Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the first thing that must be said is that Socrates is a success story. Education was successful under Erasmus, but I think that, embedded in the Socrates programme, it has fared even better. That is one positive finding in this evaluation of the second stage of the European Union programme on general education. Socrates takes account of the concept of lifelong learning and supports mobility at all stages of learning, of students and teachers alike. To put it one way, Socrates is there for us from the cradle to the grave. The Commission has taken precautions and measures, one step at a time, to improve the content of the programme. I welcome ongoing efforts to speed up procedures and cut red tape. Red tape is inevitable in a government programme at any level, but red tape should not be an obstacle to this sort of education programme and should not obstruct its objectives. The Commission has taken account of this premise on numerous counts. I shall come shortly to the areas in which it has not. As rapporteur on both the introduction of the first phase and the implementation of the current second stage of the Socrates programme, I am satisfied how well it has developed. The figures for the first half of the programme speak for themselves. In 31 countries – that is, the 15 Member States, the candidate countries and the members of the European Economic Area – 2 000 universities, 40 000 university lecturers and more than 460 000 students took part in further education exchanges under Erasmus alone. Comenius, the section for schools, funded 15 000 schools with over 2 million pupils. I think we really are reaching our citizens here and I think it really is worth our while to continue and, if possible, build up this programme even more. This being so, the increase in the multiannual budget from the original figure of EUR 850 million to a current EUR 933 million – achieved by Parliament during all-night sittings – was the right thing to do. But, to be honest, it is not enough. If new candidate countries join in 2004 – the programme runs until 2007 – then this programme needs to be built up. And if the Council of Ministers refuses to do so, then all I can say is that its declarations at the summits are nothing more than hot air and I think the Commissioner should point out as much to the ministers at forthcoming Council meetings. Of course, I also have a few criticisms to make. Several initiatives still have room for improvement when it comes to the nitty-gritty. First, the Commission should improve and speed up cooperation with national agencies even more. Centralisation has huge advantages but requires effective information management. The Symmetry system developed by the Commission will clearly facilitate the flow of information to and from the national agencies here. But at the same time, we can – and it makes sense to – link up with the Youth and Leonardo da Vinci programmes. Symmetry therefore needs to be introduced as quickly as possible. Secondly, I would point out that an overwhelming number of national agencies gave me to understand that the Commission is helpful at all stages. But the time taken to prepare new contracts has resulted in disgraceful delays in payments, especially under Comenius. Such obstacles must be removed because hold-ups and delays are a source of frustration to committed participants. Especially in schools, where a great deal of extra effort goes into setting up projects. I know of schools where the teachers running the project are smiled upon by their colleagues. They do it in their spare time and do not get paid a penny more. Thirdly, I also expect something to be done about creating joint actions, especially with the other programmes I mentioned. Fourthly, I also call on the Commission to adopt the premise: the smaller the sum, the less red tape. I think we could follow the example set by the Commission with the partnership agreements, that is, to deal with applications under 20 000 differently, without the mound of paperwork needed for larger sums. I also think that the cofinancing requirement should be dropped below EUR 20 000. The fundamental contribution of Socrates to a European education area has been applauded repeatedly and is beyond question. We should not forget that Socrates is the heartbeat of a European society of knowledge and learning and what worries me is that transnational, that is, intergovernmental cooperation on education might displace the Community approach. However, the Bologna and Prague declarations were in favour of these supposedly faster methods. We must not forget that the means and ends of the so-called open method of cooperation with the Member States on education would have been more or less unthinkable without the positive experience gained from Socrates. To sacrifice Community education objectives to short-term transnational cooperation would be an unspeakable step backwards. To close, we need to bear two further points in mind. First, Socrates is an important, decisive European programme, because it educates people in Europe and is the European answer to the education prospects of the future. Secondly, the open method of intergovernmental cooperation must not be allowed to undermine the importance of the Community approach. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE