House of Commons - Education and Skills

Select Committee on Education and Skills Fourth Report

5 Role of the European Commission

The European Community's powers in education

106. It is important at this stage to outline the formal powers of the European Community in the field of Education. These are set out in Articles 149 (1), (2), of the EC Treaty, and are summarised in a European Scrutiny Committee Report from November 2004.[87]

"4.3 Article 149(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (the EC Treaty) provides for the Community to:

contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility of Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of the education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity.
Article 149(2) provides that Community action is to be aimed at, among other things, encouraging the mobility of students and teachers by, for example, encouraging academic recognition of diplomas and periods of study; promoting cooperation between educational establishments; and developing exchanges of information and experience.
Article 149(4) provides that the Council may adopt incentive measures or recommendations in order to contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the Article.
Article 150(4) of the EC Treaty authorises the Council to adopt measures to contribute to the achievement of the Community's objectives for vocational training".

107. While the EC's formal competence in respect of educational matters is limited, not least because Council Recommendations do not bind Member States, the relevant articles of the Treaty are capable of being interpreted in ways that give scope for a wide range of educational activity.

108. Furthermore the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) means that initiatives can be undertaken, on a voluntary basis, that are outside the scope of Articles 149 and 150 (if the European Commission believes they would help achieve the goals of the Lisbon Agenda for economic growth and increased employment for example).[88] The OMC was introduced by the Lisbon European Council in March 2000.[89] The European Council described it as a process "designed to help Member States to progressively develop their own policies through agreeing European guidelines […] and goals […]". The OMC is not underpinned by EC legislation; it is a voluntary process for sharing information and good practice, recognising that Member States have the primary responsibilities for education.[90] Member States can come together in the Council of Ministers to agree "soft law"[91] in the form of agreed objectives and targets and to monitor performance.[92]

109. We are concerned that use of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) means that the absence of a Treaty base poses little constraint on what the European Commission and Member States may do voluntarily in the area of education, and more specifically higher education. We ask the DfES to give their view on whether the European Commission are using the OMC to expand their involvement in higher education and whether this is a cause for concern.

Causes for concern

110. In the course of our inquiry we have been made aware of disquiet about how the future development of the Bologna Process might impact upon the autonomy of UK universities. In particular, worries have been expressed in written and oral evidence that the role played by the European Commission might be contrary to the principles that inspire Bologna in that it may increase bureaucracy, centralise control and encourage conformity, whilst diminishing flexibility, responsiveness and creativity. We do not wish to exaggerate the importance of these anxieties. Neither can they be ignored.

111. It appears to be widely agreed that the aspiration behind Bologna is, as Lord May described, "absolutely admirable."[93] The concern is, however, that if the European Commission becomes dominant, what is currently a bottom-up process might become increasingly subject to detailed, legislative rules rather being left to operate within broad, flexible frameworks agreed and developed by the higher education sectors. Professor Drummond Bone, UUK, told the Committee that, in his view:

112. The current approach of the European Commission is by and large consistent with how higher education policy is determined across most of mainland Europe, described in evidence to us from the Chief Executive of the QAA as characterised by codification, legislation and state ownership. But there are indications that other European countries are wishing to move away from their centralised systems towards a more autonomous higher education sector.[95] This will require significant changes to be effected in some countries.

113. As Professor Drummond Bone pointed out, there is also the danger that EHEA countries might try to grant universities greater autonomy by methods which in practice result in increased bureaucracy:

114. This danger has been particularly marked in the area of quality assurance. In her critical study of the development of the EC's research policy and its relation to the Bologna Process, Dr Keeling argues that:

115. From his experience of working to improve quality assurance systems across the EHEA the Chief Executive of the QAA told this Committee that "the [European] Commission is using the Bologna Process for its own purposes."[98] He gave us an example of proposals that had been made by the Commission for the establishment of a European register for all quality assurance agencies in Europe and told us that:

100

101

116. Another example was given by the UK HE Europe Unit who told the Committee about what it saw as the Commission's attempts to expand the qualification framework to cover all further and higher education, which it would prescribe and control:

102

117. Academics at the Institute of Education are amongst those who have expressed "[…] concern about the political and (particularly) the bureaucratic momentum behind Bologna"[103] which in their view seems to be snowballing out of control with a very top-heavy structure of boards and committees.

118. The Committee is encouraged by references to increasing recognition across the European Higher Education Area, and within the decision making structures of the European Community, of the importance of each country having an autonomous and flexible higher education system. It is concerned, however, to hear reports about the bureaucratic momentum behind Bologna and of the dangers of trying to achieve progress towards greater institutional autonomy by central direction.

119. The Government should continue to encourage increased autonomy in higher education across the European Higher Education Area but must guard against growing bureaucratisation. The Government must seek to uphold that the autonomy and flexibility of institutions by ensuring the Process only pursues its objectives within broad, non-compulsory frameworks.

Relations with the EC and the Commission

120. As was made clear in section 2 of this report, the formal position is that the Bologna Process is not a function of the European Community or directed by the European Commission. Within the EC, the provision of education is the responsibility of member states. The European Commission's formal competency in education is limited.

121. Thus the legal and constitutional bases of the European Community and the Bologna process are very different. The Bologna Process has no formal powers. It has no dedicated resources apart from those which member countries may make available. The Process is 'owned' by signatories to the Bologna Declaration. As we have seen, its success depends upon the willing involvement of a large number of institutions and organisations.

122. As in so many areas of government and administration, formal distinctions do not tell the whole story. Twenty seven of the 45 Bologna countries are also members of the EC. The EC plays a significant role in supporting activities within the EHEA in pursuit of Bologna 'Action lines'. The participation of EC representatives in the work of Bologna Board and Follow-up Group, and affinities between many aspects of the EC's own programmes and Bologna priorities (e.g., student mobility and quality assurance), generate many contacts between individuals and organisations concerned with carrying forward the Bologna programme and the staff of the European Commission. Many academics and some public servants in EC countries are engaged in activities which require regular interactions with both Bologna and European Commission initiatives.

123. Without financial support from the EC some aspects of the Bologna process (e.g., ENQA) would be less effective. The principal student and staff mobility programmes are EC funded. For policy makers and national bodies, however, such as those from whose evidence we have quoted, the nature and direction of the Commission's involvement raise problems which in due course could affect everyone. Hence the emphasis that our witnesses have placed on scrutiny and close monitoring of any development which seems likely to change the voluntary, bottom up basis on which the Bologna Process rests or fails to recognise the autonomy of UK universities.

Influence and constraint: the UK Government's position

124. In her critical appraisal of the EC and Bologna, Dr Keeling concludes that the European Commission:

"[…] has clearly managed to set the agenda both for the Bologna Process and European research policy, playing a central role in maintaining the momentum of current political debate in these areas, and steering their convergence in ways which have affirmed its own centrality. By drawing together these multiple policy strands, the Commission has confirmed higher education as key sphere of operation for the EU."[

104

125. In these circumstances it is unsurprising that the UK HE Europe Unit describes the European Commission as having "considerable influence" over the Bologna Process:

105

126. The growing involvement of the Commission is not just something that might be a problem in the future. As Dr Keeling has shown, it is a present reality.[106] But for that reason it may be less worrying than would otherwise be the case. The active participation of UK representatives in both Bologna and EC affairs provides opportunities to keep a close eye on initiatives from the Commission, and to ensure that the formal position of universities vis-à-vis the state in the UK (which is rather different from that in most other countries of the EHEA) is understood and taken fully into account.

127. This approach by the Government (described by the Minster as one of having "pushed back strongly")[107] has had some success to date. Following consultations within the UK on the Commission's 2004 proposals for the establishment of a EC-wide Quality Assurance Registry, the then Minister of State (Kim Howells) made clear that the UK had:

108

128. These views were widely shared and the proposals significantly modified. The Commission has also agreed to a review of the controversial European Credit Transfer Scheme (ECTS). But it is by no means certain that such moves will curtail the Commission's growing influence. The Minister said that he had 'hope'[109] for the right outcomes from the ECTS review and the President of UUK said that he had "hope" that the UK would "win the battle on quality assurance."[110]

129. To the credit of the Government and others, the opportunity has been taken to strengthen the formal position of the signatory countries regarding institutional autonomy through seeking specific agreements in the additional Communiqués. The Communiqué following the Berlin Ministerial meeting in 2003 included a statement "[…] that institutions need to be empowered to take decisions on their internal organisation and administration." But even when universities are legally autonomous, external regulation and supervision (to ensure their freedoms are exercised responsibly and in the public interest) can generate levels of internal bureaucracy and managerialism antipathetic to the creativity and innovation that enable research and teaching to prosper.[111]

130. The Minister for Higher Education also voiced worries about the expanding role of the European Commission. He told us that:

112

131. The Minister summarised his position as follows:

113

132. In the light of all this we are sympathetic to the view expressed on behalf of the UK HE Europe Unit that:

114

133. The European Commission, and the European Community more broadly, play an important formal role in the Bologna Process that is welcome. The expanding role of the European Community in the field of education, however, and the belief that it is seeking to expand its role through the mechanisms of the Bologna Process, is a common cause of concern to UK organisations and institutions. It is also this Committee's greatest concern regarding the future of the Bologna Process.

134. We recommend that the Government seeks clarification of the exact role of the Commission in the Bologna Process. Whilst the involvement of the Commission, including financial assistance, is of considerable importance for the success of the Bologna Process, a way must be found to ensure its involvement does not undermine the essentially voluntary and 'bottom up' approaches characteristic of its development to date.

135. It remains crucial to the success of the Bologna Process that it remains outside the framework of the EC. We agree with the Minister that the role of the European Commission must be appropriately circumscribed. This must be a priority issue for the government at the London Summit in May.

87 Thirty-sixth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2003-04, HC 42-xxxvi, paragraph 4, 10 November 2004. Back

88 See paragraphs 60 to 65 for more information about the Lisbon Agenda. Back

89 Lisbon European Council, 23-24 March 2000, Presidency Conclusions, para 37. Back

90 European Scrutiny Committee, 18^th Report, Session 2005-06, chapter 18 "Streamlining the open method of coordination for social protection policies." Back

91 Elsa Hackl, Towards a European Area of Higher Education: Change and convergence in European Higher Education, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European Universtiy Institute, 2001. (page 28 et seq) http://cadmus.iue.it/dspace/bitstream/1814/1718/1/01_09.pdf Back

92 For more information, see Amélia Veiga and Alberto Amaral, "The open method of coordination and the implementation of the Bologna process" Tertiary Education and Management 12:4, December 2006 http://www.springerlink.com/content/62v2500323547212/ Back

93 Q 3 Back

94 Q 4 Back

95 Q 150 Back

96 Q 4 Back

97 Dr Ruth Keeling "The Bologna Process and the Lisbon Research Agenda: the European Commission's expanding role in higher education discourse", European Journal of Education,,Vol. 41, No. 2, 2006, p.208. Back

98 Q 115 Back