WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2002/98 by Ursula STENZEL to the Commission. Education programmes
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 Towards a Europe of knowledgeí, 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 Towards a Europe of Knowledgeí (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 School educationí 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?