Brussels, 28.8.2006
COM(2006) 467 final
2004/0153 (COD)
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT
pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty
concerning the
common position of the Council on the adoption of a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning
1. BACKGROUND
|
Date of transmission of the proposal to the EP and the
Council |
14 July 2004 |
|
Date of the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee: |
10 February 2005 |
|
Date of the opinion of the Committee of the Regions: |
23 February 2005 |
|
Date of the opinion of the European Parliament, first reading: |
25 October 2005 |
|
Date of the revised proposal of the Commission |
24 May 2006 |
|
Date of political agreement in Council: |
27 June 2006 |
|
Date of adoption of the common position: |
24 July 2006 |
2. OBJECTIVE OF THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL
2.1. Based
on Articles 149 and 150 of the Treaty, the proposal was to establish a new
integrated Lifelong Learning Programme 2007-2013, to replace the existing
Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci, eLearning, and related programmes, which expire at
the end of 2006.
2.2. The
Lifelong Learning Programme will comprise four specific programmes: Comenius,
for general education activities concerning schools up to and including upper
secondary level; Erasmus, for education and advanced training activities at
higher education level; Leonardo da Vinci, for all other aspects of vocational
education and training; and Grundtvig for adult education. In addition, the
proposal incorporates a “transversal” programme incorporating four key
activities, to cover the policy issues outlined above, and to make specific
provision for language learning and ICT-related activity where these fall
outside the specific programmes; and for a more substantial dissemination
activity; and a Jean Monnet programme to support action related to European
integration and European institutions and associations in education and
training.
2.3. The
proposal addresses important needs concerning the modernisation and adaptation
of Member State education and training systems, particularly in the context of
the strategic Lisbon goals, and brings European added value directly to
individual citizens participating in its mobility and other cooperation
actions.
3. COMMENTS ON THE COMMON POSITION
3.1 The
Council adopted the common position on 24 July 2006 by unanimity. The
Commission can endorse the text, as it can be considered an appropriate
compromise which is very largely based on the revised Commission proposal.
3.2 In
relation to the revised Commission proposal, two changes of substance have been
made in the common position, with the prior agreement of the Parliament:
a) reverting to the Commission’s original proposal for the administration of multilateral projects in the Comenius, Erasmus, Leonardo da Vinci and Grundtvig sub-programmes;
b) adding the International Centre for European Training (CIFE) in Nice to the list of institutions designated to be able to receive operating grants without the need for a call for proposals.
The first change simply restores the text from the Commission’s original proposal, so requires no comment. As regards the second change, the Commission stated in the Parliament’s plenary debate on 24 October that it would not oppose an agreement reached between the Parliament and the Council on the institutions to be designated under Article 37 of this Decision. The inclusion of CIFE is therefore accepted by the Commission.
3.3 The
Commission notes that the equivalent of the financial envelope of EUR 6,200
million in 2004 prices referred to in the common position (Article 14) is EUR
6,970 million in current prices.
4. CONCLUSION
4.1 The
Commission considers that the common position adopted by the Council on 24 July
2006 by unanimity is appropriate. It notes that the Chairman of the Committee
on Culture and Education of the European Parliament has indicated in a letter
to the Council Presidency that if the common position was adopted as such he
would recommend to the Committee to approve the common position in second
reading. The Commission can therefore support the common position which
reflects the agreement reached between the three institutions.