COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning the common position of the Council on the adoption of a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a programme for the enhancement of quality in higher education and the promotion of intercultural understanding through co-operation with third countries (Erasmus Mundus) (2004-2008)

1. BACKGROUND

Date of transmission of the proposal to the EP and the Council (document COM(2002) 401 final - 2002/0165 COD): // 18 July 2002

Date of the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee: // 26 February 2003

Date of the opinion of the Committee of Regions: // 9 April 2003

Date of the opinion of the European Parliament, first reading: // 8 April 2003

Date of transmission of the amended proposal: // 29 April 2003

Date of Council political agreement (by unanimity): // 5 May 2003

Date of adoption of the common position: // 16 June 2003

2. OBJECTIVE OF THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL

Based on article 149, the proposal seeks to establish a Community programme to enhance quality education by improving the perception of European higher education world-wide and by fostering co-operation with third countries. This future programme will improve the development of human resources and promote dialogue and understanding between peoples and cultures. As such, it will be a means to respond to the challenges faced by European higher education today, in particular the need to stimulate the process of convergence of degree structure and enhance attractiveness world wide. These are themes central to the Sorbonne/Bologna/Prague process and to national reform in higher education in several Member States.

3. COMMENTS ON THE COMMON POSITION

3.1. General remarks

The text of the common position is broadly acceptable to the Commission as it largely respects the substance of the Commission's original proposal.

The Commission has two main objections to the text.

The Commission regrets that the common position seeks to reduce the budget of the programme to 180 million euros, down from the 200 million euros proposed by the Commission.

The Commission's proposal was carefully costed. The Council has not provided any justification for its proposed 180 million euros. The reduction is arbitrary and puts in danger the internal balance of the programme and its potential impact.

The Commission also regrets the inclusion of selection results for Action 1 - Erasmus Mundus Masters Courses - in Article 7.1 which provides for the measures to be adopted in accordance with the committee's management procedure (Article 8.2.). The management procedure is likely to generate considerable delays in the implementation of the programme.

3.2. Consideration of the amendments proposed by the Parliament in the first reading

- Amendments incorporated in full or in substance in the Commission's amended proposal and in the common position: 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 31, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 69, 70.

- Amendments incorporated in the Commission's amended proposal and not incorporated in the common position: 32, 35, 59, 62, 63, 66.

There is a large degree of convergence between the amended proposal and the common position as far as the amendments of the Parliament are concerned.

As regards the amendments that have not been integrated in the common position, amendments 32 and 35 would have contributed to greater precision on the provisions they refer to in Articles 5 and 6 respectively.

Amendment 59 would have established a useful explicit link between university and industry in relation to access to employment.

Amendments 62, 63 and 66 concern sections of the text under Action 4 - Enhancing Attractiveness - which the common position has deleted.

From the Commission's point of view, these amendments would have contributed to improving the text. However, the Commission does not see these as key amendments and their substance can be taken into consideration during the implementation phase.

3.3. Main divergences between the amended proposal and the common position

The common position respects the substance of the Commission's proposal. There are however certain divergences between the two texts.

Aside from the difference in budget referred to under 3.1 above, the main differences between both texts concern:

- Article 7 and the section on Selection Procedures in the Annex

Article 7 of the common position enlarges the scope of measures to be adopted through the management procedure and includes the results of selections of all actions, other than Action 1, among those to be adopted through the advisory procedure.

In general, the Commission considers that the involvement of the Committee in the adoption of decisions concerning selection results does not necessarily add greater transparency to the management of the programme; it will solely make it more bureaucratic. Experience of project selection in other education programmes (such as Socrates) suggests that the impact of the management procedure on the outcome of selections would be negligible whilst at the same time adding significantly to the length of the procedure and the workload involved.

As indicated under 3.1 above, the main drawback of the common position in this regard is the inclusion of Action 1 - Erasmus Mundus Masters Courses - among the measures to be adopted through the management procedure.

Action 1 is based on the absolute respect of the competence of Member States on education matters. The Commission considers that the transparency of the selection process can be guaranteed and the opinions of Member States and their competent bodies be taken into account in that process without having recourse to the management procedure. This heavy procedure is not justified by the potential risks linked to the content of Action 1 nor by its prospective financial significance. The management procedure is likely to cause unnecessary delays in the implementation of the programme.

The section on Selection Procedures in the Annex, to which Article 7 refers, is more detailed in the common position than in the amended proposal. However, the Commission can accept this text as it is largely based on the explanatory memorandum accompanying its original proposal.

- Action 4 - Enhancing Attractiveness

The common position considerably simplifies the description of Action 4. This simplification does not alter the nature of the Action and makes the text clearer.

The Commission accepted a number of amendments from the Parliament concerning sections of the text under Action 4 that the common position suppresses. From the Commission's point of view, this is not a significant problem because the substance of these amendments can be adequately taken on board during the implementation phase. The Commission can therefore accept the text of the common position regarding Action 4.

4. CONCLUSION

The Commission considers that the text of the common position is a good basis for a European Parliament and Council decision, with the exception of the budget and the issue of committee procedures applicable to Action 1.