involve stakeholders in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) areas. They argued that research in social sciences and humanities was crucial if societal challenges such as multilingualism, demographic change, migration, poverty and cultural diversity are to be understood. They said that social scientists also had a key contribution to make in defining and understanding the conditions for fostering innovative change.[47]

Large businesses

31. Large businesses appeared broadly happy with the EU's consultation.[48] They shared the same concerns as other stakeholders about the complexity of trying to engage with the EU, but Rolls Royce acknowledged that it "does actually lend itself to larger institutions to participate in … [consultations], because you need resources to do that".[49] ADS pointed to the Commission's success in bringing together senior figures from industry, Member States, higher education institutions and regulatory authorities to define future EU research priorities in aeronautics research.[50] The Association for Independent Research and Technology Organisations (AIRTO), a UK membership body for intermediate research and technology organisations, suggested that this positive response may be due to the scope for large businesses to define the agenda and influence the content of EU programmes.[51]

32. Large businesses also appeared to be particularly engaged in EU consultations around the 'grand challenges' set out in the Introduction, such as climate change and ageing. They identified positive and negative aspects to this. The positives were that the programmes tackling grand challenges recognise that outputs and impact may not be available for quite some time, and are structured in a way that reflects this. This removes some of the pressure for businesses to deliver results in the short-term, and can also rally industrial sectors around the kind of research that necessitates a longer term view in tackling these grand challenges. The downside is that establishing these programmes in the first place often requires a great deal of time and therefore expenditure, which large companies find difficult to justify in fast moving markets.[52] One witness said it would be helpful if agreements reached on intellectual property or reimbursement rates for participation were not reopened by the Commission as regularly as they are now.[53] If this constraint is generally experienced by private sector stakeholders, this could inhibit their willingness to participate.

Trade associations, professional bodies, other representative groups and SMEs

33. The very nature of SMEs means it can be difficult for them to find the time to engage with issues that do not have a day-to-day or otherwise immediate impact. As AIRTO observed, "If you are growing a small company and cash and customers are your primary consideration, as it is through most of the stages of growth, it is very hard to find the time to engage in policy and strategy for research and innovation programmes."[54] SMEs' common perceptions were that the timescales for EU projects were too long, the bureaucracy involved too burdensome and the chances of success too low.[55] It is perhaps unclear to most businesses, not just SMEs, how much the EU influences the environment in which they operate, and therefore responding to EU consultations and calls for proposals therefore seems both distant and irrelevant.

34. Much of the evidence suggested that trade associations already play an important role in representing stakeholder interests in national and European settings, but that there is scope for this to be expanded, particularly in the case of SMEs.[56] The Open University said that individuals and SMEs are often familiar with their representative organisations and are comfortable in approaching them, but they are perhaps less comfortable approaching official government or EU-designated contact points for SMEs. Consultation with existing research networks at a regional level would help to reflect regional variations in terms of opportunities for and requirements arising from the outcomes of R&I.[57] AMRC said there is a role for umbrella organisations such as theirs in "demystifying the system".[58]

35. Large organisations also emphasised the potential for membership organisations to play an intermediary role. EADS said that they had had a positive experience of working with the business membership organisations West of England Aerospace Forum and the Midlands Aerospace Alliance, and that these organisations had been able to support SMEs. University College London (UCL) said that pan-European responses through representative organisations, such as the European University Association, were more effective than individual institute or Member State responses.[59] Professor Mary Ritter, CEO of Climate Knowledge and Innovation Community (Climate-KIC), said that the large business communities within the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) give SMEs good opportunities for making contact with big business and participating in EU programmes.[60]

Failure of consultation

36. We received some evidence from stakeholders who felt the EU's consultation processes were not effective enough. These witnesses said that the language used in consultation documents was chosen to achieve certain responses; the Commission's websites did not contain sufficient information about programmes and projects;[61] and that there was a general failure to reach down to practitioner level. The European Molecular Biology Laboratory-European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI) added that EU websites contain little information about how programmes and policies are formulated and about the bodies which are involved in developing them. This helped fuel the perception that there is a lack of transparency. They suggested that the Commission should hold more workshops throughout the EU, rather than just in Brussels, seeking the views of experts on a specific consultation topic.

37. Some stakeholders in the health sector in particular expressed their dissatisfaction with EU consultation. Professor Bernabei, Professor Carpenter and Bridget Carpenter, all previous participants in an FP7 project, said that EU funded research does not explicitly require researchers to consult with patients and the public about the design of research projects. They argued that involving patients and members of the public in research can result in better research, clearer outcomes and faster uptake of new evidence.[62] The Alliance for European Diabetes Research EURADIA felt that the process for selecting topics for future calls for proposals did not rely on input from groups of experts, but on the input of national representatives in Programme Committees (represented in Figure 2, Chapter 1), who are not necessarily well informed.[63] The Wellcome Trust argued that, in the worst cases, the lack of appropriate scientific consultation has resulted in damaging legislation, such as the Clinical Trials Directive (and the associated decline in clinical trials in the EU), which can take considerable time and effort to redress.[64]

38. The Government considered that, while the EU's current consultation arrangements are generally fit for purpose, the number of EU-funded stakeholder groups has increased substantially in recent years, for example, the European Research Area Committee, European Innovation Partnerships, and European Research Area Networks (ERA-Nets).[65] They stressed the importance of avoiding unnecessary overlap and duplication in the consultation process, at a time of constraint on Member State resources.[66]

39. The evidence did not attribute all failures of consultation to the EU. The British Academy said that there is an onus on the research community to organise itself properly and simply, and to make it more 'consultable'.[67] EMBL-EBI also claimed that because the stakeholder community is so large, not all the input from every single organisation will be visible in the resulting product of the consultation.[68]

EU efforts to improve consultation

40. The Commission highlighted that, in January 2012, it extended its standard period of consultation from eight to 12 weeks to allow citizens, businesses and non-governmental organisations more time to comment on plans for new policies and legislation. The Commission also carried out an internal review of its consultation policy in 2012, which concluded that its consultation policies and tools conformed with international standards and guidelines.[69] However, following a number of recommendations from the internal review, the Commission announced a set of measures it plans to adopt in order to strengthen consultations, such as: extending the reach of consultations; updating and clarifying minimum standards by including clearer operational criteria; and strengthening internal control and support mechanisms.

41. National learned societies, professional bodies and trade associations already play an important role for businesses in representing their concerns in Brussels and influencing EU policy-making. We therefore encourage the European Commission to continue strengthening its efforts to consult representative organisations in the future development of R&I strategies and projects.

42. We share the European Commission's wish to ensure that consultation is thorough and welcome their efforts in this area, through extending the standard period of consultation from eight to 12 weeks. However, the programme development process as a whole should reflect that R&I is a fast moving sector.

43. Stakeholders in the health sector have reported that there is insufficient consultation on the development of EU funded health projects. We recognise that the European Commission takes seriously its responsibility to consult R&I stakeholders, and we encourage it to advertise its health related consultations more widely through medical practitioner networks. Improved consultation should help to resolve instances of EU legislation actually curtailing the ability of stakeholders to pursue the EU's objectives.

Issues for the UK to address

44. A number of stakeholders expressed concern that the UK is not as good as other European countries at consulting its own R&I communities and then feeding those opinions into the programmes as they take shape.[70] The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said that greater transparency is required in how the UK is seeking to influence and maximise its opportunities at EU level. They added that the Government should engage with a broader group of stakeholders and that more direct contact with companies would be mutually beneficial.[71] John Hill, Director of Growth Accelerator, an organisation which works with the Government to support high growth UK SMEs, said he felt that the British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses had disengaged from lobbying the UK's interests in Brussels, and this was reflected in their withdrawal and lack of participation in pan-European membership organisations such as Eurochambres.[72] AIRTO said the UK is "probably not putting enough resource as a nation in walking the corridors in Brussels and having people out there".[73]

45. The Institute of Physics stated that national agencies such as UK Trade and Investment (UKTI), the Technology Strategy Board (TSB) and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) have shown increasing leadership in recent years in terms of engaging UK stakeholders. Professor Ritter praised BIS for its consultation with the Climate-KIC on the development of the Horizon 2020 budget and the allocation for the EIT.[74] Contrary to John Hill's comments, the Federation of Small Businesses highlighted its role as a founding member of the European Small Business Alliance and its joint lobbying work on lowering the regulatory burden for SMEs in Europe. Their evidence did not, however, address the issue of facilitating the UK engagement in EU R&I programmes specifically.[75]

46. The evidence suggested a disconnect between the EU's efforts to increase the scope of its consultations; the desire of UK professional bodies, trade associations and other representative groups to have their members' interests heard in Brussels; and the Government's efforts to increase awareness of EU programmes and opportunities in the UK. As is further discussed in Chapter 5, this apparent disconnect must be resolved if the UK is to benefit from EU programmes.

47. We believe that EU R&I programmes represent an excellent opportunity for UK businesses, higher education institutions and research organisations. The UK Government, professional bodies, trade associations and other groups representing UK businesses, higher education institutions and research organisations must continue to engage with and lobby pan-European organisations if the UK's interests are to be achieved in Europe. We encourage the Government to reiterate this point to UK businesses using all of its channels such as the Technology Strategy Board, UK Trade and Investment and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Role of other EU institutions

48. The Commission is the primary initiator of legislation in the EU, and—through its Directorate-General for Research and Innovation—the source of many of the proposals and strategies on R&I. There are, however, other EU institutions which play an important role. Malcolm Harbour MEP pointed to the fact that the European Parliament are "effectively co-legislators with the whole legal framework that puts in place the structure, terms, conditions and, indeed, the broad strategies for European research".[76] He added that the European Parliament spends a higher proportion of its time on science and technology subjects than most national parliaments, because they constitute a larger proportion of its work.

49. The Wellcome Trust and the Government welcomed the appointment in 2012 of Dr Anne Glover as the first Chief Scientific Adviser to the European Commission.[77] The Government believe the role of EU Chief Scientific Adviser has the potential to develop over time and become a source of valuable, politically impartial advice to the European Commission, and to ensure that robust scientific evidence increasingly underpins EU policy and legislation.

50. The Government also welcomed the appointment on 27 February 2013 of an independent and informal Science and Technology Advisory Council to support Dr Glover's work.[78] Under the chairmanship of the Chief Scientific Adviser, the main aim of the Science and Technology Advisory Council is to provide advice directly to the President of the Commission on how to create the proper environment for innovation by shaping a European society that embraces science, technology and engineering. In particular, this Council will advise on the opportunities and risks stemming from scientific and technological progress. It will also advise on how to communicate these in order to foster an informed societal debate to ensure that Europe does not "miss the boat"[79] but remains a global leader in cutting-edge technologies.[80]

51. We consider that the role of Chief Scientific Adviser to the European Commission should be developed over time to become a source of objective scientific advice. We welcome the appointment on 27 February 2013 of a broader Science and Technology Advisory Council to the EU to support the work of the Chief Scientific Adviser.

45 Q 69 Back

46 British Academy Back

47 ibid. Back

48 Microsoft; EADS; Rolls Royce Back

49 Q 42 (Rolls Royce) Back

50 ADS Back

51 Q 22 (AIRTO) Back

52 Q 41 (EADS and Pfizer) Back

53 Q 41(Pfizer) Back

54 Q 22 (AIRTO) Back

55 AIRTO Back

56 Q 22 (AIRTO); AMRC; EADS; Institute of Physics; SMMT Back