APPENDIX 2: LETTER TO THE EUROPEAN
COMMISSION FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE EU SELECT COMMITTEE
Letter dated 8 March from Lord Grenfell to Commissioner
Figel at the European Commission.
The Social Policy and Consumer Affairs Sub-Committee
of the House of Lords' EU Select Committee has studied with some
interest the European Commission's Proposal to establish a European
Institute of Technology (EIT).
As part of the Committee's scrutiny of the Proposal
we decided to take evidence from the organisation "Universities
UK"; and we have also been in correspondence with the UK
Government over the issue. On the basis of this information and
of the professional experiences of members of the Sub-Committee,
we are writing to express our views on the Proposal and to seek
your thoughts on these.
We recognise that there is a problem to be addressed
within the European Union with regard to knowledge transfer. The
latest Eurostat Community Innovation Survey (22 February 2007)
demonstrated that co-operation with the higher education sector
amounted to only 9% of innovation co-operation led by innovative
enterprises.
We do, however, have some concerns as to whether
the EIT, in the form currently proposed, will provide the best
means of encouraging knowledge transfer within the EU and, hence,
of increasing competitiveness. A crucial basis of encouraging
knowledge transfer is to adopt a "bottom-up" approach
with various "drivers". Most notably, these must include
the support of researchers, students and, above all, business.
A major concern we have is that the present Proposal provides
no obvious incentives for the involvement of, and the injection
of funding by, the business community,
As you will doubtless be aware, "Business-University
Collaboration" was the subject of a December 2003 Report
commissioned by the UK Government and written by Richard Lambert[4].
The "Lambert Review" has been helpful in focusing minds
in the UK on the problem of poor knowledge transfer, including
the "commercialisation" of research. It may not be the
case that the lessons of the Lambert Review can simply be transplanted
to the EU level, but we do feel that serious consideration should
be given to the suggestion made to us by Universities UK, that
a similar style of review should be carried out across the EU.
This would have the purpose of identifying, much more clearly
than is now the case, the nature of the knowledge transfer problem
that needs to be tackled. Our view is that it would be valuable
to carry out a review of this kind, in advance of establishing
a European Institute of Technology, in order to help to establish
how incentives could be introduced for the business community
to become involved in the proposed Knowledge and Innovation Communities
(KICs).
We would be most interested to hear your views about
the merit of carrying out a Lambert style review across the EU
in advance of establishing the EIT.
Another of our concerns is about how the proposed
Institute will mesh with the 7th Framework Programme for Research
and Development (FP7) and the European Research Council (ERC).
We would be interested in your views about how the proposed EIT
will add value to FP7 and the ERC, and how this can be guaranteed.
Closely linked to concerns regarding FP7 is the issue
of the budget of the EIT and the various KICs. This is outlined
in the Legislative Financial Statement appended to the Commission's
Proposal. Various Community sources of financing are identified,
including FP7, the Structural Funds and "unallocated margins
beneath the ceiling of sub-heading 1A". Is the Commission
able to explain the potential financial impact of the Proposal
upon FP7? We have some concerns over the extent to which it is
appropriate to direct Structural Funds towards the EIT and KICs
and we would appreciate clarification on how the unallocated margins
referred to might otherwise be spent. In addition, the external
sources envisaged include Member State, regional or local authorities
in addition to private enterprise and other sources. Again, it
is not clear from the Proposal how this will work in practice,
most notably in terms of providing incentives for private enterprise
to invest and the impact upon national and regional budgets.
A topic that we touched upon in our discussion with
Universities UK was the proposed administrative structure of the
EIT. They referred to one of the findings of the Marimon report
reviewing progress on FP6 which related to the factors affecting
business participation in the framework programme. The report
suggested that lower levels of bureaucracy were needed in order
to encourage the participation of small and medium enterprises
(SMEs) in the framework programme. We share the view of Universities
UK that the administrative arrangements for the EIT should be
as light-touch as possible in order not to deter support from
business. Our concern is that the present proposal for as many
as 60 staff (30 scientists and 30 others) directly employed by
the EIT might be not be seen in this way, but we would welcome
your views on this.
Finally, we did initially have some very significant
concerns about the provisions in the initial Commission proposal
with regard to the degree-awarding powers of the EIT. We would
favour an arrangement under which degrees are awarded by individual
higher education institutions in each KIC, with the possibility
of the EIT name being included in order to demonstrate that the
degree has been awarded as part of the work of a KIC. We would
welcome your clarification that this is now what is envisaged.
May I conclude by reiterating that we do agree that
the Commission's EIT Proposal does address a serious problem.
We accept also that an EIT in an appropriate form could make a
positive contribution to solving the problem. However, we would
very much appreciate your thoughts on the matters of concern we
have expressed in this letter before we are able to make a fully
informed judgement on that issue.
4 http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/EA556/lambert_review_final_450.pdf Back
| 
