Interview with MEP Erna Hennicot-Schoepges, rapporteur on the European Institute of Technology
« Parliament will be very keen to limit bureaucracy »
Erna Hennicot-Schoepges (EPP-ED, Luxembourg) is one of the European Parliament’s two rapporteurs for the European Institute of Technology, the establishment of which is seen as a key project of the Barroso Commission. The purpose of the EIT will be to help « fill the existing gap between research, education and innovation » by bringing together the private sector, the research community and higher education institutes in a series of Knowledge and Innovation Communities. Decisions on overall strategy for the EIT, such as which research areas should be covered, will be taken by a central Governing Board.
Hennicot’s report, along with that of her co-rapporteur Reino Paasilinna (PES, Finland), will concern the detailed proposals for the EIT adopted by the European Commission on 18 October 2006, which followed previous communications issued in February and June of 2006. The dossier is being shared between the EP’s Industry Committee, for which Paasilinna is rapporteur, and the Culture and Education Committee, for which Hennicot will write her report, according to the principle of ‘enhanced cooperation’. This means that although Industry is the lead committee, it must accept any amendments made in Hennicot’s report, where it is felt that the point being addressed is one linked more closely to the Culture Committee’s remit.
How will the enhanced cooperation on the dossier between you and Reino Paasilinna work in practice?
As rapporteur for the Culture Committee, my report will deal with education – the question of whether the EIT should be able to issue diplomas, and the role of universities. That is the main subject, and as I understand it, he will cover the innovation and industry side. My report from the Culture Committee has to deal mainly with these questions, but this does not keep me away from saying what I have to say on the subject of financing, or on the legal structure.
Where do you stand on the issue of whether the EIT should have degree-awarding powers?
The Commission made a proposal that the EIT should be able to give out Masters degrees and PhDs. Commissioner Figel’ is quite willing for the EIT to have an academic statute, but the Parliament has not yet expressed its views on this. Opinions are very diverse – there are member states with prestigious universities, they are reluctant. Other member states see more or less an EIT label being attached to degrees, and a compromise could be that the EIT could give joint diplomas, in other words joint diplomas from existing universities, with the EIT label added.
Is the model put forward by the Commission for the EIT something which can deliver results? Is it practical?
In my opinion, it could work fairly well, if the sectors on which the EIT works primarily are not already covered, for example by European Technology Platforms. There must be awareness not to go to occupied land, and the Commission could clear up a lot if the hot item of research in defence could be covered, and space. In these areas there is a lack of working together, we have big budgets, and we know, in the United States, the greatest progress in research comes out from research that is done by NASA or from the defence budget.
Do you think there will be enough interest from business to provide sufficient finance for the EIT?
We can get money, it is a question of structure. If the Commission succeeds in having a small and very efficient structure, the confidence of private industries will be stabilised, and all depends on the profile of the leading figures. The Commission proposes to have 15 people in the EIT Governing Board, and it’s not yet finished, as maybe Council will want more, like we have seen with REACH and the European Chemicals Agency. A Governing Board of 15 is already quite a large number.
So is the number of 60 support staff foreseen in the Commission proposal also too many?
It is too early now to be clear on that. But Parliament will be very keen to put pressure on the Commission to limit bureaucracy.
How do you anticipate the co-decision procedure going with Council?
I’m afraid that at the end of the day we will have compromises to smoothen acceptance, that we will dilute the initial idea to get it through. We might have to accept a larger governing board.
Which outside interests have been contacting you since you were given the dossier in order to present their views on the EIT?
I have been contacted by universities, and networks of universities, also bodies such as the European Research Council have given official opinions. But I have had no contact from the private sector – I have never been contacted by industry.
MEP Hennicot is aiming to produce her second working document on the EIT by early February, thus allowing her report to be discussed in the Culture Committee by the end of March.
By Jim Brunsden
Copyright Europe Information Service (EIS). La copie, la reproduction ou la dissemination de tout ou partie de ce document sans autorisation prealable et ecrite de EIS est strictement interdite.