CHAPTER 6: Summary of Conclusions and
Recommendations
Impact of the Economic Crisis
127. We urge the European Council and the European
Parliament to increase the budget for the Horizon 2020 programme
within the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) in order for
the EU to remain internationally competitive in R&I. If this
is not possible, the budget for Horizon 2020 should at least be
maintained at the level agreed at the 7-8 February 2013 Council
meeting (paragraph 28).
Consultation with Stakeholders
128. 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 (paragraph 41).
129. 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
(paragraph 42).
130. 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 (paragraph 43).
131. 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 (paragraph 47).
132. 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 (paragraph 51).
Identification, Monitoring and Evaluation
133. We agree with the European Commission's
criteria for an effective R&I proposal, but emphasise that
in order for the EU to compete with emerging economies which have
a significantly higher spend on R&I as a proportion of GDP,
it should prioritise excellence. We also urge the Commission to
ensure that analysis of R&I policy and proposals is based
on scientific evidence, rather than political considerations (paragraph 56).
134. We reiterate the view expressed in our 2010
report, Impact Assessments in the EU: Room for Improvement?,
that impact assessments should be performed wherever a significant
proposal is made. We also continue to call for further work to
determine which measures are, and are not, to be accompanied by
an impact assessment and whether in practice the selection is
appropriate (paragraph 68).
135. We agree with the Minister that the relationship
between the European Commission and the European Parliament in
the area of impact assessments warrants further study. We suggest
that there is a risk of overlap between the two, and that there
should be a focus on improving the Commission's impact assessments,
perhaps through a stronger role for the Impact Assessment Board,
rather than running a parallel process in the European Parliament
(paragraph 69).
136. While the accuracy of impact assessments
is important, the European Commission should avoid an overly rigid
approach, and develop indicators in collaboration with the private
sector. These should take into account the extent of uncertainty
involved in 'blue sky' innovative products, and the potential
for projects to produce positive outcomes which take time to develop,
are less tangible and may be difficult to quantify accurately
at the outset of a project (paragraph 70).
137. We welcome the European Commission's efforts
to simplify the monitoring and evaluation process, but share the
Government's view that this should not be done at the expense
of the transparent evaluation of projects (paragraph 77).
138. We consider it of paramount importance that
monitoring and evaluation are carried out by experts in the relevant
sector, in order to ensure that evaluators are able to assess
and promote innovative excellence. A cohort of the experts in
a particular sector should by definition consist of both academic
and industry experts, bringing different strengths to bear on
the evaluation process (paragraph 78).
139. We also recommend that more work could be
done to ensure that monitoring and evaluation of outputs are efficient
and realistic, taking into account the relatively short timescales
of EU R&I projects. This could be better achieved in part
through clarifying at the outset of a project, the requirement
for project participants to produce materials at the end of a
project which explain the outputs and outcomes (paragraph 79).
Private Sector Participation
140. We welcome the efforts made by the UK Government
at a national level through reform of the National Contact Points.
We urge the Government to build on their work in this area, to
ensure that the National Contact Points are focused on the priorities
at EU level. This would improve support to UK companies in accessing
EU R&I funding more effectively (paragraph 92).
141. The concerns over bureaucracy and complexity
creating barriers to private sector participation are not new.
The European Commission has taken note of these concerns, and
we support the changes made towards simplification and urge them
to make the simplicity of procedures and language a criterion
for every new undertaking (paragraph 94).
142. The current length of the time-to-grant
is of great concern, given the fast paced and dynamic nature of
the R&I sector. We commend the European Commission's undertaking
to reduce this by 100 days, but this is not enough. We urge the
Commission to carry out further work in this area, through simplifying
the negotiation stage, the funding instruments and improving IT
systems (paragraph 100).
143. We consider that late payments to successful
applicants exacerbate the problem of time-to grant and must not
be tolerated (paragraph 101).
144. We are concerned that the pre-defined topics
in many of the EU funding programmes for R&I will deter the
involvement of high-growth SMEs. We recommend that the European
Commission should consult with representatives from SMEs in the
development of calls for proposals under the 'Dedicated SME Instrument'
(paragraph 109).
145. Allowing greater flexibility over the rules
of participation for different proposals carries a risk of greater
complexity for stakeholders, against which it is important to
guard. However such flexibility is necessary in order to take
into account the varying needs of the wide spectrum of R&I
stakeholders in Europe (see Chapter 3). Therefore, we urge the
European Commission to maintain and develop flexible funding options,
such as that offered by the different contracting rules under
the Clean Sky initiative (paragraph 112).
146. We endorse the recommendations of the Science
and Technology Committees in both Houses of Parliament, on using
public procurement as a means of nurturing innovation in the UK
and supporting SMEs. We encourage the European Commission to consider
the application of the Committees' recommendations to Europe.
In the light of the length of time it can take to bring innovative
'blue sky' products to the market, the Committee considers that
there is room for expanding the role of public procurement in
this area (paragraph 114).
147. If R&I is to drive future economic growth
within Europe it is particularly important to ensure R&I efforts
are commercialised. While unnecessary repeat funding for its own
sake should be avoided, decision makers should be empowered to
make use of follow-on funding mechanisms to enable commercialisation
of R&I. Enabling 'repeat players' to expand and commercialise
research which is at the point of commercial success would be
a better investment than funding the same stakeholders for a different
project (paragraph 120).
148. We suggest that the Commission, the Council
and the European Parliament note the recommendations in the recent
House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report and take
a cautious approach to open access, so as not to disadvantage
EU R&I participants. We recommend that in considering this
issue, the Commission consults with stakeholders, particularly
those in the private sector who have expressed concern about protecting
their IPR, in order to find workable solutions for balancing the
benefits of open access to innovation (paragraph 126).
| 
