fp7 uk government response

8/9/2019 FP7 UK Government Response

1/36

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

DECEMBER 2004

GOVERNMENT RESPONSETO THE CONSULTATIONON THE 7TH EU R&DFRAMEWORK PROGRAMME


2/36

The DTI drives our ambition ofprosperity for all by working to createhe best environment for business

success in the UK. We help peopleand companies become moreproductive by promoting enterprise,nnovation and creativity.

We champion UK business at homeand abroad. We invest heavily inworld-class science and technology.We protect the rights of working

people and consumers. And westand up for fair and open marketsn the UK, Europe and the world.


3/36


4/36

4

Question 1: Rationale for the Framework Programme

What is the rationale for the Framework Programme?

6. The vast majority agreed that there was a clear rationale for Framework

Programme funding and none expressed strong disagreement with the

rationale set out in the Consultation Document. A number did, however,

consider that the current Programme failed to meet the rationale, largely

due to weaknesses of management and delivery.

7. Respondents mentioned a wide variety of different rationales for the

existence of the Programme. Most often cited was the need to improve

European competitiveness in comparison with other countries, notably the

US and Japan. The second most popular justification was to support policy

and address pan-European issues.

The Government welcomes the general support for the rationale of theFramework Programme.

Raising Europes innovation and R&D performance is central to achieving the

Lisbon strategic goal for Europe to become the most competitive and dynamic

knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010. The R&D Framework

Programme provides a key mechanism by which Europe can drive up its

performance in these areas. Importantly, it also provides an evidence base to

support the development and implementation of wider EU policy.

The current Programme has set out to achieve greater integration within theEuropean Research Area (ERA), strengthening the foundations of the ERA by

attacking structural weaknesses of European research. We support the further

development of the ERA through the seventh Programme, positioning Europe

to compete effectively in global R&D markets and underpinning the achievement

of the strategic goal Europe has set itself. In doing this Europe should develop

hubs of scientific and technological excellence that can attract and retain high

value added business investment. It should also enable its researchers to

collaborate with the leading partners across the globe.

Comments on weaknesses in delivery and management are addressed underquestion 14 below.

Is the currentL19bn budget appropriate? If you feel a need for change, why?

8. Although a number of respondents said the budget should be maintained at

its current level, the majority in each broad category were in favour of an

increase. Many stressed that an increase should not be at the expense of

national funding.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION ON THE 7TH EU R&D FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME


5/36


6/36

6

Other issues

10. Several consultees expressed concerns about the impact of the UKs policy

on the recovery of Full Economic Costs on the ability of UK institutions to

participate effectively in future Framework Programmes.

The Government remains convinced that its policy on the recovery of the Full

Economic Cost of research activities by public research bodies is essential for

the long-term health of the UK science base. This sustainability initiative is

accompanied by substantial increases in funding to research institutions, both

in the form of block grants (QR, SRIF) and via increased funding for Research

Council projects, which itself further frees up QR. These increases will give HEIs

more public funds than they have at present to apply to the costs of

participation in EU Framework research if they so wish. But, ultimately, whether

or not to participate in EU-level programmes remains a matter for individual

research institutions to decide. However, the Government is committed as part

of the 10 year Science and Innovation Framework to seeking an increase in

the proportion of the total cost of research projects to be paid under Framework

Programme funding.

11. Several consultees also expressed concern that the effects of Treasury rules

concerning the treatment of receipts from the EU on the budgets of

organisations such as Research Council Institutes may adversely affect

the willingness of such establishments to become involved in future

European funded research programmes.

The Government is responsible for ensuring that taxpayers money, includingits net contribution to the EU Budget, and funds from the EU Budget that are

spent in the UK via the EU Budget, is controlled and spent consistently with

national priorities. Spending managed by Government Departments on

programmes funded from the EU Budget is therefore covered by UK public

spending rules. Following representations by the Office of Science and

Technology, and in recognition of the significant benefits of UK participation in

the Framework Programme, the Treasury agreed, in 2003, exceptional treatment

for UK receipts from this and similar programmes. Under this treatment, 50% of

the EC Framework Programme income spent by Government Departments andResearch Councils counts against their spending limits (where previously 100%

of the spending counted). The government believes that this is a significant

improvement on the previous arrangements but will continue to monitor the

impact of this budgeting treatment.



7/36

7

Question 2: Requirements for a New Programme

What evidence can you suggest on the key issues to be addressed in the

new Programme?

12. There was general support for the Requirements set out in the Consultation

Document, and for the findings of the OST evidence projects reported in the

Document. A number also gave their support to the recommendations of the

Marimon panel. The most frequently cited issue was the need to improve

administration and delivery.

The Government welcomes the broad consensus on this issue. We share the

concern expressed about administration and delivery issues, which were

highlighted by the recent Marimon report (a mid-term review of the new

instruments in FP6). The UK is already pressing the Commission to do all that it

can to simplify procedures and make the current Framework Programme more

accessible to and straightforward for participants. Following the publication of

that report, the Commission has set up an internal taskforce to take forward

immediate work and we will continue to press the Commission to make this

issue a priority, both during the remainder of FP6 and in the design of its

proposals for FP7. Addressing administration and delivery issues will be a UK

priority in the forthcoming negotiations on the Seventh Framework Programme.

In which areas of the Programme is there evidence that it is working well

or that it needs to function better?

13. Respondents felt that the Programme was functioning well in the mobility

areas, the traditional instruments (such as STREPs), Integrated Projects, and

collaborative research. Many respondents criticised the administration and

delivery of the Programme as a major problem. There were also problems

with the New Instruments (particularly Networks of Excellence),

oversubscription and SME actions.

The Government agrees that administration and delivery of the programme are

areas that could be improved (see question 14 below). It is widely recognised

that there have been difficulties with the implementation of the NewInstruments in FP6. For this reason we would like to see a continuation of the

existing instruments in FP7, without radical change. The focus should be on

refining and improving those instruments that are already in place with the

assistance of those who have received funding through them to ensure that

the instruments achieve the aims of the Programme.

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DECEMBER 2004


8/36

8

Question 3: Basic Research

How strong is the case for a major increase in EU funding to improve

excellence in basic research?

14. Respondents from universities were enthusiastic about an increase in

funding other respondents were divided with the majority of industry

respondents seeing no strong case.

15. Although Europe is performing increasingly well in scientific publications

and citations, it still lags behind the USA in its share of the very best

science. We believe that it is therefore important to raise the quality of the

best basic research. The allocation of funding at the European level to the

best research teams would help achieve this aim by enabling competition

between the best research on an EU-wide scale. It may also have the effect

of improving the ability of national funding systems also to promote

excellence more strongly.

Is basic research a priority compared with applied research?

16. Respondents felt strongly that neither should be prioritised, and that the

two were closely related. The balance of industry respondents felt that basic

research should not be a priority.

The Government believes that both basic and applied research are important.

One of the key issues for FP7 will be to seek to address the current European

weakness in translating excellent basic research into innovative goods, productsand services in the market place.

17. If there is a basic research element in FP7, how should this be administered

to maximise its effectiveness?

18. There was overwhelming support for the European Research Council

concept, though almost all respondents qualified their support with a

number of conditions. These included: independence from the Commission;

governed by scientists not politicians; improved delivery and monitoring; a

simple, fair and transparent process.

The Government agrees with the views on a European Research Council

described above. We support the establishment of a European Research Council

to achieve the aim of improving the quality of basic research by allocating funding

through competition based on scientific excellence as assessed by international

peer review, with recipients from both the public and private sectors.

Administration must be with the minimum of bureaucracy consistent with

accountability for public funds. The Council should operate independently of the

European Commission. It should be accountable to the European Council and

European Parliament, based on a performance assessment by the Commission.



9/36

9

Should new support for basic research involve a requirement to collaborate

across borders or, as is proposed, award grants to individual teams?

19. There was no consensus view on this question. Some respondents were

very much in favour of funding for individual teams; but concerns were

expressed that this would negate the rationale for European support. Many

said there should be an option to fund individual teams, but cross-border

collaboration should be encouraged where possible. Many respondents

stated that there should be provision for much smaller collaborations,

between as few as two partners.

The Government does not believe that a system which includes cross-border

collaboration as a pre-requisite is compatible with a system based on excellence.

Proposals which incorporate pan-European collaboration should however be

welcomed as a contribution towards achieving the creation of a European

Research Area.

Do the proposed criteria look appropriate ones to apply when judging

proposals for a basic research action?

20. Those respondents who answered this question were strongly in favour

of the criteria set out in the document. A significant number stressed that

excellence should be the sole criteria for judging proposals, though

industrial respondents were more divided. A number of industry

respondents backed excellence, while an equal number said that social

and economic relevance should be the primary criteria.

As noted above, the Government believes that scientific excellence should be

the sole criterion for funding from a European Research Council.

Question 4: Scientific Infrastructure

What should be the role for the European Community in funding scientific

infrastructure development and maintenance?

21. All respondents thought the Community had a role to play, though veryfew thought the Commission should provide funding for construction or

capital costs.



10/36

10

The Government agrees with the view that the EU has a role in enhancing

Europes scientific infrastructure. But this is a limited one with the primary role

in infrastructure issues lying at Member State level and shaped by collaborations

between Member States. Collaborative Member State investment could

potentially be supported by some modest European co-funding , to assist in

agreeing an overall package that maximises the benefits to researchers across

the EU. The organisation and management of such projects should continue as

a collaboration between partnering organisations and states. The Government

also notes that European funding has been effective in securing pan-European

access to key research facilities and other infrastructure and believes this should

be continued.

What areas are in greatest need of support and how should any

Community support be delivered?

22. Respondents provided a long list of areas, the most popular being:databases, nanotechnology and bioinformatics. A number of respondents

believed there was a role for the European Science Foundation or other

European Research Agency in funding support for infrastructure.

The Government recognises the range of areas which could qualify for support.

This underlines the need to plan the development of research infrastructure

more effectively across Europe

How can infrastructure funding (by its nature long term) be reconciled with

the four-year cycle of the Framework Programme?

23. The vast majority of respondents recognised that infrastructure funding did

not sit naturally with the Framework Programme timescale. A majority said

that one solution would be for infrastructure funding to be decoupled from

the Programme timescale; an alternative was that infrastructure funding

should be kept outside the Framework Programme.

We agree that Bottom up expenditure in support of pan-European access to

infrastructures (which the Government supports) probably fits more comfortably

into the Framework Programme structures than top down funding of specificprojects. This is another reason for the major role in infrastructure investment to

be through Member State collaboration.

What is the best arrangement to support strategic decision making on

future research facilities and funding?

24. Many respondents said a roadmap should be developed, taking a long-term

view, identifying needs and drawing up a strategic vision. Some said that

infrastructure development should be pursued through the Member States

or their Research Councils. Some suggested that the European StrategyForum for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) should play a key role.



11/36

11

The Government supports the initiatives currently being undertaken in ESFRI to

draw up an overall road map for Europes scientific infrastructures, though this is

by its nature a long-term project.

Question 5: Human Capital and Mobility

What are your views on the human resources and mobility activities in

the Framework Programme?

25. Respondents expressed almost universal approval for the HRM schemes,

regarding them as good value for money. Almost all respondents who

commented on the issue said funding should be increased. There was little

support for radical changes to the current range of schemes.

We agree that the transfer of knowledge through people is the most effective

of the Framework Programmes means for integrating Europes research and

raising the innovative capacity of business. We note the overwhelmingly positive

evaluation of these schemes.

Do you agree that some restructuring is needed in FP7 to boost industry

(especially SME) participation in the mobility activities? If so what structure

would be optimal?

26. The majority of those who commented were concerned about industry

participation levels and there was widespread support for the reintroduction

of an industry host fellowship scheme (possibly with a sub-scheme explicitlyaimed at SMEs). The majority also felt that more should be done to

encourage SME participation, for instance by increasing flexibility over the

structure and funding of schemes. The Knowledge Transfer Partnership was

cited by several respondents as offering a useful model for imitation at

European level.

The industry host fellowship scheme that operated under earlier Framework

Programmes provided a valuable means of transferring knowledge and skills

from academia to industry. The Government will therefore seek the

reinstatement of a scheme of this kind in FP7 in the context of a system basedon three separate funding streams: academia to academia, academia to industry

and industry to industry. The industrial schemes should support industry hosts

and include marketing to support industrial thematic priorities.

Do you have any ideas for new activities (e.g. those that might encourage

brain gain from third countries or foster inter-sectoral mobility in

industry)?

27. Comparatively few respondents addressed this issue in much detail. A

couple expressed the view that permanent brain gain is harmful to the

exporting countries and therefore not to be encouraged.



12/36

12

As indicated above, the Government will press for a structure for the mobility

programmes in FP7 which encourages inter-sectoral mobility. It will also seek to

negotiate programmes which contribute to meeting Europes requirement to

find an extra 700,000 researchers as part of the Lisbon agenda. The Programme

should operate in synergy with other initiatives, such as work to improve the

attractiveness of research careers through a European Researchers Charter and

a Code of Conduct for the recruitment of Researchers.

Other issues

28. Some consultees also expressed concerns about the way in which the

European Commission treats tuition fees within the Marie Curie Individual

fellowship schemes.

The Government recognises these concerns. We are continuing to work closely

with European Commission officials on this issue in order to achieve a

satisfactory resolution.

Question 6: Industrial Competitiveness

How can the Framework Programme be made more attractive to industry

and increase private sector R&D investment?

29. A high number of respondents pointed to the levels of bureaucracy and the

overheads associated with participating in the Programme as a problematic

issue for industry, coupled with low success rates. For many respondents,

the solution lay in simplifying the application process, perhaps using a two-

stage process, and simplifying and speeding up the process of decision-

making and contracting. Problems associated with intellectual property were

an issue for a large number of respondents. A number said the Framework

Programme needed to be aligned better with industry needs, established

through better consultation.

30. The Government believes Europe should focus the bulk of its efforts, and

the majority of the Framework 7 budget, on collaborative research to

support industrial competitiveness. We share the concern of consulteesabout improving the ways in which procedures work and are already

actively pressing for simplification of processes and a reduction in

bureaucracy in the present Programme. This work will need to be continued

in the design of FP7. Tackling this issue requires the engagement of all three

Community Institutions at a high level to secure political buy-in to reform,

ranging from revision of the Financial Regulation to internal organisational

issues. The UK will contribute actively at the political and operational level

to achieve appropriate change. The Government also believes that

intellectual property rights connected with industry-focused actions in FP7

should reflect industry norms. We will involve users in priority-setting

through the UK Technology Strategy, which will set agreed high-level



13/36

13

objectives in consultation with the industrial community and in turn inform

the UKs input to discussions at a European level.

Are there alternative delivery mechanisms which could foster industrial

participation?

31. There was a cautious welcome amongst some respondents to the conceptof European Technology Platforms (ETPs), though it was noted that there

would need to be careful consideration of the idea. Shorter and smaller-

scale demonstration projects were seen by some as a mechanism to

encourage industry participation. Others said there should be more

connection to programmes at the national level.

The Government agrees that resources should be targeted to maximum effect

by integrating national and EU science and technology strategies more

closely connecting decision-making at national and EU levels and ensuring EU

decisions take explicit account of national programmes. We share the view that

the ETP concept is potentially promising, though the development of a separate

funding instrument for some ETPs (in the form of Joint European Technology

Initiatives) requires careful consideration before implementation and may only

be appropriate for a few areas.

Question 7: Addressing the Needs of Small and MediumEnterprises

How can EU funding best address the needs of SMEs?

32. Many respondents noted that the SME community had its own particular

needs and that their engagement with the Framework Programme needed to

take these into account. A majority said that to promote SME engagement it

was important to simplify and increase the transparency, accessibility and

speed of decision making in FP7, reducing bureaucracy to a level which

SMEs would find easier to cope with.

As noted above, the Government is actively seeking to improve the

management and administration of the programmes across the board.

How useful are existing SME-specific measures and what form should

future SME instruments take?

33. A large number of respondents noted that SMEs found it difficult to engage

as full partners in Framework instruments. Some argued that the research

needs of SMEs were different from those of larger industry and academia

and there was a need for greater flexibility in recognition of the faster-

moving dynamics of the SME sector. Many respondents pointed to the

success of the CRAFT programme and argued that its budget should be

maintained or increased.



14/36

14

The Government notes the views of consultees on this point, in particular the

support for the CRAFT programme. We will continue to work closely with the

Commission and other interested parties to seek to improve the accessibility of

the Framework Programme to SMEs

If necessary, how can SMEs be integrated into mainstream Framework

Programme projects?

34. Several respondents suggested that better promotion of the opportunities

available under the Framework Programme would facilitate SME

involvement in projects. Several suggested that there should be greater

flexibility to enable SMEs to become more easily involved in established

projects and networks.

The Government recognises the need for better promotion of the opportunities

available under the Framework Programmes and has already sought to improve

this in the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) by establishing a central Contact

Point (see http://www.fp6uk.ost.gov.uk/) which is charged with promoting the

Programme nationally. The Government also notes the view that SME

participation could be enhanced by a more flexible application of the rules for

participation in projects and will explore the issues further as part of the

forthcoming negotiations.

How could mobility for SME employees be increased to access technology

and skills?

35. Respondents noted that mobility was a difficult issue for SMEs. Many could

not afford to lose a key member of staff for a prolonged period. Some

respondents argued that short-term mobility grants should therefore be

available. Some said that more locally based solutions should be available

to SMEs.

The Government recognises the special issues associated with mobility for SME

staff and will look for ways to make these schemes more SME-friendly in FP7

Other Issues

36. Some consultees suggested that additional Government funding should be

made available to assist SME proposals for EU funding.

The Government is aware of the particular difficulties facing SMEs when

considering participation in the Framework Programmes. The cost of preparing

proposals and the long-term commitment required for many R&D projects

involves a financial burden which is not easy for an SME to accommodate. We

are actively pressing the Commission to simplify their administrative procedures,

which will benefit all participants but particularly those in the SME community.

The Government notes that a number of UK Regional Development Agenicesoffer support for the preparation of Framework Programme proposals.



15/36

15

Question 8: Better Exploitation and Spin Out of Research

What should be done to make the Framework Programme better focussed

on exploitation and spin out?

37. A large number of respondents cited difficulties with the intellectual

property regime as a barrier to exploitation and spin out, particularly with

the requirement to share IP across all participants, which led to very

complex arrangements and acted as a disincentive to any partner

commercialising research results.

38. A majority of respondents suggested that funding be made specifically

available for exploitation and spin outs or that funding should be available

for proof of concept or demonstration activities focused on

implementation or development.

The Government believes that exploitation of the outputs of projects is crucial ifEuropean research is to be translated into innovative goods and services. We

will seek to address exploitation issues as part of the forthcoming negotiations

on FP7 and the European Commissions Competitiveness and Innovation

Programme. We also support the concept that intellectual property protection

should be fitted to the needs of the participants in the programme.

Other Issues

39. One consultee suggested that UK patent law should recognise scientific

publication as a key milestone in patent applications.

The concept of grace periods has been, and still is, the subject of much debate at

an international level. The Patent Office conducted a consultation on this issue

between February and April 2002 and the results showed that most respondents

(including those from an academic background) were content with the current

system.

40. One consultee suggested that the Government should do more to support

technology transfer from universities to industry, particularly by promoting

the activities of intermediary organisations.

The Government is supportive of the need to promote knowledge transfer.

Knowledge transfer is a key element of DTIs business support products. The

Framework Programme also provides opportunities to promote technology

transfer across Europe in developing Networks of Excellence and Integrated

Projects.

Intermediary organisations play a valuable role in helping to spread the benefit

of the investment in fundamental research. The DTIs new Knowledge Transfer

Networks product specifically helps such organisations to develop their capabilities

and build new client bases. Knowledge Transfer Partnerships have been made

more flexible and opened up for full participation by the intermediary sector.



16/36

16

Question 9: Research in Support of Policies

How should FP7 be balanced to meet the needs of both research in support

of policy and that in support of competitiveness outcomes?

41. Many respondents argued that research towards policy and competitiveness

were intrinsically linked, and therefore that this argued in favour of stronger

integration between the two. A majority of those who commented felt there

should be more research towards competitiveness than policy. A few

respondents felt there should be no policy research and a significant

minority argued for more policy research than at present.

The Government believes that policy-related research is an important part of the

overall Framework Programme and should continue at about its present level.

Should there be a clearer delineation between the two types of research in

the structure of the programme?

42. Respondents were divided over this issue but overall the balance was in

favour of clearer delineation.

The Government agrees. The rationale, the relationship between customer and

contractor, and the dissemination of results are different for research in support

of policy, and for this reason programmes and instruments need to be properly

tailored and fit for purpose.

How could the interests of end-users of policy-related research bebetter met?

43. A majority of respondents suggested better consultation with end-users.

Responses indicated strong support for involving users in Programme

development, as part of the project consortia putting bids together and

throughout the life of the project.

The Government believes this area of the Programme should be more clearly

delineated and driven by its policy users. The Commission Directorates General

have a key role to play as customers and their responsibility and accountabilityneeds to be significantly strengthened. They should engage with policy experts

from Member States in identifying research needs. There should also be a more

strategic approach to identifying overlaps and gaps between national and

European programmes and more opportunity for interested policy users to be

engaged in projects, including the definition stage.

How can the need for transparency and dissemination of policy-related

research be balanced with the need to protect IPR?



17/36

17

44. Many respondents agreed this was an important issue. Some saw the

solution as allowing more flexibility in approach to IPR from case to case.

Some suggested that specific funding for spin-out or dissemination would

be helpful.

The Government believes that a dedicated activity should support dissemination

of the results of policy-oriented research. This would actively identify potentialusers of the research outputs. Results from related projects across all

programme themes could be synthesised and marketed to be readily accessible

to policy makers. The work should pay attention to research funded in previous

Programmes and to relevant outputs from basic and industrial research projects.

Project consortia would be required to make available appropriate project

summaries and raw data for further analysis as well as to publish results in peer-

reviewed journals. Intellectual property arrangements should be aimed at

ensuring effective dissemination of results.

What should be the future role of support for the Joint Research Centre

(JRC)?

45. There was broad agreement that the JRC should receive Framework

Programme funding through open competition with other potential sources

of policy research. In general, there was opposition to any increase in its

direct funding, and a minority suggested that is should not be funded

through the FP at all.

The Government believes that the JRC should compete on an equal footing with

other organisations to undertake EU policy research, so as to maintain high

standards and make maximum use of centres of excellence across Europe.

However, we recognise that the JRC is a valuable institution and would require

a certain level of core funding in order to maintain its expertise and research capacity.

Other issues

46. One organisation consulted suggested that the JRC should be subject to

external evaluation of its activities.

The Government notes that such evaluation already happens on a five yearlycycle. The latest evaluation exercise was undertaken by a panel headed by

Professor David Fisk; this came to generally positive conclusions about the

organisation. We agree that external evaluation is valuable and support its

continuation.



18/36

18

Question 10: Science and Technology Priorities

What criteria should be applied for identifying the S&T priorities for FP7?

47. There was widespread approval for the criteria listed in the Consultation

Document. The most frequently suggested criteria for identifying priorities

were: areas supporting European policies; areas needing European scale;

areas where Europe could gain competitive advantage.

The Government agrees that the priorities should be set so as to maximise

European added value; support wealth creation and the Lisbon goals; and

address common European policy needs. In doing so, the needs both of industry

and society should be taken into account.

Can you suggest evidence that identifies key areas for support?

48. Respondents suggested that national and European Foresight programmesshould be used, as should priorities determined by the national research

councils. A number expressed support for the priorities listed in Annex H

(nominated by the Research Councils), while other suggested suitable topics

for European funding. These included sustainability, energy, social science,

health and climate change.

The Government accepts that existing work on priorities should inform priority

setting for FP7, and that this should apply to all areas including social sciences

and the humanities. We intend to involve users in this process via the

Technology Strategy, informed by RCUKs strategy.

Other Issues

49. One organisation consulted called for strong UK support for the ITER project

The UK continues to support to this project, and is working with partner

countries to ensure that the outcome delivers maximum value from EU funds,

consistent with an overall EU budget of 1% GNI.

Question 11: Role of Member State and European FundingMechanisms

What is the future role of EU funding in supporting links between Member

State programmes?

50. Respondents were overwhelmingly in favour of the coordination of national

programmes, with most approving increased coordination. The main reason

cited for intervention was to reduce duplication and cover gaps in research.

There were however concerns about excess bureaucracy.



19/36

19

The Government believes that the Framework Programme has an important role

to play in coordinating national research so as to avoid wasteful duplication

and add value to nationally funded research.

Which mechanisms are best suited for this purpose and how might they

develop?

51. Respondents were generally supportive of ERA-NET and many said it should

be extended. There was also strong support for COST. Some respondents

were in favour of the EUREKA programme, while saying that it did not have

enough national support.

The Government is supportive of the ERA-NET scheme and wants to see it

continue in FP7. We recognise the general support for COST, and industry

support for the EUREKA Programme, and see benefits in further cooperation

between them and other aspects of the Framework Programme.

Should European legal provisions allowing support for Member State

collaboration be more widely applied in FP7?

52. Those respondents who answered this question were generally in favour of

extending the Article 169 and Article 171 mechanisms, while a number

commented that the Article 169 process was too cumbersome.

The Government believes that the possibility of closer collaboration by means

of Article 169 should be explored, accepting that it has proven cumbersome

thus far.

Is there a need for European aspects of regional programmes to be better

coordinated? Should this be supported through the Framework Programme

or are existing mechanisms at national level and through the Structural

Funds sufficient?

53. The balance of opinion was in favour of increased coordination at the

regional level. Respondents also favoured improved links between FP and

Structural Funds activities, with infrastructure, innovation/explanation and

support for SMEs seen as suitable areas.

The Government believes that the benefits of increased coordination and

cooperation in Europe apply at the regional level as well as the national, but that

care must be taken to avoid Framework funding, which we believe should be

focused on enhancing European competitiveness, being used for projects that

more properly fall to the Structural Funds.



20/36

20

Question 12: Strategic Technology Development

Could the European Technology Platform concept be extended to a wider

range of technologies in FP7?

54. The majority of respondents were in favour of the ETP concept, with few

dismissing it altogether, though many expressed confusion about the

structure, aims, added value and funding of the platforms. Only a handful

said the concept should not be expanded in FP7.

The Government supports the development of ETPs in appropriate technology

areas and believes they could provide a useful contribution to the priority setting

exercise for the Framework Programme.

What technologies would benefit from this approach and what criteria

should be applied in the selection process?

55. A huge variety of subjects were suggested. Sustainable energy was the

most common suggestion, with nanotechnology and biotechnology also

attracting a lot of support.

The Government notes with interest the various suggestions. It considers that

Technology Platforms will best most useful if the priorities are clearly defined

and user-driven.

What level of funding would be appropriate for an ETP?

56. Those who answered this question gave a wide variety of answers, from

D2-5m per annum up to D10bn. Some respondents stressed that there

should be no one size fits all model.

The Government believes that ETPs should play a largely coordinating role and

large-scale funding for them will therefore usually be inappropriate. ETPs should

bring together a variety of parties from the relevant sector (including industry -

both large and small, regulators, academia and others) to agree the future

priorities in that area. Funding for taking forward the work could come from

both the private and public sectors at a national or international level, dependingon the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives. Large-scale Framework

Programme funding should not, therefore, be a presumption.

Question 13: Impact of Collaborative R&D FundingInstruments

Which options would you support for funding collaborative R&D?

57. Many respondents said the new Framework should keep a mix of traditional

and new instruments. Several said the existing instruments should be made

simpler, and several that the number of instruments should be decreased.



21/36

21

Many said that more funding should be directed to smaller projects and to

traditional instruments, with STREPs in particular attracting a lot of support.

A high number said there should be more flexibility for participants in the

choice of project size, number of partners, and funding instrument. A high

proportion of respondents supported the introduction of a two-stage process

for proposals.

The Government believes that continuity and stability are required between FP6

and FP7, and therefore does not generally support the introduction of new

instruments in FP7. However, we agree that the present administration of the

Programme creates unnecessary barriers to participation, particularly for SMEs

and industry. Simplification, driven in particular by the recommendations from

the recent Marimon Report, notably for the new instruments, is therefore

imperative. Such simplification should also address issues which are set as part

of the Financial Regulation.

What priority should this area be given?

58. Those who addressed this question said it should receive high priority.

We agree that funding of collaborative research should continue to be the major

part of the Framework Programme.

Could the number of instruments be reduced and how?

59. A high number of respondents said there should be a review of NoEs (and

to a lesser extent IPs), leading to refocusing and reform. Many said theyshould be allocated a reduced proportion of funds, or they should not be

funded at all. A small number suggested that CAs and SSAs could be

merged.

As outlined, the Government wishes to see stability between FP6 and FP7, but

with significant improvements to NoEs and IPs based on user experience and

the reintroduction of the Industry Host fellowships. It also favours a shift in the

budget to allow for more STREPs.

How might alternative instruments function?

60. A variety of options were put forward, including responsive mode support,

modelled on STREPs, demonstration projects, fully funded projects for

policy, or instruments based on models from the US, Japan or Member

States.

The Government agrees that all instruments should be simple and fit for

purpose, and that the provision for STREPs should be increased. We welcome

the European Commissions initiatives to improve Programme design and

implementation and commitment to involve participants and national fundingbodies in reform of FP7. We will continue to press the Commission to make

these activities a high priority.



22/36

22

In the area of basic research, the Government believes the most appropriate

form of support would be grants that cover the full economic cost of the

research to be undertaken.

Question 14: Programme Management and Delivery

Are there any barriers facing business and the science base in effective

engagement with EU research programmes?

61. A large majority of respondents identified as a barrier the administrative

burden and bureaucracy associated with proposal preparation, submission,

negotiation and operation. A large number were deterred by the poor

likelihood of success and the complexity of the instruments and application

procedures. The timescales involved, particularly during contract

negotiation, were cited by a majority of respondents. Cost was also seen as

a key barrier the costs of bid preparation and project participation; lowrecovery of overheads; and low funds for project management.

The Government agrees that there are barriers: bureaucracy and cost in

particular. As outlined above, the Government will continue to press for the

instruments to be simplified to reduce barriers to participation, including full

cost recovery.

How can the UK more effectively influence and benefit from EU research

policies and funding?

62. Many respondents wanted better and earlier access to information,

including data on participation, and greater visibility of available funding.

Several said there should be more extensive consultation with the research

community about work programmes. Some felt that the UK needed to be

more effective in lobbying for specific subjects. Some felt that Framework

policy needed to be better coordinated with other national policies, with

regional policies and with the views of stakeholders.

The Government believes that the introduction of a more co-ordinated official

support mechanism, in the form of the FP6UK service(http://www.fp6uk.ost.gov.uk/), is assisting the UK research community to

access information on the Framework Programme. We will continue to press for

greater transparency both in the design of FP7 and its operation, and welcome

the Commissions assurances on this.

How could management and administrative procedures be changed to

make it easier for UK organisations to participate?

63. The vast majority of respondents said the Programme could be streamlined,

reducing the number and complexity of the instruments and clarifying and

simplifying the procedures. A majority supported the introduction of a two-



23/36

23

stage process, provided that the first stage was unbureaucratic with light

information requirements. A number commented that the evaluation

procedures could be improved, while a number asked for better information

from the Commission. Many asked for Commission funding to be based on

full economic costs.

The Government, for the reasons previously outlined, does not favour majorchange to the FP6 instruments in FP7, but will continue to press for

simplification of instruments and administration, including the Financial

Regulation, and a move to full cost recovery models. Likewise it supports

greater transparency at all stages, including better information for applicants

before bidding and better feedback to proposers. We support the Commissions

explorations of two-stage application processes, provided the first stage is very

simple, so as not to introduce further delays.

Other issues

64. A number of consultees suggest that the UK does not lobby as effectively

for UK projects as other Member States.

The Government does not believe that it is appropriate for national Authorities

to lobby in favour of projects proposed by organisations from their own Country.

National Governments have a role to play in setting the priorities for and

structure of each Framework Programme through the negotiations to create a

programme that will support enhanced European competitiveness. National

representatives on programme management committees are then charged with

administering the programme fairly and objectively and we do not believe thatthere is evidence that national lobbying has played any part in the operations of

the programme management committees, nor is it appropriate that it should.

65. A number of consultees suggest that the UK is not well enough organised in

the provision of information on developments within the Framework

Programme and of support to potential UK participants in the Programme.

66. While the Government cannot agree that its support to UK participants and

potential participants in the Framework Programme has been inadequate in

the past, we have nevertheless sought to further improve this support in FP6though the introduction of the FP6UK service (http://www.fp6uk.ost.gov.uk/),

which provides UK organisations with centralised access to sources of

comprehensive information and advice on FP6. As the preparations for FP7

proceed we will continue to consult informally with UK Framework

Programme participants to identify ways in which support during FP7 can

be improved.

67. One consultee proposed that a Framework Programme Steering Board on

the model of the DTIs Technology Strategy Board should be established.

A number of Steering Boards and Groups encompassing Ministers, Officials, the

Research Councils and other stakeholders already exist and provide a forum for



24/36

24

the discussion of issues related to the Framework Programme. The Government

seeks to consult as widely as possible on these issues and to deliver the best

strategy for negotiating a Programme which will be in the overall interests of

the UK.

Question 15: General Issues

Are there any areas we have not anticipated in this document?

68. Many respondents brought up points on administration and delivery that

were covered elsewhere in the responses. A number mentioned the issue

of UK university sustainability rules and their potential impact on European

funding. Others brought up social science and humanities research, other

areas of Government policy, and the need for electronic submissions.

Do you have any other comments that might aid the consultation

process as a whole? Comments on the layout of the document wouldalso be appreciated.

69. Of those who expressed an opinion, a number commented that the

document was well laid-out and comprehensive, while others said it was

too long. A small number of respondents commented on the questions,

describing them as ambiguous or leading. A significant number of

respondents said it would have been useful to have the Response Form in

Word format, and a number said it would have been helpful to have a

saveable online form.

The Government notes the comments received in response to this question.

We are grateful to those who participated and for their generally positive

response, and for the helpful suggestions on improvements which might be

made to the consultation process.

Next Steps

70. The Government has taken the comments received fully into account in

preparing the UK position paper on our initial approach to FP7, which is

published alongside this document. We will continue to take theseresponses into account as our position develops and in particular as we

develop our response to the Commissions formal proposals for FP7, which

are now expected to be published in the first half of 2005. We will remain

in close contact with key stakeholder organisations to keep people informed

as the negotiations develop and also as we develop our thinking on some

of the more detailed policy issues.



25/36

25OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DECEMBER 2004

Annex A

Data on the respondents broken down by questionTotal Respondents

There were a total of 213 responses, broken down as follows:

Category Number of % of overallresponses responses

Universities 67 31

Cross-University Bodies 4 2

Central Government/ 20 9Devolved Administrations

Regional and Local 9 4Government

Public Research Institutes 12 6

Royal Societies/Professional 11 5Institutes

Non-Governmental 15 7Organisations

Large Industry 17 8

Industry Trade Groups 15 7

Small to Medium Enterprises 24 11

Consultancies 4 2

Other 15 7

Total 213 100

93 responses were submitted using the online response form.

Question 1: Rationale for the Framework Programme

There were 164 responses.


Universities 60 37







Large Industry 16 10



Consultancies 3 2

Other 6 4

Total 164 100


26/36

26

1 Due to an error with the online form, this question was answered by fewer respondents.


Summary of views on priorities

Half or Signific-antly Same Signific-antly Double orless less more more

Overall budget 0 3 22 62 25

Basic research 0 8 31 42 29

Scientific and research 0 15 42 40 11infrastructure

Mobility for industry 2 10 32 52 12and academia

Industrial research and 0 3 7 15 4competitiveness1

Small and medium 3 9 50 38 7enterprises

Research in support 4 18 45 31 9of policy

Question 2: Requirements for a New ProgrammeThere were 150 responses.


Universities 60 40










Consultancies 1 1

Other 8 5

Total 150 100


27/36


Question 3: Basic Research



Universities 62 38







Large Industry 14 9



Consultancies 2 1

Other 7 4

Total 163 100

Question 4: Scientific Infrastructure



Universities 58 42







Large Industry 11 8



Consultancies 2 1

Other 6 4

Total 138 100


28/36

28 GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION ON THE 7TH EU R&D FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

Question 5: Human Capital and Mobility



Universities 60 42







Large Industry 13 9



Consultancies 2 1

Other 5 3

Total 143 100

Question 6: Industrial Competitiveness



Universities 50 35










Consultancies 3 2

Other 8 6

Total 142 100


29/36


Question 7: Addressing the Needs ofSmall and Medium Enterprises



Universities 49 36







Large Industry 12 9



Consultancies 2 1

Other 8 6

Total 138 100

Question 8: Better Exploitation and Spin Out of Research



Universities 56 41










Consultancies 2 1

Other 6 4

Total 137 10


30/36

30

Question 9: Research in Support of Policies



Universities 53 41







Large Industry 10 8



Consultancies 2 2

Other 7 5

Total 129 100

Question 10: Science and Technology Priorities



Universities 56 36







Large Industry 14 9



Consultancies 2 1

Other 9 6

Total 155 100



31/36

31

Question 11: Role of Member State and European FundingMechanisms



Universities 51 41










Consultancies 2 2

Other 7 6

Total 125 100

Question 12: Strategic Technology Development



Universities 41 37










Consultancies 2 2

Other 7 6

Total 111 100



32/36

32

Question 13: Impact of Collaborative R&D FundingInstruments



Universities 57 41







Large Industry 13 9



Consultancies 2 1

Other 6 4

Total 138 100

Question 14: Programme Management and Delivery



Universities 56 35







Large Industry 12 8



Consultancies 3 2

Other 8 5

Total 159 100



33/36

33

Question 15: General Issues



Universities 31 33







Large Industry 7 8



Consultancies 0 0

Other 3 3

Total 93 100



34/36

34 GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION ON THE 7TH EU R&D FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME


35/36


36/36

fp7 uk government response

Documents