EDUCATION AND TRAINING: EUROPEAN BENCHMARKS
IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING (14797/02)
Letter from the Chairman to Margaret Hodge
MBE MP Minister of State for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher
Education
Sub-Committee F (Social Affairs, Education and
Home Affairs) of the Select Committee on the European Union considered
this Communication at a meeting on 12 February.
The Government are opposed to the Commission's
proposals on the ground that the five "benchmarks" are
not benchmarks but targets. We endorse that view. Benchmarking
is a system of sharing good practice and comparing progress rather
than setting targets. Indeed, with hindsight it might have been
better for the Council's work programme to have referred to benchmarking
rather than to "setting European-wide benchmarks". We
are reassured by the categorical statement in your EM that you
will not agree these benchmarks as proposed.
However, we were not entirely clear from your
Explanatory Memorandum about the Government's position on targets
in this area. You say that you have "consistently opposed
the setting of such targets" but the Communication points
out (paragraph 19) that targets have been set in other areas of
education and training, such as e-learning, educational mobility
and mastering foreign languages; and that the Lisbon conclusions
contained quantified objectives for education and training, which
led to the inclusion in the 2001 Employment Guidelines of the
goal of halving by 2010 the number of 18-24 year olds with only
lower secondary education who are not in education and training
(which equates to the first benchmark). If the Government are
opposed to targets, why did they sign up to these targets?
In view of the fundamental disagreement about
the nature of the Commission's proposals, we would be grateful
to be kept informed of developments in further negotiation. In
the meantime we will keep the document under scrutiny.
Letter from Margaret Hodge to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 14 February, seeking
further clarification of the Government's position on European
targets in education and training.
As you point out, a number of European targets
exist already. However, these generally relate to areas which
member states have agreed are priorities across Europe and which
contribute, for example, to the Lisbon goals. I was concerned
by the approach taken by the Commission in its communication on
European benchmarks in education and training as the "benchmarks"
as drafted have no clear direct link with existing agreed targets
or goals and could have a direct bearing on national policy.
These concerns were shared by a number of my
European colleagues at the recent Education Council on 6 February,
at which the Commission communication was discussed. A considerable
number of Ministers expressed reservations about the approach
adopted by the Commission and stressed that any "benchmarks"
agreed should: take into account the different starting points
of member states; consider average EU performance; and respect
national policies and priorities.
The Greek Presidency, on behalf of the Council,
has now drafted a revised paper, taking into account the views
expressed by Ministers on 6 February and recognising that European
benchmarks should not prescribe decisions taken by national governments.
I shall write to you again once I have had the chance to consider
fully the implications of this new proposal for the UK.
3 March 2003
Letter from Margaret Hodge to the Chairman
Further to my letter to you of 3 March, I am
writing to update you on the progress of this initiative ahead
of the EU Education Council on 5 May.
I explained in my earlier letter my key concerns
about this issue, namely: the potential impact on national policy;
and the lack of clear linkages between the "benchmarks"
proposed in the Commission Communication and the Lisbon agenda.
These concerns were shared by a number of my European counterparts
at our meeting of 6 February.
In the meantime, discussion has continued at
official level within the Education Committee and officials have
explained these concerns in detail. In addition, they have explored
in depth the technical feasibility of the "benchmarks"
proposed in the Commission's Communication and have stressed the
importance of clarity of definition, as well as the need for consistent
terminology which is understood by all.
We hope that the current Greek Presidency, on
behalf of the Council, will address these concerns in drafting
Council conclusions which will be tabled on 5 May. In particular,
there has been wide-spread acknowledgement among Member States
that any "benchmarks" agreed must not define national
targets, nor prescribe policy decisions to be taken by national
governments. However, action at national level would contribute
to the achievement of the "benchmarks" at EU level.
It has become clear in the course of negotiations
that, were the UK to oppose such "benchmarks", not only
would we be isolated at the Council but these benchmarks would
be agreed through alternative means, such as the adoption of a
Recommendation agreed by Qualified Majority Voting. For that reason
I hope to be in a position to be positive about the draft conclusions
on 5 May, providing that our key concerns are addressed. These
are:
— that any benchmarks should be at
EU level and should not define national targets nor policy decisions
to be taken by national governments;
— that the "benchmarks" proposed
are clearly defined, technically feasible and based on comparable
data; and
— that the "benchmarks" proposed
are consistent with the Lisbon agenda.
10 April 2003
| 
