EUROPEAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (10361/06,
14871/06)
Letter from the Chairman to Bill Rammell
MP, Minister for Life-long Learning, Further and Higher Education,
Department for Education and Skills
Thank you for your letter dated 25 July 2006[129]
which was received too late for consideration before Parliament
rose for the Summer Recess. It was considered by Sub-Committee
G on 26 October, together with the relevant reference to the EIT
in Geoff Hoon's letter dated 20 July 2006[130]
to me following the oral evidence which he gave to the Select
Committee on 13 July.
We note what you and Geoff Hoon have said about
the Government's present attitude to the EIT and are reassured
to see that the Government are continuing to consult widely and
question rigorously and will bear in mind the concerns raised
in my letter of 14 July and earlier correspondence.
We are aware that the Commission has just issued
a formal Proposal on the EIT. At first glance, we are interested
to see that the Commission now seem to have a more modest proposition
in mind. But we will naturally want to consider carefully whether
this is likely to meet the desired objectives of making the most
of European research potential and bringing together the best
collective expertise of European higher education, research and
innovation in a cost-effective way that does not duplicate or
undermine existing research activities.
We look forward to examining your Explanatory
Memorandum about the Proposal. When we have done so, we will let
you know whether we wish to carry out an Inquiry. In the meantime
we will continue to hold the current Communication (reference
10461/06) under scrutiny.
31 October 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Bill Rammell
MP
Thank you for your Explanatory Memorandum (14871/06)
of 22 November. This was considered by Sub-Committee G at its
meeting on 7 December.
We share the general agreement among stakeholders
about the Commission's identification of the European Union's
relative weakness, compared to its main international competitors,
in applying knowledge and research to innovation in order to enhance
business activity and jobs.
However, we are still far from convinced that
there is a need for such a major initiative by the European Commission
in this area. The latest proposal represents a fundamental shift
away from the concept put forward originally—of the European
Institute of Technology (EIT) as a new physical entity in Europe.
This shift is welcome to us because we felt that the earlier concept
would actually be likely to damage the capacity of existing universities
to collaborate with private industry and others in order to help
to secure commercial opportunities from knowledge and research.
The proposal now put forward, however, does
look to us very much like a bureaucratic solution designed, against
the background of criticism of the previous proposal, to keep
the EIT concept alive in some form. Our grave concern is that,
in practice, the model put forward would cost a great deal of
money and would be largely ineffective.
We would be grateful therefore to hear the Government's
views about why an EIT is needed at all and why it should be supported.
Moving on, we would also like to have your views
on how to gain some value, and to minimise the damage, from the
establishment of the EIT, if this becomes inevitable. Our specific
concerns relate to the concept, strategic direction and funding
of the EIT; and to its proposed creation of EIT labelled degrees.
THE CONCEPT
OF THE
EIT
While the move away from a physical entity for
the EIT, towards a more virtual and networked approach is welcome,
we are not convinced that such a resource intensive solution would
be the most effective way of addressing the problem that has been
identified. We would welcome your views as to whether a lighter
touch approach might be more effective—designed to build
on and help the many networks that have already been established
between universities and business for advancing technological
innovation.
THE EIT'S
STRATEGIC DIRECTION
We share the Government's view that, if an EIT
is set up, it would be 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 KICs. It seems to us, however,
that in practice it might be quite difficult to find an organisational
model that allowed for this under the arrangements set out in
the Commission's proposal. The "lighter touch" approach
in which we are interested would give greater weight to the KIC's
priorities. Please could you let us have your views about whether
this would be in the direction of balance that the Government
would favour.
THE EIT'S
AWARDING OF
DEGREES
We are unconvinced that the awarding of EIT
degrees would help to meet the desirable aims that the Commission
has identified; and we have concerns about the quality control
arrangements for such degrees if they were introduced. We therefore
share the Government's view that 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.
Please could you explain though why, and in
what circumstances, the Government would support the notion of
encouraging universities located in different Member States to
award joint degrees. We would also welcome your views on the idea
of postponing consideration of the issue of awarding degrees for
a period until the EIT has had time first to build a critical
mass and to establish its reputation.
THE EIT'S
FUNDING
We share the concerns of the Government about
the large scale of funding envisaged for the EIT by the Commission—€2.37
billion (c £1.60 billion) over the period 2007-13. You state
that there is a current lack of justification for the size of
the budget envisaged and that no break down has been provided
of what the funds are likely to be spent on. Moreover, you say
it is unclear where the funding would come from and question:
to what extent Member States would be expected to contribute outside
their EC Budget contributions; how market funding would be attracted;
and what might be the impact on other Community budgetary priorities.
We encourage the Government to pursue these
EIT funding issues vigorously and we ask you to let us know of
any clarification of them which is provided by the Commission.
We would also welcome your views on whether an alternative, much
lower cost EIT proposal, might be as, or more, effective than
what is currently proposed. If so, please would you confirm that
the Government will press the Commission to put forward such an
alternative proposal.
12 December 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Bill Rammell
MP
My letter of 12 December 2006 explained that
we are retaining under scrutiny the Commission document 14871/06
"Proposal for a Regulation establishing the European Institute
of Technology (EIT)". As part of the process of gathering
information for that purpose, this is to inform you that EU Sub-Committee
G will be hearing evidence, as a public broadcast session, at
10 am on Thursday 22 February, from Baroness Warwick (Chief Executive)
and Mr Chris Hale (Policy Adviser) of the organisation Universities
UK.
Since the document 14871/06 setting out the
proposed Regulation supersedes the earlier Commission Communication
on the EIT 10361/06, we now clear the earlier item from scrutiny.
29 January 2007
Letter from Bill Rammell MP to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 12 December 2006
regarding the proposal to establish the EIT, and for your Committee's
comments. I apologise for the delay in replying to you.
The Government believes that the EIT could potentially
provide a means of strengthening Europe's competitiveness and
capacity to innovate, part of Europe's ongoing drive in the context
of the Lisbon agenda. If framed in the right way, the EIT could
bring together the three sides of the "knowledge triangle"
(education, research and innovation) in a manner not accomplished
before, and provide a new, clear focus on innovation and knowledge
transfer. Existing instruments tend to join up two of the three
sides, and so the EIT would be unique in bringing key actors together
from all three communities. The EIT model would be based on a
series of partnerships, and could potentially act as a catalyst
in generating a "critical mass" of innovation output.
It could potentially achieve a critical mass of innovation output,
which would be helpful in strengthening EU competitiveness.
Though the Government can see the potential
for benefit, any future European Institute of Technology needs
to have a clear focus and purpose. Furthermore, the Government
shares broadly similar concerns to those raised in your letter
and in the House of Commons European Standing Committee debate
on this dossier. My officials continue to engage constructively
with counterparts in the European Commission and in other Member
States to ensure that these issues are considered carefully.
The EIT needs to add clear value in its own
right, and complement the existing range of EU instruments and
initiatives in the field of innovation and research, such as the
Seventh Framework Programme and the European Research Council,
without unnecessary duplication or overlap.
A new initiative of this nature requires a clearly
identifiable role and purpose, which the Government will seek
to clarify in the course of ongoing negotiations.
I agree with you that the EIT needs to be as
light-touch and unbureaucratic as possible, and should function
in a bottom-up manner. The Knowledge and Innovation Communities
(KICs) should be accorded as must autonomy as possible. Furthermore,
a combination of high-level strategic direction for the EIT and
a bottom-up functioning of the KICs would allow them the freedom
to achieve positive results. This should be balanced carefully
with appropriate levels of transparency, quality assurance and
accountability for both KICs and the Governing Board of the EIT.
Education is one of the three sides of what
is known as the "knowledge triangle", and as such will
have a key role in the EIT's operation. However, it is crucial
that the systems and institutions of the Member States maintain
their competences over the awarding of degrees and qualifications.
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 its Governing Board, the Government
supports the notion of encouraging different institutions in the
same Knowledge and Innovation Community to award joint degrees,
where appropriate.
The question of funding remains the Government's
primary concern. The Commision has given very little justification
for such a large budget and has provided no obvious value-for-money
case. Furthermore, the EIT was not foreseen in the 2007-13 Financial
Perspective negotiations. The Commission proposes to fund the
operational costs of the EIT out of the margin of Budget Heading
1A, which the Government firmly believes goes against the principle
of budget discipline. It is also likely that the EIT would impact
on UK priorities in Heading 1A such as the Seventh R&D Framework
Programme (FP7), as Knowledge and Innovation Communities will
be encouraged to bid competitively for funds from such programmes.
In addition, the Commission envisage that a substantial part of
the financing for the EIT will come from outside the Community
budget, for instance from universities and business, although
stakeholders have so far expressed only limited interest in doing
so.
In view of the above concerns, and because the
EIT model is untested, the Government considers that there is
some merit in your suggestion of a more gradual launch of the
EIT with consequently lower liability for the Community budget
during the period of the current Financial Perspective. I assure
you that we continue to engage proactively to seek further clarification
from the Commission, and to discuss the options open to the EU
in terms of financing this project.
I hope that these points of clarification provide
you and the Committee with the assurances you require at this
time. Negotiations remain at a very early stage, but as discussions
in the Council of Ministers progress, I am confident that the
UK's constructive stance will ensure that our issues are properly
addressed.
I remain hopeful that the final legislative
text will reflect this progress, and that a future European Intitute
of Technology will be framed in such a way as to provide the best
possible benefits to the EU and its Member States as we strive
to boost innovation and competitiveness as part of the Lisbon
Agenda.
Finally, I should inform you that Malcolm Wicks,
Minister for Science and Innovation at the DTI, will assume the
Government lead on this dossier from now on, given the focus of
the proposal on innovation, and the decision to formally negotiate
and decide on this dossier at the Competitiveness Council.
1 February 2007
Letter from the Chairman to Malcolm Wicks
MP, Minister for Science and Innovation, Department of Trade and
Industry
In his letter to me of 1 February 2007, Mr Bill
Rammell MP explains that you have now taken over the Government
lead on the EIT dossier because of the focus of the proposal on
innovation, Mr Rammell's letter and the transcript of his oral
evidence to the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee were
discussed by Sub-Committee G (Social Policy and Consumer Affairs)
at their meeting on 8 March.
We are alarmed to learn from Mr Rammell's letter
that the need to fund the EIT was not foreseen in the 2007-13
Financial Perspective negotiations, and that to fund it would
be likely to impact negatively on UK priorities such as the Seventh
R&D Framework Programme (FP7). Nevertheless, we are encouraged
to learn that the Government broadly shares our concerns about
the Commission's proposals. In particular, we welcome the Government's
recognition of the merit of the suggestion we made that the establishment
of the EIT should be on the basis of a lower cost model than that
currently proposed, and that its launch should be more gradual.
As you may be aware, Sub-Committee G took evidence
at is meeting of 22 February 2007 from Baroness Warwick (CEO)
and Mr Chris Hale (Policy Adviser) from the organisation Universities
UK. The key issue that came out of that session was the need for
business involvement and the lack in the current proposals of
any clear incentives for business to wish to become involved.
Mr Rammell makes the point in his letter that it is envisaged
that a substantial part of the financing for the EIT will come
from various sources outside the Community budget. He cites business
as one of those sources although emphasises that stakeholders
have so far expressed only limited interest in providing finance.
Could you expand on the extent to which the Government has been
in discussion with the business community about their interest
in the EIT, and how involved have business representatives been
in making suggestions as to how the Proposal could be improved
to maximise commercial interest?
We note from Mr Rammell's oral evidence to the
House of Commons European Committee that the issue of the degree-awarding
powers of the EIT appears to have been resolved. We would nevertheless
be grateful if you could confirm this to be the case, and if you
could outline how the award of degrees by individual higher education
institutions, carrying the EIT brand, would work in practice.
Finally, Mr Rammell's letter conveys the impression
that the Government is supportive of the concept of the EIT, but
would like to see changes in some of the details. However, when
giving evidence to the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee
on 30 January, he stated with reference to the Proposal: "We
are opposed to it as it stands now. We have made some progress
in the right direction, and with further detail and clarification
and with more movement it could be worth supporting, not least
because of the knowledge transfer deficit". Please could
you clarify your own overall view of the Commission's Proposals
and the priorities you will have in negotiations for seeking changes
in them?
In the meantime, we will retain this proposal
under scrutiny. We look forward to your responses on the issues
raised in this letter and to an update from you on the negotiations
as they progress.
In view of the Sub-Committee's close interest
in the issues raised by this Commission proposal, I am writing
also to Commissioner Figel raising our concerns. I am copying
that letter to you.
8 March 2007
Letter from Malcolm Wicks MP to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 8 March, in which
you requested an update on progress in the negotiation on the
Commission proposal to establish a European Institute of Technology
(EIT), and clarification of the government position on a number
of key issues. Thank you also for allowing me sight of the letter
you have sent to Commissioner Figel.
In terms of process, the German Presidency has
indicated that it aims to make substative progess on this dossier
and meetings of an ad-hoc Council Working Group have been taking
place. The Presidency plans to schedule an additional meeting
of the Competitiveness Council on 27 June, at which it would hope
to agree a general approach. In addition, EIT is likely to be
discussed by Ministers at an informal Competitiveness Council
taking place in Wurzburg on 26-28 April. I understand that
the relevent committee of the European Parliament (Industry, Research
and Energy) aims to conclude its First Reading of the regulation
by the end of July. As you may be aware, the conclusions of the
Spring European Council asked the Council and European Parliament
"... to conclude the thorough examination of the EIT Proposal
in the first semester of 2007, with a view to taking a decision
by the end of 2007".
The Government believes that the UK should negotiate
constructively, in support of the general objectives of the proposal,
which are to contribute to European competitiveness and improved
innovation performance by effectively integrating top-class education,
research and innovation activities. However, the Government is
seeking to develop a smaller-scale EIT, with a commensurately
reduced budget in the early years, in order that lessons may be
learned before embarking on any future expansion of the project
in the next Financial Perspective (post-2013).
The Government's key objectives are:
— Create an EIT which has the potential
to add genuine value to Europe's competitiveness and capacity
to innovate, while not unhelpfully duplicating or cutting across
existing European instruments in the research and innovation field
(especially the Seventh Framework Programme);
— The level of funding made available
from the EC Budget should be minimised during the 2007-13 Financial
Perspective. Any alterative budgetary proposals should represent
value for money and not pre-judge the 2008-09 Fundamental Budget
Review;
— A light-touch governance regime,
which allows maximum autonomy for the individual Knowledge and
Innovation Communities (KICs) while maintaining appropriate transparency,
quality assurance and accountability;
— No independent degree-awarding powers
for the EIT, which should remain the preserve of individual institutions
and the systems of Member States.
As regards the initial strategic priorities
that the EIT/KICs might address, the Commission proposal delegates
these decisions to a Governing Board. Nevertheless, President
Barroso has already publicly indicated that climate change could
be selected as a first priority. The Government view is that the
field of climate change, by virtue of the scale of the global
scale of the challenge, would fit well with UK priorities and
should complement our own Energy Technologies Institute (ETI).
My officials continue to engage closely with
a group of stakeholders on the EIT proposal, including the business
community where our main channel of communication to date has
been with the CBI. CBI have expressed broad agreement with the
Government's position, while highlighting the need for further
detail on the practical operation of the EIT before business is
likely to commit substantial resources to participating. Given
the history of the lengthy bureaucratic procedures associated
with European programmes, particularly the Framework Programme,
business is understandably very keen that the administration of
the EIT (and the Knowledge and Innovation Communities) should
be as light-touch and efficient as possible. The current expectation
is that once the legislation has been adopted, a Governing Board
(with business representation) will be set up to define the detailed
modalities (including for example IPR arrangements and procedures
for selecting KICs), which will provide a further opportunity
for engagement with business. In addition, the Presidency invited
business representatives from across the EU to the Council Working
Group's examination of the proposal at an informal "hearing"
on 5 March.
The Government continues to insist that the
competence of Member States and individual higher education institutions
in the awarding of degrees and diplomas is maintained, with no
independent degree-awarding powers for the EIT itself. A number
of other Member States share the UK Government's view, and, as
Bill Rammell said in the House of Commons European Standing Committee
debate, the Government remains confident that the final proposal
will reflect this position.
In practice, individual higher education institutions
would continue to award their own qualifications, in many cases
in collaboration with other institutions, for example in the awarding
of joint degrees. Where applicable and where decided upon by these
institutions, the use of an "EIT label" on the relevant
qualifications may be used to signify that these qualifications
were awarded in the framework of a Knowledge and Innovation Community.
I will continue to keep your Committee informed
of the progress of this negotiation, and I hope that this clarification
provides you and your Committee with further assurance of our
position and our efforts to achieve a satisfactory outcome.
21 March 2007
Letter from the Chairman to Malcolm Wicks
MP
Thank you for your letter of 21 March 2007,
which was considered by Sub-Committee G at their meeting held
on 26 April 2007.
We welcome your comments with regard to the
degree-awarding powers of the EIT but we would appreciate further
information from you on developments with regard to funding arrangements
and the incentives for business to become involved.
As you will be aware, the Committee published
an Interim Report on the EIT Proposal on 17 April.[131]
We plan to continue our examination of this Proposal and, as part
of this work, we hope that you will be able to discuss these issues
with us in the context of a public evidence session at one of
Sub-Committee G's meetings during June or early July. The Clerk
to the Sub-Committee will contact your office to seek to arrange
a date for this.
In the meantime, we would be grateful for your
comments on the above points and for a broad update on progress
in the light of the informal Competitiveness Council of 26-28
April. We shall continue to hold the proposal under scrutiny.
27 April 2007
129 Correspondence with Ministers, 40th Report of Session
2006-07, HL Paper 187, pp 493-494. Back
130
Correspondence with Ministers, 40th Report of Session 2006-07,
HL Paper 187, pp 1-4. Back
131
Proposal to Establish the European Institute of Technology: Interim
Report, 13th Report of Session 2006-07, HL Paper 69. Back
| 
