Ehler and Séjourné emerged as the principal protagonists in a lively European Parliament ITRE committee debate on 24 March 2026, centered on the governance of Horizon Europe and its integration with the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF), alongside broader industrial policy issues. Ehler (EPP) argued for maintaining distinct governance, budgets, and priorities for Horizon and the Competitiveness Fund, fearing that tight integration under ECF comitology would dilute Horizon's excellence-driven research focus. In contrast, Séjourné, representing the European Commission, championed a more integrated industrial strategy linking resilience, sovereignty, and European preference, advocating for seamless Horizon-ECF collaboration to enhance the research-to-innovation pipeline.
The debate unfolded in the ITRE committee meeting, focusing on Horizon Europe’s 2028–2034 framework and specific program, with a structured dialogue involving Commission officials including Executive Vice-President Séjourné and DG RTD’s Marc Lemaître.
Speakers diverged notably on governance. Ehler pressed for expert-led, agile governance of pillar two to accelerate calls and projects without political interference. Réne Repasi (S&D) and Lemaître opposed moving political implementation settings back into the framework, supporting the Commission’s close Horizon-ECF coordination. Others, such as Ville Niinistö (Greens/EFA), warned that granting pillar two excessive autonomy risked entrenching vested interests.
Disagreement also arose on the scope of Horizon: Ehler and others emphasized research excellence and speed but accepted widening measures; Séjourné underscored strategic industrial policy objectives including European preference and energy sovereignty, supported by new mechanisms like the Industrial Accelerator Act. Séjourné proposed a 20% industrial production target for strategic sectors, fostering Made in Europe through production location criteria rather than corporate nationality—the Commission also envisaged faster permitting and scrutiny of foreign investment.
Concerning the industry and energy policy, Séjourné highlighted ongoing job losses and advocated for more funding, strategic tools, and reforms to address energy prices—an issue that divided opinion, with calls for immediate liquidity and structural energy market reform from S&D, while Greens/EFA defended maintaining EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) integrity.
Proposals with concrete targets included Séjourné’s call for a larger budget, the 20% production target, and the Industrial Accelerator Act for enhanced European preference. Ehler proposed a permanent fast-track instrument for innovation speed and expert governance councils. Other speakers reiterated the need for simplified procedures, transparent programming, and stable widening support with measurable indicators.
The debate exposed key cleavages: the degree of EU integration and strengthening of Horizon’s governance versus maintaining program autonomy; emphasis on industrial sovereignty and strategic investment targets against preserving research excellence and competitive openness; and structural energy market reform juxtaposed with immediate financial relief for industry.
Stakeholders impacted include EU researchers and innovators who face potential changes in governance and funding flows; the industrial sector, notably steel, chemicals, and automotive, which could see new production quotas and investment rules; national authorities challenged to implement and monitor tighter EU strategic demands; and consumers indirectly affected by possible cost implications of reindustrialization and energy price reforms.
Anticipated next steps include detailed amendment submissions by the April 9, 2026 deadline, with Parliament negotiating framework and specific program legislation as a single package. The Commission’s position suggests further integration of Horizon and ECF mechanisms, though Parliament voices aim to safeguard program autonomy and expert-led excellence. Energy costs and industrial competitiveness remain pressing, likely to shape budget and policy priorities moving forward.