Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending the Decision 819/95/EC establishing the Community action programme Socrates` () (97/C 287/07)

On 6 May 1997 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 14 May 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Rodríguez García Caro.

At its 346th plenary session (meeting of 28 May 1997), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion with 91 votes in favour and three abstentions.

1. Background

1.1. The Socrates Community action programme was established by Decision 819/95/EC of the European Parliament and the Council. Its aim is to develop high-quality education and an open European area that will facilitate cooperation in the education field.

1.2. The programme includes three basic action lines:

- Higher education: Erasmus subprogramme;

- School education: Comenius subprogramme;

- Horizontal measures in the following fields:

Language learning: Lingua subprogramme;

Open and distance learning;

Adult education;

Exchange of information and experience.

1.3. The main objective of the Socrates programme is to foster cooperation between Member States in the education field. Cooperation between education institutions in Europe is to be promoted by boosting student and staff mobility and thus encouraging the exchange of knowledge and experience.

1.4. The programme is scheduled to run for a five-year period from 1 January 1995 to 31 December 1999.

1.5. The proposal for a decision establishing the Socrates programme was referred to the Committee, which issued its opinion at the plenary session of 27/28 April 1994 (rapporteur: Mr van Dijk).

The main comments of the earlier opinion are summarized below. These will provide a reference point for considering the results of the first two years of the programme described in the Commission's report, and for further comments on the proposed decision amending the programme.

1.5.1. In its general comments, the Committee:

- welcomed the integration and continuation of the exchange programmes;

- considered the programme an efficient instrument for promoting the European dimension in education;

- approved the extension of the programme to school education.

1.5.2. In its specific comments, the Committee:

- questioned whether the programme's funding was sufficient;

- thought that the changes in the Erasmus programme of cooperation between universities would affect the supply of information;

- felt that the highly decentralized execution of the programme might make coordination of information a problem;

- felt that the supply of information was one of the most important instruments for making a programme a success or a failure;

- thought that the different national agencies should cooperate efficiently;

- was in favour of protecting the lesser used and lesser taught languages;

- recommended that two Community languages be taught in addition to the national language;

- urged the Commission to introduce exchange programmes with third countries;

- supported retention of the advisory committee.

1.6. The present proposal to amend the decision establishing the Socrates programme stems from an agreement adopted by the Parliament, the Council and the Commission at the end of the conciliation procedure which formed part of the negotiations for the programme.

Under the agreement, the Parliament and the Council were to assess the results of the programme two years after its launch, on the basis of a report from the Commission which would include appropriate proposals for measures to be adopted by the Parliament and the Council.

2. Assessment of the results of Socrates

2.1. The Commission document (COM(97) 99 final) now referred to the Committee assesses the first two years of the Socrates programme. It contains a detailed description of the results of the overall programme and of the various subprogrammes.

The Committee feels that it must highlight both the negative aspects which have emerged in the implementation of the programme, so that they can be remedied, and the positive aspects, so that they can be strengthened and ensure maximum development during the remaining period of the programme.

2.2. Negative aspects

2.2.1. Demands for project support which outstrip the available budget

The Committee's earlier opinion on Socrates drew attention to the insufficient budget for the programme, even before the sharp cut which was made after the adoption of its opinion. Nevertheless, the Committee considers that this growing demand for projects and assistance demonstrates the interest aroused in education circles, and shows that the programme has been widely publicized in Member States' education institutions.

2.2.2. Insufficient funding of high quality projects

The laudable aim of supporting as many projects as possible means that the highest quality projects are underfunded. Careful thought is needed as to whether it is better to disappoint some applicants by turning their projects down, or to provide more support for those projects which appear to guarantee a higher quality.

2.2.3. Bias towards institutions and individuals with more economic resources

If funding is insufficient, it is inevitable that the financially straitened will forgo participation in the programme. Solidarity and equity should be fully guaranteed so that the less advantaged have equal access to the programme. The Committee has already raised this point in its opinion on the 'Green Paper on education, training and research - the obstacles to transnational mobility`.

2.3. Positive aspects

2.3.1. Boosting student and teacher mobility and extending this possibility to teaching institutions which were not covered by the earlier programmes

The Committee feels that in covering the whole of the education sector, the programme successfully fosters the spirit of EU integration and cooperation by including projects which affect the smallest citizens of the Union. In the long term, this will undoubtedly improve appreciation and understanding of national differences, so that respect for these differences unites rather than divides EU citizens.

2.3.2. Promoting cooperation between Member States' education institutions

The Committee considers it vitally important that cooperation links between education institutions be steadily extended. Over the medium term, closer relations between teaching centres can help to secure progress in the important matter of recognition and validation of education received in other Member States.

2.3.3. Strengthening the European dimension of education by embracing new fields of education

The inclusion of open and distance learning is of vital importance. It provides recognition for a form of education which is facilitated by the new information and communication technologies, and will help to strengthen it.

2.3.4. Encouraging the European Credit Transfer System

The Commission's efforts to build a European area of compatible academic qualifications deserve particular support.

2.3.5. Promoting lesser used and lesser taught languages

The Committee is pleased that this is one of the major achievements of the programme, thus meeting one of the recommendations made in the Committee's earlier opinion.

2.3.6. Boosting exchange of information and experience

The Committee firmly believes that if the organization and methodology of education systems are continually improved, it will be easier to provide the optimum education and training which the labour market demands of job seekers. This innovative strand of Socrates must thus be given the greatest possible support.

2.3.7. Contribution to the development of quality education as advocated in Article 126 of the EC Treaty

Quality education must be an ongoing objective of the EU. The Committee will always support policies and programmes which further this objective.

2.3.8. Identification of obstacles to the programme's development

The obstacles which affect transnational mobility were identified in the Committee's opinion on the 'Green Paper on education, training and research - the obstacles to transnational mobility`.

With particular reference to the mobility of teaching staff, the Committee urges the Member States to do all they can to help teaching staff take part in Socrates activities by eliminating the obstacles (set out in the Commission report) which have emerged during the implementation of the programme.

2.3.9. Recognition of the need to increase the programme's budget in order to improve the financial outlook for the close of the programme's five-year implementing period

This bears out the view, expressed in the Committee's earlier opinion, that the programme's budget is insufficient.

3. The proposed decision

The proposal to amend Decision 819/95/EC seeks essentially to increase the financial framework for the programme by ECU 50 million, or by 5,9 %. The Commission considers that this is justified in order:

3.1. To maintain a critical mass of good quality projects without having to turn down more projects because of lack of funding.

3.2. To meet, as far as possible, the requests for funding of the large number of projects and applications submitted.

3.3. To safeguard the development of Erasmus as a subprogramme of Socrates, so that the student mobility levels achieved are not threatened by inadequate funding.

3.4. To safeguard the future of the Comenius subprogramme, by guaranteeing adequate funding for schools participating in the multilateral school partnerships.

3.5. To ensure that the national agencies continue to disseminate information on the programme.

3.6. To ensure that the less advantaged have access to the programme, in keeping with the principle of equal opportunities.

3.7. To cushion the budgetary impact of extending Socrates to the associated countries.

4. Comments

4.1. General comments

4.1.1. The Committee welcomes the proposal insofar as it seeks to increase the programme's budget. However, the Committee would reiterate its view that the proposed budget is insufficient for the ambitious and important objectives and measures pursued.

Nevertheless, the Committee is pleased that the Commission has included the Socrates programme among the Community budget priorities. In the current economic situation, it is clear that allocating resources to education is a budgetary guideline that is strongly supported.

4.1.2. While the Committee welcomes the positive discrimination accorded to the programme within the Community budget, it considers that the 5,9 % increase in the overall financial framework for the programme does not amount to a real budgetary increase, but simply adjusts the funding in line with inflation over the intervening two years in some Member States. The Committee therefore thinks that the allocation should be increased in absolute terms.

The Committee also thinks that, independently of the relative importance of each subprogramme, the Commission should reconsider the budgetary breakdown of funds with a view to maximizing those allocated to Comenius. The Committee considers that measures for school-age children have a particular impact, because people are more receptive at an early age.

4.1.3. The Committee firmly believes in education as an essential part of human development and as a necessary means for expanding personal skills. It therefore feels that the Socrates programme facilitates and furthers the social dimension of European integration.

4.1.4. In a period of austerity and budgetary rigour, the Committee considers that clear priorities must be established among the measures which are to be carried out. Sufficient economic resources must be allocated to programmes such as Socrates which aim to bring the benefits of the EU nearer to the public.

4.1.5. The development of human resources plays an important role in helping to contain unemployment - a problem affecting all Member States. By helping to boost the capacity of these resources, the programme can play an important role in the EU's economic development. The Committee therefore reiterates its view that the programme deserves a larger financial allocation than is proposed.

4.1.6. From this viewpoint and given the proposed amendment of Decision 819/95/EC, and although the proposed increase is welcome, the Committee cannot understand why, in the wake of the agreement adopted in 1995 at the end of the conciliation procedure, the Commission is putting forward such a modest proposal. The Committee does not see why it is necessary to wait two years and once again set the decision-making procedure in motion simply in order to increase the programme's budget by 5,9 %. To act in such a way may be efficacious, but it is not efficient.

4.1.7. The Committee thinks that Socrates, as a programme specifically designed to improve the educational dimension of EU citizenship, merits all possible support in order to guarantee that its objectives are properly achieved.

4.2. Specific comments

4.2.1. The comments which the Committee made on the initial proposal for the Socrates programme are also relevant for the present opinion; the points which were accommodated can now be underscored, and those which were rejected can be reconsidered.

4.2.2. The Committee thinks that when assessing the programme's profitability, the Commission should bear in mind the relation between quantity and quality and should endeavour to combine both aspects when it chooses between the many projects and applications submitted to it. Acceptance of an excessive number, in an effort to reach as many education institutions and individuals as possible, could adversely affect the quality of the projects and the degree of active participation in them. At the same time, it is desirable for as many people as possible to be able to participate, as this is an effective way to strengthen European integration.

The Commission's report on the results achieved in 1995/1996 shows that applicants for Community support for some measures are receiving very small sums. The Committee therefore feels that a serious effort is needed to see that quality has priority over quantity when accepting applications and deciding on the level of aid, although this should not be the sole criterion for implementing the whole of the programme budget.

4.2.3. In the European Year of Racism, the Committee would reiterate the point, made in its earlier opinion on Socrates, that education is an important tool for combating social exclusion, racism and xenophobia. It would therefore again ask that Chapter II, Action 2 apply not only to the children of migrant workers, gypsies, travellers and persons with itinerant occupations, but also to the children of refugees and asylum seekers.

4.2.4. The Committee asks the Commission to step up checks against fraud so as to avoid any possible diversion of funds. The aim should be to ensure that the available resources are used as effectively as possible and reach the maximum number of applicants.

4.2.5. When granting aid, it would be helpful to establish a fine-tuning mechanism for distributing funds according to the real needs of the recipients, so that those with fewer resources receive more aid. This would be the best way to guarantee the principle of fair access to Community funds.

4.2.6. During the stage of the programme that will start with the new decision, special efforts must be made to publicize the programme in Member States and regions which have so far presented relatively few projects and applications. The central aim here should be to identify any imperfections in information mechanisms which might have prevented some education institutions from finding out about the programme.

4.2.7. The Committee considers that the sums committed during the multiannual renewal of projects should not make it difficult for new applicants to join the programme in subsequent years. It is not desirable that a hermetic system should be established in which the same institutions and individuals gain repeated access to the funds currently provided under Socrates and previously provided under the programmes now subsumed into it, such as Erasmus and Lingua.

In short, the Committee thinks that Community aid must be allocated in the most transparent manner possible. It therefore calls on the Commission and the Member States to introduce the requisite mechanisms to guarantee equal access opportunities for all persons interested in taking part in the programme, and to ensure that the programme reaches the maximum number of students, teachers and institutions and that aid does not remain the preserve of certain persons or institutions.

4.2.8. The adult education measures could have points in common with European Social Fund programmes. Where such common ground exists, measures should be closely coordinated so as to avoid overlapping or duplication. If this means that measures are switched from the ESF to Socrates, the corresponding financial resources should also be re-assigned.

4.2.9. Lastly, and as is usual in its opinions on measures which concern the official languages of the EU, the Committee would highlight its support for measures to promote and disseminate the languages of the Member States, and particularly those languages which are less widely known. The Committee would again stress that language learning enormously improves awareness of the different cultures of the Member States and regions, and thus also helps to bring their peoples closer together.

Brussels, 28 May 1997.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

() OJ C 113 of 11. 4. 1997, p. 14.