Select Committee on European Scrutiny Thirty-Fourth Report


2 European Institute of Technology

(a)

(27325)
6844/06
COM(06) 77

+ ADD 1

(b)
(27589)
10361/06
COM(06) 276


Commission Communication: Implementing the renewed partnership for growth and jobs — Developing a knowledge flagship: the European Institute of Technology

Results of the public consultation on the concept of a European in Institute of Technology

Commission Communication: The European Institute of Technology: further steps towards its creation

Legal base
Document originated(b) 8 June 2006
Deposited in Parliament(b) 14 June 2006
DepartmentEducation and Skills
Basis of consideration(b) EM of 29 June 2006
Previous Committee Report(a) HC 34-xxiii (2005-06), para 4 (29 March 2006)

(b) None

Discussed in European Council15-16 June 2006
Committee's assessmentPolitically important
Committee's decision(Both) Not cleared; further information awaited

Previous scrutiny of document (a)

2.1 In February 2005, the Commission published its proposals for the re-launch of the Lisbon Strategy (Working together for growth and jobs). It included a proposal for the creation of a European Institute of Technology (EIT). Its purpose would be to improve EU competitiveness by bringing together the best people from universities, companies and research bodies to provide world-class research, innovation and post-graduate teaching.

2.2 The Commission produced document (a) in time for it to be discussed by the European Council on 23-24 March 2006. It summarises the case for the EIT and outlines what it would do and how it would work.

2.3 The Commission proposes that the EIT should:

  • provide post-graduate education and award higher degrees;
  • conduct research and innovate in inter-disciplinary fields;
  • develop management skills for research and innovation; and
  • attract the world's best research workers and post-graduate students.

2.4 The EIT would have a Governing Board and a central core. The Governors would be outstanding people from industry, research and the universities. The Board would set the EIT's priorities; manage the central budget and allocate resources to "knowledge communities"; ensure excellence within the EIT; organise the selection, monitoring and evaluation of knowledge communities; and exercise strategic oversight of the EIT's intellectual property rights.

2.5 "Knowledge communities" would comprise university departments or teams, research bodies and companies. They would be responsible for post-graduate teaching, research and innovation. The staff, facilities and other assets of a knowledge community would be "seconded" to the EIT by the parent universities, research bodies and companies. In law, the communities would be part of the EIT. Each community would have a life of about 10 to 15 years and would agree with the Governing Board its objectives, performance measures and arrangements for monitoring and evaluation.

2.6 Most of the EIT's expenditure would be on the knowledge communities. Once properly established, the EIT would be expected to raise its revenue from Community programmes (such as the R&D programmes), governments, foundations, businesses and fees.

2.7 In the Commission's view, the legislation to set up the EIT should be adopted by the end of 2008 at the latest, with the Governing Board being appointed shortly afterwards. The first knowledge communities would be selected by 2009. The EIT would incur its first substantial expenditure in 2010.

2.8 Before the end of 2006, the Commission will present detailed proposals on the legal base for the legislation to establish the EIT; the status of the staff of the knowledge communities; the management and commercial use of intellectual property; and the integration of the knowledge communities within the EIT. The Commission will also present detailed information on the amount of funding the EIT will require and the sources of its income.

2.9 When we considered the Communication in March,[8] the Minister of State for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning at the Department for Education and Skills (Bill Rammell) told us that the Government welcomed several features of the Communication. There was, however, much scepticism among UK universities about the proposal. The Government questioned whether setting up a new institution is necessarily the best way to achieve the Commission's aims.

2.10 We agreed with the Commission on the importance of education, research and innovation to the competitiveness of the EU. We were surprised, however, that the Commission had reached the firm conclusion that an Institute should be set up before crucial information is available about the legal base for the necessary legislation, the legal status of knowledge communities within the EIT, the funding requirements and the ownership of intellectual property rights. In our view, it would be premature to take a view on the proposal until this essential information has been supplied.

Document (b)

2.11 The European Council considered document (a) on 23-24 March. The Conclusions say that:

"The European Council recognises that a European Institute for Technology … will be an important step towards filling the existing gap between higher education, research and innovation. … The European Council invites the Commission to submit a proposal on further steps by mid June 2006."[9]

2.12 Document (b) is the Commission's response to that invitation. It takes account of meetings the Commission had in April and May to discuss the proposal with the Scientific Council of the European Research Council and with representatives of Member States, universities, students, businesses and regional authorities. The Commission says that document (b):

"does not provide final solutions. It provides further information about aspects of the proposal and sets out, where appropriate, suggestions for addressing them. By clarifying in this way what can be made clear now while at the same time indicating where the approach must remain open, the Communication aims to support a more focussed consultation with Member States and stakeholders in the months ahead."[10]

2.13 Document (b) says that the Governing Board would decide the criteria for selecting knowledge communities. They would include such things as a record of excellence in research, teaching and innovation, "first class physical and human resources" and benefits for the regions and business partners involved. The Governing Board would also define:

"strategic interdisciplinary areas of operation in which the Knowledge Communities need to be established. These areas should represent key technological challenges in a long term perspective, where there is the potential to generate innovative solutions and commercial advantages with a major impact on Europe's competitiveness."[11]

The definitions of the strategic areas and the selection criteria would enable university departments, research bodies and businesses to decide whether they wish to come together to form a knowledge community.

2.14 Each knowledge community would have "considerable" autonomy and maximum flexibility to decide its organisation and manage its resources within a framework set by the Governing Board.

2.15 The Communication says that the members of the Governing Board should be "limited" in number and be drawn equally from the scientists and people with business experience. They should be nominated for their personal qualities, not as representatives of any organisation.

2.16 The Commission refers to the suggestion in document (a) that the people working in the knowledge communities should be seconded to the EIT and employed by it. This caused concern that "the EIT would increase the fragmentation of European higher education and even 'poach' excellence from where it currently is. This should not be the case and clarification is thus required."[12] The Commission goes on to say that the EIT and the knowledge communities should be free to take staff on secondment, direct employment, affiliation or sabbatical but that "it will be important to have a common employment framework (covering such issues as remuneration, working conditions, IPR, etc)".

2.17 Document (b) says that the EIT should be able to award degrees and diplomas. They would "constitute a visible manifestation of the EIT brand and an incentive to students and researchers to participate in its programmes".

2.18 The Communication also discusses why universities, businesses or regions should want to become involved in a knowledge community. It gives example of the benefits of participation, including:

  • universities would benefit from being able to do more and do it faster because of the money the EIT will give knowledge communities;
  • business would benefit from being involved from the outset in the choice and definition of areas for research and from contributing to the education of students; and
  • SMEs in regions with a knowledge community would gain from business start-up and spin-off opportunities provided by the EIT and access to the technical services and expertise of the knowledge community.

2.19 The Commission says that the intention of the proposal for the EIT is:

"to put innovation at the heart of the knowledge triangle [education, research and innovation], rather than the conventional 'end of pipe' technology transfer. To achieve this, business expertise should be integrated in all aspects of research and education."[13]

2.20 Finally, the Commission says that, by the end of this year, it will complete both an assessment of the impact of the proposal (including the financial aspects) and the drafting of the legislation to set up the EIT. Meanwhile, the Commission will continue to consult Member States and others with an interest.

The Government's view on document (b)

2.21 The Minister tells us that the Government welcomes the emphasis in document (b) on business involvement and innovation. He says, however, that:

"The Government believes that further clarification about how the EIT would contribute both to improving performance of the university sector as a whole and to increasing Europe's innovative capacity is necessary. The Government also believes that the communication avoids some of the key issues, such as the level of funding, where it will come from and, in particular, how market funding will be attracted.

"The Government remains to be convinced about a number of aspects, such as the concept of secondments, the need for the EIT to award degrees and the top down approach proposed for setting areas of operation for the knowledge communities. It welcomes, however, the Commission's recognition that this communication does not provide final solutions and that it intends to continue consulting widely with Member States and stakeholders in the months ahead."

Conclusion

2.22 In our view, document (b) adds little of use to the information in document (a) about the EIT. We understand why there are important aspects of the Commission's proposal on which the Government remains to be convinced. It remains our view that it would be premature to reach a view on the EIT until information is available about funding, the legal base, the assets and staff of the knowledge communities and intellectual property rights. We shall keep both documents under scrutiny until the Commission has provided the information.





8   See headnote. Back

9   European Council 23-24 March 2006, Presidency Conclusions, paragraph 25. Back

10   Communication, page 2, paragraph 4. Back

11   Communication, page 5, paragraph 5. Back

12   Communication, page 7, paragraph 4. Back

13   Communication, page 6, paragraph 3. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 12 July 2006