[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 26.9.2006

COM(2006) 548 final

2005/0043 (COD)

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning the

common position of the Council on the adoption of a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the 7th Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013)

2005/0043 (COD)

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning the

common position of the Council on the adoption of a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the 7th Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013)

1. BACKGROUND

Date of the transmission of the proposal to the EP and Council (document COM(2005) 119 final - 2005/0043(COD) and 2005/0044(CNS)) : | 13 April 2005 |

Date of the opinion of the Committee of Regions: | 16 November 2005 |

Date of the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee: | 14 December 2005 |

Date of the opinion of the European Parliament in the first reading: | 15 June 2006 |

Date of transmission of the amended proposal to the EP and Council | 28 June 2006 |

Date of adoption of the Common Position: | 25 September 2006 |

2. Commission’s position on the common position

In accordance with Article 251 of the EC Treaty, the present communication sets out the Commission’s position on the Council’s Common Position, adopted by qualified majority on 25 September 2006 concerning the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development, following the political agreement reached on the 24 July 2006. Political agreement on the Euratom Framework Programme was also reached on 24 July 2006.

Broadly, the Common Position maintains the structure and content of the Framework Programme proposed by the Commission and is, in overall terms, highly consistent with the opinion of the European Parliament.

The Council has incorporated a large majority of the amendments adopted in the opinion of the European Parliament, on the first reading (15 June 2006) and accepted by the Commission in its amended proposal[1].

3. Comments on the common position

The Commission regards the Common Position as a good basis for further negotiations on the Framework Programme with a view to reaching a second reading agreement.

As regards the budget , the Council (and the European Parliament) has endorsed the overall amount of EUR 50,521 million which the Commission proposed in its amended proposal[2], following the conclusion on 17 May 2006 of the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management. [3]

On the budget breakdown , the Common Position is broadly consistent with the Commission amended proposal and the Parliament opinion, with the exception of:

- In Cooperation

- Increased amounts for five themes : “Health”, “Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materials and new Production Technologies”, “Energy”, “Environment” as well as a small increase in “Socio-economic Sciences and the Humanities”;

- A reduction in the theme “Security and Space”.

- In Capacities

- A major decrease in “Research infrastructures” as well as a decrease in “Science in Society”;

- Increased amounts for “Research for the benefit of SMEs” and “Research Potential” as well as a small increase in “Activities of International Cooperation”.

Although, there is a strong correlation between the proposed activities and the proposed budget, the reduced budget for Infrastructures and for the Theme Security and Space might not allow the full implementation of the activities proposed in the common position.

As regards the structure of the programme, the Common Position maintains the various components of the programme proposed by the Commission, including the focus on the Themes and the flexible approach of the programme taking into account the seven year duration. The Commission agrees that the coherent development of policies should form a separate part in the Capacities programme. However, the Council has, in line with the Parliament, separated the theme on “Security and Space” into two themes, thus proposing ten themes. By keeping the two fields together the Commission believes significant flexibility and synergy could be achieved.

In terms of the research content , a large proportion of the amendments proposed by Parliament and accepted by the Commission in its modified proposal, are carried through into the common position. The Commission has in its modified proposal made clear that due to the reduction in the budget, the Commission did not include amendments which would mean a widening of the scope of the themes thus requiring more resources. The Commission believes that the common position essentially respects this. However, the inclusion of the “Exploratory Award Scheme” for SMEs in Capacities is not in line with this principle. The Commission believes the budget should be concentrated exclusively on the funding of projects.

The Commission endorses the strengthening of text on SMEs by proposing concrete measures in the themes, including by quantitative and qualitative analysis, which the Commission believes is a more efficient approach than artificial targets which the Commission did not take on board in the modified proposal.

Major issues for the Parliament have been the Joint Technology Initiatives, as well as the programmes Ideas and People.

- Concerning the Joint Technology Initiatives, the Common position includes the modifications of the criteria for the identification of Joint Technology Initiatives.

- Concerning Ideas, important clarifications have been included concerning the term of office, the renewal and the role of the Scientific Council, the management and the staffing arrangements; as well inclusion of the conduct of an independent review in 2010, presented to the Parliament and the Council, of the European Research Council's structures and mechanisms.

- Concerning People, a series of changes include references to the links of this programme with other parts of the Framework Programme and other community programmes, additions that make explicit the international dimension of this part of the programme, pointers to the establishment of appropriate working conditions of researchers and indications on the co-funding mode.

Finally, the criteria for the support to new research infrastructures are more detailed and the importance of regional aspects in the construction is acknowledged.

On stem cell related research , the Commission accepted, in its modified proposal, to include an article on which fields shall not be financed under the 7th Framework Programme in line with the Parliament’s amendment. Council has in its common position also included this article, and the Commission made a declaration re-confirming the practice to follow (see annex).

4. CONCLUSION

The Commission considers that the Common Position, adopted by qualified majority on 25 September 2006, presents a strong convergence with the positions of both the European Parliament and the Commission. It takes into account a large proportion of the amendments made by the European Parliament in its first reading and integrated by the Commission into its amended proposal. The Commission therefore supports the Common Position.

ANNEX

For the 7th Framework Programme, the European Commission proposes to continue with the same ethical framework for deciding on the EU funding of human embryonic stem cell research as in the 6th Framework Programme.

The European Commission proposes the continuation of this ethical framework because it has developed, based on experience, a responsible approach for an area of science which holds much promise and that has proven to work satisfactorily in the context of a research programme in which researchers participate from many countries with very diverse regulatory situations.

1. The decision on the 7th Framework Programme explicitly excludes three fields of research from Community funding:

2. Research activities aiming at human cloning for reproductive purposes;

3. Research activities intended to modify the genetic heritage of human beings which could make such changes heritable;

4. Research activities intended to create human embryos solely for the purpose of research or for the purpose of stem cell procurement, including by means of somatic cell nuclear transfer.

5. No activity will be funded that is forbidden in all Member States. No activity will be funded in a Member State where such activity is forbidden.

6. The decision on FP7 and the provisions for the ethical framework governing the Community funding of human embryonic stem cell research entail in no way a value judgement on the regulatory or ethical framework governing such research in Member States.

7. In calling for proposals, the European Commission does not explicitly sollicit the use of human embryonic stem cells. The use of human stem cells, be they adult or embryonic, if any, depends on the judgement of the scientists in view of the objectives they want to achieve. In practice, by far the largest part of Community funds for stem cell research is devoted to the use of adult stem cells. There is no reason why this would substantially change in FP7.

8. Each project proposing to use human embryonic stem cells must successfully pass a scientific evaluation during which the necessity of using such stem cells to achieve the scientific objectives is assessed by independent scientific experts.

9. Proposals which successfully pass the scientific evaluation are then subject to a stringent ethical review organised by the European Commission. In this ethical review, account is taken of principles reflected in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and relevant international conventions such as the Convention of the Council of Europe on Human Rights and Biomedicine signed in Oviedo on 4 April 1997 and its additional protocols and the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and the Human Rights adopted by UNESCO. The ethical review also serves to check that the proposals respect the rules of the countries where the research will be carried out.

10. In particular cases, an ethical review may be carried out during the lifetime of the project.

11. Each project proposing to use human embryonic stem cells must seek the approval of the relevant national or local ethics committee prior to the start of the project. All national rules and procedures must be respected, including on such issues as parental consent, absence of financial inducement, etc. Checks will be made on whether the project includes references to licensing and control measures to be taken by the competent authorities of the Member State where the research will be carried out.

12. A proposal that successfully passes the scientific evaluation, the national or local ethical reviews and the European ethical review will be presented for approval, on a case by case basis, to the Member States, meeting as a Regulatory Committee. No project involving the use of human embryonic stem cells will be funded that does not obtain approval from the Member States.

13. The European Commission will continue to work to make the results from Community funded stem cell research widely accessible to all researchers, for the ultimate benefit of patients in all countries.

14. The European Commission will support actions and initiatives that contribute to a coordination and rationalisation of HESC research within a responsible ethical approach. In particular, the Commission will support a European registry of human embryonic stem cell lines. Support for such a registry will allow a monitoring of existing human embryonic stem cells in Europe will contribute to maximise their use by scientists and may help to avoid unnecessary derivations of new stem cell lines.

15. The European Commission will continue with the current practice and will not submit to the Regulatory Committee proposals for projects which include research activities which destroy human embryos, including for the procurement of stem cells. The exclusion of funding of this step of research will not prevent Community funding of subsequent steps involving human embryonic stem cells".

[1] COM(2006)364 final, 28.06.2006

[2] COM(2005) 119 final/2, 24.05.2006

[3] OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.