4. ERASMUS WORLD
(23709)
11274/02
COM(02) 401
|
Draft 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 World) (2004-2008).
|
| Legal base: | Article 149 EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Department: | Education and Skills
|
| Basis of consideration: | Minister's letter of 30 November 2002
|
| Previous Committee Report: | HC 152-xxxviii (2001-02), paragraph 5 (16 October 2002)
|
| To be discussed in Council: | Date not set
|
| Committee's assessment: | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision: | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
4.1 The draft Decision aims to extend the existing Erasmus
scheme, which is currently concerned with exchanges of students
between universities and other higher education (HE) institutions
in Member States, to promote intercultural understanding and co-operation
with countries outside the European Union.
4.2 When we first considered the document (in October),
the Government was still forming its views on the proposals and,
in particular, on whether they represented value for money. We
decided to keep the document under scrutiny until we knew more
about the Government's position, the content of the proposed Masters
courses, and the funding arrangements.
The Minister's letter
4.3 The Minister of State for Lifelong Learning and Higher
Education (Margaret Hodge) has now written in response to our
questions. She tells us that she is glad to provide clarification
on the Masters courses, but shares our view on the need for clarification
of the proposed funding arrangements.
4.4 She continues:
"On [Masters] course content, the proposal
is that there will be 250 new courses at Masters level, in a wide
range of subject areas. There is now nothing in the proposals
to restrict these courses to specific subject areas, as was previously
the case with the emphasis on science and technology. I am also
pleased to say that UK higher education institutions consider
themselves well placed to work with the Commission in developing
the 250 proposed new joint Masters awards. This should build on
the outcomes of the European University Association's project
on determining good practice in joint awards. I feel that the
UK stands to have more to gain than to risk from working on developing
these new Masters awards."
4.5 The Minister then addresses the question of funding.
She tells us:
"The European Commission's current financial perspective
runs until the end of 2006 and the proposals for Erasmus World
are for it to run from the start of 2004 to the end of 2008. The
lion's share of the funding is intended to come towards the end
of the project and so from the next, as yet undecided, financial
perspective. While I acknowledge that the programme will need
to grow over time, I and other Member States have sought further
clarification from the Commission about the impact such end-loading
would have on other priorities, in education and elsewhere. We
also sought their assurance that they will be able to fund the
expenditure envisaged within the current financial perspective."
4.6 The Minister reports that she and her EU colleagues
held their first discussion about Erasmus World at the Education
and Culture Council on 12 November. They agreed on the importance
of the proposal and its significance in relation to the Lisbon
goal to become the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based
economy in the world by 2010. They asked the Commission to clarify
the funding arrangements and the criteria for selecting participants
in the programme. The Commission is now preparing a revised proposal.
The Minister undertakes to provide us with updated information
about the Government's position and the funding situation in relation
to the revisions.
Conclusion
4.7 We thank the Minister for her letter, with its
encouraging news about the Masters awards and the UK's involvement
in their development. Her explanation of the funding issue is
helpful; we share her view that more clarification from the Commission
is needed.
4.8 We will keep the document under scrutiny until
we have the revised proposal with the updated information which
the Minister has undertaken to provide.
| 
