WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2002/98 by Ursula STENZEL to the Commission. Education programmes
Date: 1998-06-30
Institutions: European Parliament, STENZEL
Subjects: EU programme, action programme, education policy

C 118/14

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.4.1999

(1999/C 118/014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2002/98

by Ursula Stenzel (PPE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Education programmes

In its communication (cid:145)Towards a Europe of knowledge(cid:146), the Commission proposed limiting the number of
objectives and measures. The operative section of the proposal on the next generation of programmes
envisages only 4 objectives and 6 measures.

On closer inspection, however, it appears that a far greater number of measures is envisaged in relation to
8 actions: the development of information services, encouraging the demand for adult education, the
establishment of networks linking national, regional and local education centres, etc.

How does the Commission justify this contradiction between the objective of imposing limits and the
effective increase in the number of measures?

How can this situation be reconciled with the objectives of simplifying programmes and making them
more user-friendly and concentrating resources?

How will the Commission ensure in future that priorities such as mobility, encouraging foreign language-
learning and international cooperation programmes to enhance the European dimension in education are
translated into action?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 1998)

The Commission¢s proposals for the second phase of the Socrates programme highlight the need to ensure
continuity and to consolidate the achievements of the first phase, while making the overall programme
more flexible, more responsive to innovation, and at the same time more transparent and user-friendly.
The proposals fully take into account the different aspects singled out in the Communication (cid:145)Towards a
Europe of Knowledge(cid:146) (1), both as regards the number of actions and the proposed procedures.

In effect, the three chapters, 8 actions and 16 sub-actions of the existing phase of the programme have been
reorganised and indeed reinforced in the context of the proposals for the second phase, by introducing a
new architecture comprising 8 well-targeted actions. Genuine rationalisation work has been done, notably
by incorporating several former language actions targeted at schools in the (cid:145)School education(cid:146) action in
the second phase. The extension of the institutional contract (higher education) and the introduction of the
notion that each school should draw up its own plan concerning all aspects of its involvement in Socrates
will make the programme far more attractive for users.

Most of the actions mentioned by the Honourable Member are new ones and are already part of the
existing programme. It is vital to strengthen the links between the resource centres at regional and local
level with a view to involving grass roots players even more and to fostering closer links between the
Socrates Programme and the other Community actions pertaining to knowledge policy, in particular
programmes in the field of vocational training (Leonardo da Vinci) and youth.

(1) COM(97) 563 final.

(1999/C 118/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2010/98

by JosØ ApolinÆrio (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Cohesion report and studies on regional income

Can the Commission explain why it has not publicized the studies on regional income which it drew up for
the cohesion report? If it has in fact done so recently, can it supply the author of this question with a copy
of the relevant document?