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
|
| Department | Education 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 Council | 15-16 June 2006
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically 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
| 
