EURIM Working Group Minutes by M8P293

VIEWS: 4 PAGES: 4

									EURIM Working Group Minutes
Working Party:    Knowledge Economy
Ref:              06-KE-03
Minuter:          Emma Fryer
Date:             06/07/18
Circulation:      Attendees and Apologies
Queries to:       Emma Fryer, Tel: 01609 772 137
                  Mob: 07714 803 650
                  Emma.fryer@eurim.org




     Minutes of EURIM’s Knowledge Economy Meeting to Discuss Draft
          Paper on Locational Factors for Knowledge Businesses
                               18th July 2006, kindly hosted by Intellect

SUMMARY

Meeting Objectives
   1. To review the current draft paper “A Flourishing Innovation Economy – How the UK must Attract and Retain
       Knowledge-Based Businesses”, in particular the Recommendations to policy makers
   2. To identify target audience and parliamentary champions for the paper. .

Meeting Outline
Members reviewed and re-drafted the key recommendations and agreed further amendments to the main body of the
draft. The target audience was discussed, and a number of key targets and parliamentary champions were identified.
Timescales were set out: the amendments would be adopted by 24th July and the group agreed to review them by 28th
July, after which the paper would be circulated to all EURIM members and to those parties who had contributed or been
quoted in it, with a response deadline of around 1 September. The final version should be ready for circulation in
September.

Points of Agreement
    1. Revisions to the Recommendations as itemised under point 2
    2. Revisions to the main text as itemised under point 3
    3. Timescales for Drafting agreed as itemised under point 6 (also see below)

Actions Undertaken
    1. EF to incorporate the agreed changes to the recommendations listed under agenda point 2. (2.10)
    2. EF to incorporate the agreed changes to the main text listed under agenda point 3 (3.12)
    3. EF to circulate links to Roel Spee and Aho reports, other tabled documents and the source list (4.1)
    4. EF to incorporate more general points in a catch-all paragraph (4.2)
    5. ALL to consider target audience and champions for paper, both organisations and individuals (5.4).
    6. EF to amend V03 and circulate V04 of document by 24th July (6.1)
    7. All to submit comments on V04 by 28th July or alternatively after 6th August when wider feedback sought (6.1)
    8. EF to adopt amendments to V04 submitted by 28th July then circulate V05 to all EURIM contacts and
        contributing parties by 4th August (6.2)
    9. CG to ensure paper did not languish during EF’s absence and liaise as necessary with Kate Norman (6.5)

Documents circulated
   1. Version 03 of the draft paper: “A Flourishing Innovation Economy – How the UK must attract and retain
      knowledge-based businesses”.


Next Meeting Date and Drafting timetable
    No further meetings were scheduled. Subsequent editing would take place electronically.
    Version 4 to be available by Monday 24th July to Group members
    Group members to review paper by end of Friday 28th July
    Paper to be circulated to EURIM membership and other contributing parties 4 th August with a response deadline
       of around 1 September
    Paper to be ready for publication in September.



c:\docstoc\working\pdf\2cc1c209-f6cf-42cf-88fb-85b51e6d76d7.doc
Detailed Meeting Notes
                                                                                                                   Action
1          Introduction and Meeting Objectives
    1.1    This meeting was to agree the Key Recommendations and identify target audience for the paper.

2          Remedies and Recommendations
           EF ran through the responses received from absent members. After some discussion the following
           amendments to the Recommendations were agreed.
    2.1    The reference to feather bedding should be removed from the first recommendation, which should          A
           be preceded by “Support success”
    2.2    The second and fifth points should be combined. The reference to policy advocacy should be              A
           replaced by “improve stakeholder relations” and the sentence on investor development should be
           deleted.
    2.3    The third point should become the final point.                                                          A
    2.4    The fourth point, on R&D tax credits, should be revised to include the issue of improving expertise     A
           in the Revenue.*
    *NB    A subsequent discussion with Tom Wills-Sandford at Intellect revealed that a more effective
           measure would be to extend the R&D tax credits available for small firms to larger firms rather than
           retaining two systems;- currently the effective tax benefit to larger firms is only 3-4%, below the
           “noise” threshold. The issue of better expertise among inspectors has already been addressed by
           the Revenue and specialist R&D tax offices are being implemented in the UK.
    2.5    The fifth bullet point should be deleted, with the exception of the point about focusing on the         A
           strongest clusters, which should be combined with point 1.
    2.6    A recommendation or sentence in the document should be added on the need to change traditional          A
           measurement criteria to new parameters relevant to a modern economy, focusing on outcomes
           rather than inputs. Intellect’s “Navigating the New Economy” report was a suitable source.
    2.7    A recommendation or sentence in the document should be added suggesting that policy makers              A
           should trust successful, innovative companies as co-developers of policies and engage them in the
           policy making process.
    2.8    EF tabled additional suggestions for recommendations submitted by ML, GP, CF and PC. These
           included a recommendation on skills, a recommendation to use government procurement to help
           pull through innovation in technology and a recommendation suggesting that to attract knowledge
           businesses, government must become a knowledge business itself, not a bureaucratic black hole.
           After some discussion it was agreed that procurement could be a contentious issue because some
           forms of procurement such as that used in the US to encourage R&D in Boeing were viewed as
           hidden subsidy elsewhere, particularly in Europe, and secondly there were issues of balance
           between encouraging R&D and rewarding success and instigating procurements that attempted to
           second guess where technology would go and which generally failed. It was agreed that a
           reference to skills, including the need for a sustainable core of skills, better university-business    A
           links and capitalising on innovation, should be included in the document.
    2.9    Other concepts for consideration within the recommendations included:
                 Addressing the UK’s cultural and governmental fear of failure and …
                 The need to encourage excellence both in terms of education and innovation.
    2.10   EF agreed to make the necessary amendments to the recommendations.                                      EF

3          Other agreed amendments to the draft
    3.1    EF reported a series of proposed amendments that had been submitted by group members. After
           a short discussion the following suggestions were adopted.
    3.2    A comparison between the UK and other countries such as US, Eire and Estonia should be                  A
           introduced in the area of fiscal and regulatory incentives such as R&D funding and IP related profits
    3.3    The footnote referring to the Aho Report should name it as such.                                        A
    3.4    References to feather-bedding should be replaced by “special help for high value sectors”               A
    3.5    The relevant detail from the deleted recommendation 5 should be inserted in the paragraph “The          A
           Nature of Knowledge-based businesses”, as should a sentence about social capital.
    3.6    Pharmaceutical should be inserted before CEOs under “Risk of Failure”                                   A
    3.7    A reference to Swiss Varein should be inserted in the paragraph on Software under risk of failure**.    A
    **     A subsequent discussion with Tom Wills-Sandford provided several appropriate insertions for the
           software paragraph,
    3.8    The “Rhetoric is not enough!” paragraph should be moved to the front page of the document,              A
           together with the “What can be done?” paragraph. The former should be augmented with a mention
           of actions required by politicians if they wished to achieve the social agendas they promoted. The
           duplicated recommendations should be deleted and where feasible, incorporated into the main text.
    3.9    A concluding paragraph should be added to finish the paper, and should include a Call For Action,       A
           stressing that if politicians did not act to make the UK attractive to the businesses that were
           effectively the cash cows of the economy, then the UK would not be able to fund its social agenda.

c:\docstoc\working\pdf\2cc1c209-f6cf-42cf-88fb-85b51e6d76d7.doc
            The conclusion should also refer back to the concept of the innovation economy and perhaps
            include a third Aho quotation, about declining capital.
    3.10    The concept of “clusters” should be broadened beyond the traditional university base to include          A
            cities such as London.
    3.11    EF was concerned that some of the issues raised in the discussion were relevant to the general
            topic of creating a knowledge economy rather than the specific messages of the paper which
            concerned locational factors – attracting and retaining innovative businesses. She was reluctant to
            allow the scope to creep to this broader topic for fear that this would dilute the very specific
            messages of the paper. It was agreed that these points, which included university-industry links,        A
            skills funding and fear of failure, should be incorporated in a catch-all paragraph.
    3.12    EF agreed to make the relevant amendments to the draft.                                                  EF

4           References
    4.1     EF agreed to circulate the Aho Report, the Roel*** Spee article and the list of sources used for the     EF
            document and to provide links to the other reports circulated by respondees.
            *** name amended on V4 footnote)
    4.2     EF agreed to use Intellect’s “Innovation Nation” report for material for a catch-all paragraph on        EF
            creating the knowledge economy.

5           Identifying and Approaching Target Audience
    5.1     The following individuals were identified as key targets: George Osborne MP, Stephen Timms MP,
            Lord Sainsbury, Margaret Hodge MP, Pat McFadden MP, Ian Watmore,
    5.2     The following individuals were identified as potential champions: Bill Rammell MP, Margaret Moran
            MP, Ian Taylor MBE MP, Adam Alfriyie MP, James Duddridge MP, Jeremy Hunt MP, Philip Dunne
            MP, Andrew Miller MP, Caroline Barr (HMT), (?)Shriete Valleria (HMT), Justine Greening MP.
            Stephen Hammond MP, Philip Hollobone MP.
    5.3     The following organisations were identified as key targets: Ministerial Working Party on UK
            Competitiveness, Mayor of London, Treasury Select Committee, Science and Technology Select
            Committee, PITCOM, Scottish Enterprise, WDA.
    5.4     All agreed to consider other potential contacts.                                                         ALL

6           Next Steps, Timescales, Allocating Areas of Responsibility
                                                                th
    6.1     EF agreed to revise the document by Monday 24 July and circulate it to group members, who                EF /
                                                      th
            would then have until the end of Friday 28 July to comment.                                              All
                                             th
    6.2     After the deadline of Friday 28 July EF agreed to revise the document further in the light of            EF
            feedback and circulate it to EURIM members for wider comment, and to those who had been
                                                   th                                                           st
            quoted in it, to ensure accuracy, by 4 August. A deadline for responses should be set around 1
            September.
    6.3     EF continued that, due to unavoidable constraints on her part, it appeared that a meeting for
            wordsmithing and fine tuning would not be feasible, so it was agreed that this process would have
            to be done online. Group members therefore had opportunity to submit corrections both before
                         th
            and after 28 July.
    6.4     EF noted that in her absence during August the editorial process would be handled by Kate
            Norman. Kate would also be able to circulate the document to the relevant EURIM members at
            appropriate times and to the parliamentary directors who would be responsible for ensuring that the
            paper was politically balanced.
    6.5     The Chairman, CG, would be responsible for driving momentum and ensuring that the paper did              CG
            not languish unnecessarily in the meantime.
    6.6     It was agreed that the finished paper should be ready in time either for the Party Conferences or for
            MPs return to Westminster in October

7           Date of Next Meeting
    7.1     No date was set for a further meeting. Subsequent editing would be done electronically.



Attendance
F name           Surname               Organisation
Stephen          Darvill               LogicaCMG
Emma             Fryer                 EURIM
Andrew           Hardie                IMIS
Carrie           Hartnell              Intellect
Beatrice         Rogers                Intellect

Apologies

c:\docstoc\working\pdf\2cc1c209-f6cf-42cf-88fb-85b51e6d76d7.doc
Paul             Cheshire                AtosOrigin
Chris            Francis                 IBM
Melissa          Frewin                  Intellect
Chris            Godwin                  IBM
David            Harrington              CMA
Matt             Lambert                 Microsoft
Guy              Peters                  EDS
Philip           Virgo                   EURIM
Tom              Wills-Sandford          Intellect


Links to references / further information, relevant agenda point, title, URL and short description

2.6   Navigating the New Economy – Intellect Report on measuring the UK’s progress towards a knowledge economy
      http://www.intellectuk.org/publications/reports/default.asp#navigating (Index page only, NB 2.5MB file)
4.1   Valuation and Exploitation of Intellectual Property – STI Working Paper 2006/5, Directorate for Science, Technology and
      Industry, OECD. See Source List on Group web pages: http://www.eurim.org.uk/activities/ukcomp/outputs/sources.doc
4.1   Foresight 2020 - Economic, Industry and corporate trends, a report from the Economist Intelligence Unit, sponsored by
      Cisco Systems, The Economist. See Source List on Group web pages:
      http://www.eurim.org.uk/activities/ukcomp/outputs/sources.doc
4.2   Innovation Nation Report – Intellect: and Computing
      http://www.intellectuk.org/policy/activities/innovation_nation.asp (Scroll down to Innovation Nation Report prompt)




c:\docstoc\working\pdf\2cc1c209-f6cf-42cf-88fb-85b51e6d76d7.doc

								
To top