1 European Institute
of Technology
| (a)
(27325)
6844/06
COM(06) 77
+ ADD 1
(b)
(27589)
10361/06
COM(06) 276
(c)
(27994)
14871/06
COM(06) 604
+ ADD 1
+ ADD 2
|
Commission Communication: Implementing the renewed partnership for growth and jobs — Developing a knowledge flagship: the European Institute of Technology
Results of public consultation on the concept of a European Institute of Technology
Commission Communication: The European Institute of Technology: further steps towards its creation
Draft Regulation establishing the European Institute of Technology
Commission staff working document: Impact Assessment of the draft Regulation
Summary of the Impact Assessment
|
| Legal base | Article 157(3) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Document originated | (c)18 October 2006
|
| Deposited in Parliament | (c) 10 November 2006
|
| Department | Education and Skills
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 23 November 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | (a) HC 34-xxiii (2005-06), para 4 (29 March 2006);
(a) and (b) HC 34-xxxiv (2005-06), para 2 (5 July 2006)
(c) None
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date fixed
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | (a) and (b) Cleared
(c) For debate in European Standing Committee
|
Previous scrutiny of documents (a) and (b)
1.1 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.
1.2 In February, the Commission published document (a). It outlined
the Commission's thinking, at that stage, about the case for the
EIT and what it would do and how it would work. The EIT would:
- 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.
1.3 The Commission said that, before the end of 2006, it would
make detailed proposals about, among other things, the legal base
for the legislation to establish the EIT, the funding the Institute
would require and the sources of its income.
1.4 When we considered the Communication in March,[1]
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 was necessarily the best way to achieve the Commission's
aims.
1.5 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
was available about the legal base for the necessary legislation,
the funding arrangements and so on. In our view, it would be premature
to take a view on the proposal until this essential information
was available.
1.6 When the European Council considered document (a) in March,
it asked the Commission to make further proposals by mid-June.
Document (b) was produced in response to that request. The Commission
made clear that the document did not propose final solutions.
It explained the way in which the Commission's ideas about the
EIT were developing in the light of its discussions of document
(a) with Member States, universities, businesses and regional
authorities.
1.7 When we considered document (b) in July,[2]
the Minister told us that the Communication avoided some of the
key issues, such as funding, and that the Government remained
to be convinced about some aspects of the proposal.
1.8 We concluded that document (b) added little of use to the
information in document (a). It remained our view that it would
be premature to reach a view on the EIT until the Commission had
produced the further information it had promised to provide by
the end of 2006.
1.9 In June, the European Council invited the Commission to make
a formal proposal for the creation of the EIT.
Document (c)
1.10 Document (c) comprises:
- The draft of a Regulation to establish the EIT.
- The Commission's explanatory memorandum on the draft.
- An "impact assessment" (ADD 1) which provides detailed
supporting information about, for example, the Community's comparative
weaknesses in higher education, research and innovation; relevant
existing EC initiatives; the case for an EIT; an analysis of four
options for the EIT and a "do nothing" option; an explanation
of the reasons for the Commission's preference for one of the
options; the legal base for the proposal; funding arrangements;
and the functions and management of the Governing Board of the
EIT and of the "Knowledge and Innovation Communities"
(ADD 1 runs to 71 pages).
- A 5-page summary of the impact assessment (ADD 2).
1.11 The Commission cites Article 157(3) of the EC Treaty as the
legal base for the proposed Regulation. Article 157 (1) provides
that the Community and Member States are to ensure that the conditions
necessary for the competitiveness of the Community's industry
exist. Among other things, Community action should be aimed at
"fostering better exploitation of the industrial potential
of policies of innovation, research and technological development".
Article 157(3) authorises the Council to take measures in support
of action in Member States to achieve the objectives of the Article.
1.12 The Commission's diagnosis of the reasons for the "innovation
gap" between the Community and its competitors is that in
Europe:
- funding, outstanding people and world-class facilities are
dispersed, not concentrated in a comparatively few centres of
excellence;
- there is not enough research and education which looks across
traditional academic disciplines and focuses on opportunities
for innovation in the medium- and longer-term;
- there are poor connections between education, research and
innovation; and
- Europe's universities have insufficient freedom from state
interference, most of the staff are not of an entrepreneurial
mind and the universities need to be modernised.
1.13 The Commission believes that the EIT would help overcome
these weaknesses by bringing together businesses, research bodies
and universities in new ways to create centres of excellence in
which teaching, research and innovation would be integrated. Article
4 of the draft Regulation provides that the tasks of the EIT would
include:
- identifying matters of potential major economic and social
interest for Europe which are likely to generate the best added
value from innovation;
- deciding in which of those matters to invest resources;
- selecting about six Knowledge and Innovation Communities;
defining their rights and obligations in agreements; applying
quality controls to them; periodically evaluating their activities;
and ensuring appropriate coordination between them;
- raising the EIT's income; and
- promoting the recognition of EIT degrees and diplomas.
1.14 Article 2 of the draft Regulation defines a Knowledge and
Innovation Community (KIC) as "a joint-venture of partner
organisations, whatever its precise legal form, selected and designated
by the EIT to carry out at the highest level integrated innovation,
research and education activities in a specific field". Businesses,
research bodies and universities would form themselves into partnerships
which would compete for designation by the EIT as KICs. Each KIC
would last seven to 15 years and would raise its funds from public
and private sources. For example, a KIC might receive financial
contributions from the EC's Framework Programme for R&D, regional
authorities, businesses, venture capitalists, banks and the EIT
itself.
1.15 Article 6 provides that post-graduate degrees and diplomas
awarded through KICs would be "EIT degrees and diplomas".
1.16 Article 10 provides that the EIT would have legal personality
and that the Protocol to the EC Treaty on the Privileges and Immunities
of the European Communities should apply to the EIT.
1.17 The EIT would have:
- a Governing Board to steer and evaluate the activities of
the EIT and the KICs;
- an Executive Committee to oversee the running of the EIT and
to take such decisions as are necessary between meetings of the
Governing Board ;
- a Director who would be answerable to the Board for the financial
and administrative management of the EIT (the Director would be
appointed by the Board for a term of four years, renewable once
for a further four years); and
- an Audit Committee.
1.18 The Annex to the draft Regulation sets out the composition
and responsibilities of the Governing Board, the Executive Committee,
the Director and the Audit Committee.
1.19 The Governing Board would have a total of 19 members. The
Commission would appoint 15 of them for a non-renewable term of
six years. The remaining four members would be elected by the
staff and students of the EIT and KICs; they would serve for a
term of three years, renewable once for a further three years.
The Board would elect its Chairman from among the appointed members.
1.20 Four appointed members of the Board and the Chairman of the
Board would constitute the Executive Committee.
1.21 The Audit Committee would have five members. They would be
appointed for four years by the Governing Board after consultation
with the Commission.
1.22 Article 13 of the draft Regulation provides that the EIT
would be financed through:
- contributions from the Community budget;
- payments from Community programmes;
- contributions from Member States and public authorities;
- contributions from business and private organisations (such
as companies, banks and venture capitalists);
- bequests and donations from individuals, charities and others;
and
- revenue generated from the EIT's activities and other sources,
such as intellectual property.
1.23 Table 8 in the Legislative and Financial Statement attached
to the draft Regulation contains a forecast of the EIT's annual
costs and resources between 2008 and 2013. It forecasts that the
total combined costs of the EIT and KICs would be €2.367
billion. The total income of the EIT and KICs would also be €2.367
billion, with €1.531 billion coming from the EC R&D Programme,
the Structural Funds and other EC programmes; €526.9 million
from Member States, public authorities and private bodies; and
€308.7 million from the Community budget.
The Government's view
1.24 The Minister tells us that:
"The Government believes that the EIT's core focus should
be on developing Europe's industrial competitiveness, through
fostering effective collaborative links between the three sides
of the 'knowledge triangle': education, research and innovation.
"The Government believes that the success of the EIT would
therefore depend on its clarity of purpose; on the global reputation
it establishes in attracting and engaging with the best talent
in key fields of economic and social interest; on the financial
support it can attract from the private sector; and its distinctiveness
from other Community instruments [sic] initiatives, for
example, the Seventh Research and Development Framework Programme.
"The Government agrees that the KICs should be encouraged
to develop courses and programmes for masters and doctoral students
… . While degree-awarding powers should remain the preserve
of individual institutions and the systems of Member States, and
not under the central control of the EIT or any potential Governing
Board, the Government supports the notion of encouraging universities
located in different Member States to award joint degrees, where
appropriate. The Government considers that the conditions of employment
for staff engaged in KICs should normally be linked to those of
their parent institution.
"On governance, the Government considers that it is important
to strike an appropriate balance between 'top-down' strategic
guidance and monitoring undertaken by the proposed Governing Board
and 'bottom-up' flexibility and autonomy for the Knowledge and
Innovation Communities. Proposals for collaborative working need
to be market driven and evolve from the bottom-up and be generated
by KICs."
1.25 Commenting on the proposed financial arrangements, the Minister
says that the Government is concerned by the current lack of justification
for the substantial size of the EIT's budget and the absence of
a break-down of what the money would be spent on. He says:
"There is also lack of clarity as to where the funding would
come from, to what extent Member States would be expected to contribute
outside their EC Budget contributions, how market funding would
be attracted, or how this would impact on other Community budgetary
priorities."
1.26 The Government will ask the Commission for clarification
of these points.
Conclusion
1.27 There appears to be widespread agreement on the need to
bring education, research and innovation closer together. But
it is not clear to us that the European Institute of Technology
would be either the best or even an effective means to achieve
that aim.
1.28 Moreover, we have seen no evidence that businesses, banks,
universities and research bodies would be willing to invest in
the Knowledge and Innovation Communities on the scale that would
be necessary to ensure their success. We also share the Government's
wider concerns about the financial aspects of the proposal.
1.29 On the one hand, the Commission believes that the Institute
would make a vital contribution to Europe's international competitiveness.
On the other, we are doubtful about the financing of the Institute
and about whether the proposals for the Knowledge and Innovation
Communities would work in practice. Because of the importance
of these issues, we recommend document (c) for debate in European
Standing Committee.
1.30 We clear documents (a) and (b) because they have been
superseded by document (c).
1 See headnote. Back
2
See headnote. Back
| 
