European Union Funding
The next agenda item is a discussion on European funding for education, training and youth—the Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and Youth programmes. Nicol Stephen, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, will give us a briefing on the Council of Ministers meeting.
The new programmes were launched at the informal Council of Ministers meeting in Lisbon last month. This is our first opportunity to hear from the minister about the Scottish Executive's contribution to that process and about the contact that it has had with other European institutions. We firmly believe that we should have the opportunity to hear from ministers about what they are doing in this area on our behalf.
I welcome Nicol Stephen, who makes his first appearance before the committee. I hope that it will not be the last. Programmes such as Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and Youth are often overlooked, yet from experience we know that they make a significant contribution to local projects and that they have been used imaginatively by organisations throughout Scotland.
It is a great pleasure to be here. This is my first full appearance before a committee of the Scottish Parliament; I have sat beside Henry McLeish at other committee meetings. Yesterday, I made my first appearance as a minister before the House of Commons Education and Employment Committee, so it will be interesting to compare and contrast the two experiences.
I have been asked to prepare some introductory remarks, but I hope that there will be a reasonable time for questions. I am grateful for the invitation to the committee. It is important that Scottish Executive ministers, and others, participate in European meetings and events. The Lisbon visit had two elements: the first was the conference to launch the Community programmes Socrates II, Leonardo da Vinci II, and Youth; the second was a meeting of the European education ministers in preparation for the heads of state summit, which happened a few days after the visit.
I took part in discussions on the impact of the programmes on the promotion of lifelong learning and on the strengthening of employment in the EU. I was joined in the UK delegation by Baroness Blackstone, who is Minister of State at the Department for Education and Employment. It was an honour for me to represent the Scottish Executive on my first visit of this type to Europe.
It was encouraging that a number of other delegations understood what is happening with devolution in the UK. I was interested by the contrast between my presence as a Scottish minister in the UK delegation and the attendance at the conference of a large number of delegates from countries that want to become members states, such as Estonia, Latvia and Hungary—there was a very large gathering around the EU table. We had a good opportunity to discuss the wider issue of lifelong learning. Very little time was spent in the workshops discussing the programmes; longer was spent on lifelong learning and the issues that were going to be addressed at the heads of state summit.
First, I will talk about the launch of the three programmes. The Scottish Executive has been much involved in the launch of the three major European Union programmes in the next phase of their funding, which will stretch until the end of 2006. Sam Galbraith spoke at the UK launch of Socrates, in Birmingham on 20 March, which was the Monday after the event in Lisbon that I attended. There will be a Scottish information day on Socrates in Edinburgh on 15 June. The Leonardo da Vinci programme in Scotland was launched at information days on 8 February and 24 February, and surgeries for prospective project leaders were held on 6 March. The Youth programme will be launched at several meetings throughout the UK this year. In Scotland it has been agreed that the launch of Youth will take place in Edinburgh in September and will be attended by representatives of community education and youth groups from all over Scotland. The details of ministerial attendance at that meeting and so on have still to be agreed.
All the programmes run for seven years. Over the next seven years—from 2000 to the end of 2006 inclusive—the three programmes will continue to be promoted by the bodies that are contracted to manage them. For example, the main body responsible for Youth is the Youth Exchange Centre, which is part of the British Council. For Socrates and for significant elements of Leonardo da Vinci, the body responsible is the Central Bureau for International Education and Training, which is also part of the British Council. Those bodies will send publications to institutions and organisations throughout Scotland. There will be local contact and, probably on an annual basis, local events to highlight the programmes and some of our success stories. That will help with any difficulties in developing or promoting the programmes.
Through the normal means of communication, and now through the internet, those bodies will be in regular contact with the practitioners who are involved in delivering on the ground, to alert them to deadlines and other developments. A lot of administration is involved in these programmes and all countries accept that it would be good to lessen the administration and make it easier to access the programmes.
The bodies I have mentioned will be supported by Eurodesk and Scotland Europa, which offer a very effective alerting service to help users in Scotland to get the most out of these opportunities. Funding is important. Members will get a sense of the importance to Scotland of the programmes when I tell them that, in the past five years, Scotland's share of the overall United Kingdom funding has tended to be somewhat above the expected 9 or 10 per cent. The figure has to risen to 15 per cent in one year for Youth. I have more information on funding that we may discuss during questions.
The impact of the programmes has been significant. The energy with which schoolchildren, in particular, enter into partnership with others across Europe has been evident. Socrates has been especially successful, as has Youth. We in the Executive regard that as important groundwork for young people's awareness of external events and of Scotland and the UK's place in Europe. The programmes are a good and effective means of promoting both the idea of European citizenship and an understanding of other European cultures and values.
For people in training and for adults, it is fair to say that things have been slower. It has been more difficult for the programmes to achieve their full potential. However, opportunities for placements and work experience have been invaluable. At the UK launch of Socrates, two Erasmus students spoke of the programme in glowing terms and said how much their experience abroad had helped them to mature personally as well as to gain new skills, especially language skills. Language skills were spoken about often at the Lisbon conference. The Spanish and Italian representatives were less than happy that there were, in their view, inadequate translation facilities. The main languages were German, English and French, so they lodged a formal protest, which was interesting.
The new Socrates will extend opportunities to older learners and will encourage true lifelong learning and a sharing of experience among people already in work. Leonardo da Vinci II will do the same. Youth will extend its European voluntary scheme to the disadvantaged and the unemployed, which should offer exciting openings to young people to broaden their personal and professional horizons.
We consider the impact of the programmes to have been very positive at an individual and a national level. However, streamlining remains an important issue.
The new programmes offer Scotland an opportunity to make itself known across Europe and beyond, and to share its expertise with others while learning from them. We want to encourage greater participation in the projects. The funds are likely to have to be spread across more member states, so maintaining the levels of funding will be a challenge for us.
The three programmes were not discussed in huge detail at the conference. There were six introductory speeches to launch the programmes. They were from the Deputy Minister to the Prime Minister of Portugal; the Minister of Education of Portugal; the Minister of Labour and Welfare of Portugal; Viviane Reding, the EU education and culture commissioner; the Vice-President of the European Parliament, on behalf of the President of the European Parliament; and the President of the Republic of Portugal.
We then went into workshops, which focused on lifelong learning. There was consensus on the importance of lifelong learning and the availability of learning opportunities for all if we are to boost the competitiveness of Europe and promote social inclusion. There were different balances in the importance different member states attached to education and learning in its own right and the importance of education and learning in economic and competitive terms.
The working group that I attended, which was the main one out of five, focused on the future of lifelong learning. The Swedish representative spent a lot of time talking about nursery education and emphasised the importance of lifelong learning starting at age three or four, whereas our enterprise and lifelong learning department tends to emphasise lifelong learning starting at age 16 and the importance of lifelong learning in the economic or enterprise context.
Finland stressed the importance of employers investing in staff development and considered it essential to promote the recognition of qualifications across Europe. Transparency and transferability were two key words—transparency meaning that you should understand the qualifications in other member states and transferability taking that a stage forward and meaning that you would then be able to use those qualifications in whatever member state you wished to work in. At the moment, we do not even have transferability throughout the UK—far less throughout Europe—although we are working on it.
The Netherlands had provided fiscal incentives for learning along the lines of the individual learning accounts that we are developing here. Spain pointed out the importance of recognising competence gained at work, as we do here through Scottish vocational qualifications. France pointed out that teaching adults in formal classes might be more appropriate for initial training but was not convenient for those working in small businesses or in remote or rural areas or for women with family constraints, so steps had to be taken to address that matter.
I made my first speech at one of these events addressing the first of a series of questions the workshop was asked to consider. I focused my comments on the first question, but realised that that was a mistake because what seems to happen at these conferences is that they go round the table and everyone gets the chance to speak once. You must therefore seize your opportunity, as you will not get another one; that was a lesson for me.
I explained Scotland's involvement at the meeting and gave some background about the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. I described the enterprise and lifelong learning department and said that, as far as we are aware, it is unique in Europe as it brings together enterprise and the post-16 element of lifelong learning, including university and college education as well as all other aspects of lifelong learning. I spoke about the importance of the new Scottish university for industry and drew comparisons with some of the comments that had been made by other delegations.
I mentioned taking learning from traditional institutions and making it available in deprived areas, shopping centres, learning centres in football stadiums and learning houses in deprived housing estates. It is important for small businesses to access learning at the right place, at the right time, at the right cost and in a much more flexible way. It is interesting that Germany is considering a similar initiative as part of its alliance for work, education and training programme.
I also explained our target of 100,000 individual learning accounts by 2002 and that the Government would contribute £150 towards learning costs if the learner contributed £25. I was encouraged by other countries' interest in that and by the fact that some countries had similar initiatives. In my closing comments, I will say more about the new qualifications framework that we are developing with the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals, the Scottish Qualifications Authority and the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
On Saturday morning, EU education ministers met to agree the wording of a four-page presidency note which Portugal was trying to steer through. The meeting's format was similar to that of the workshop: every nation has one bite at the cherry and people who do not get their points across might not get another chance to do so. Baroness Blackstone spoke for the UK; I sat alongside her. The issue was the extent to which Europe should impose a core approach on these issues and its right to be involved in doing so. Some people were keen for Europe to become more involved; others argued that although some general principles could be agreed, the EU must not be too interventionist. There was broad consensus on the importance of education, training and lifelong learning. Interestingly, the discussion did not touch on the internet and e-commerce; those aspects were inserted into the document when it progressed to the heads of state summit the following week.
At the meeting of education ministers, the Portuguese presidency highlighted a range of key issues, including the importance of education and training to employment and the need for EU education ministers to be involved in the Luxembourg process; improving access to lifelong learning; the possible establishment of a framework of basic skills; and the need to recognise the validity of certification across Europe. On that last point, the Scottish credit and qualifications framework will set out the relationships between all Scottish qualifications and help learners to transfer relevant credits from one qualification to another. We will want to encourage mutual recognition by linking the Scottish framework to similar frameworks being developed in other countries.
There was broad overall consensus. It was agreed that education ministers should participate in the Luxembourg process, by which each member state produces annual employment action plans. At the moment, we are liaising with the Department for Education and Employment on the 2000 action plan.
The Commission acknowledged that convergence, not unification, should be the aim. Lifelong learning should not be implemented though European directives and initiatives are best developed nationally or regionally. However, there is much to be gained by sharing best practice in widening access, accrediting qualifications and developing core skills. The Commission undertook to publish by the end of the year a memorandum that would outline what is happening in each member state and to suggest proposals to assist lifelong learning.
It is important for Scotland to be present at as many EU conferences as possible; it is very interesting to see how these issues are discussed and to read the documents that are produced. I was pleased to hear that every other member state felt that some of the document's wording and complexity left something to be desired. It can be pretty tough going to understand some of the documents in the language in which they were produced; the committee can imagine how such documents end up by the time they are translated into Estonian, Hungarian or the language of other prospective member states. Understanding those documents was as much a challenge for me as for others who attended; no doubt, with Scotland's participation, that situation might improve over time.
Thank you, minister. Your comments suggest that the Council of Ministers meeting in Lisbon was a success—for some of us, the words "Lisbon" and "success" have a very nostalgic resonance. Your report was comprehensive and will have stimulated the committee's interest. As I was listening to you, one thing that struck me was that it would be useful for the committee to have some contact with you as these European initiatives are launched. Perhaps we should examine how the committee can promote better understanding and awareness of these and other initiatives.
I greatly welcome the extension of this initiative. I am pleased that there has been a high take-up of the Comenius strand of the Socrates programme in North Ayrshire because the benefits extend beyond the learning experience by providing greater opportunities for otherwise socially disadvantaged children. These experiences have partly encouraged my area to participate in the partners in excellence modern language initiative, which combines modern language teaching with IT. I hope that such good practice can be developed and shared throughout Scotland.
As for the minister's comments, I welcome the simplification of procedures. My area has been very fortunate in having many applications approved; however, I recognise that there is a knack to accessing such funding and that the process is much easier after the first couple of times. I hope that the simplification of procedures will encourage other areas in Scotland to apply for that funding.
Will the minister comment on whether, as the result of his discussions in Lisbon, the Scottish Executive has any plans—either on its own or with the committee—to promote the European year of languages next year? The minister said that the Youth programme will be launched in September. I understood that there were difficulties with agreeing the final budget figure for the programme; the Socrates project had caused problems between the Scottish Parliament and the British Council that have now been sorted out with conciliation. Can he update us on the Youth programme?
First, I apologise for not introducing David Stewart, head of the opportunities for learning division in the Scottish Executive enterprise and lifelong learning department, and Hope Johnston, head of the international relations branch of the Scottish Executive education department.
David Stewart accompanied me to the conference, but Hope Johnstone is also involved in EU initiatives and takes the lead role; I shall ask her to answer the two specific points that were raised. You asked about the involvement of the committee. We would welcome that; Hope Johnston and other officials would be involved in liaison on those issues. A closer relationship would be welcomed by everyone.
Before I bring in Hope Johnston, I should point out that the education ministers talked at their meeting about five basic skills—languages, information technologies, technological culture, entrepreneurship and social skills. Some of the delegations tried to draw a distinction between the basic skills of literacy and numeracy and what they called key skills—softer modern skills in IT or languages. Deciding what was a basic skill and what was a key skill, and whether there should be a distinction between them, made for an interesting discussion.
In our approach to standard grades and higher still, we consider core skills to be communication, numeracy, IT, solving problems and working with others. Languages come within communication. Whether languages have a sufficiently high profile is something that we could discuss, but we would probably be straying outside our area of competence. However, we all recognise that languages will play an increasingly important role.
On such occasions, one has the constant embarrassment of realising that English is becoming the dominant language, especially—much to the disappointment of France and Germany—among the new countries that hope to join the EU. Representatives from those countries were speaking in English to one another as well as to UK representatives. I have no doubt that, if we want to trade successfully with other EU countries, we would be quite wrong to rest on our laurels. There is no doubt that businesses prefer to do business in their first language. That is an important lesson for our businesses to learn.
Mrs Hope Johnston (Scottish Executive Education Department):
I am glad that you asked about the European year of languages 2001. The formal recommendation for that year is still under discussion, and I regularly attend an education committee in Brussels that is considering the recommendation. We had thought that it would be completed and easily agreed, but the European Parliament, unfortunately, came back with more than 100 amendments; that has delayed the process considerably. We are still grinding through to get to the final agreement.
The amount of funding for each member state will not be great. There is a plan for the UK to hold one major national conference, which will be held in Scotland—in Stirling, I understand. It is hoped that there will also be enough money for smaller events, which will be funded on a voluntary basis. People will put forward proposals to undertake such activities.
The whole year is being masterminded by the Scottish Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research, and by its English counterpart, the London-based Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research. The Scottish Executive is in close correspondence with those bodies on arrangements. In the meantime, however, we are awaiting final agreement of the recommendation, which will go to the Council of Ministers, all going well, on 8 June when the council meets formally.
The Council of Europe has decided that 2001 should be the year of languages, so it is going ahead and pushing things forward. Its remit is wider than that of the EU, and the EU and the Council of Europe have agreed to work together on this initiative, so watch this space.
The Youth programme was very problematic indeed. There was considerable difficulty in reaching agreement on the final funding. The final figure ended up at €420 million, which was rather more than many member states wanted to give it, but considerably less than the Parliament wanted to give it. Again, there had to be a process of consensus after negotiation.
I agree that the launch in Scotland is rather late. That is partly because summer intervened—Europe closes down for the month of August—and because the Scottish event will be quite ambitious. It will involve young people from six other EU countries coming together for a three-day event. The logistics of that meant that more time was needed to arrange it. The event will take place in September, and it should be very interesting.
It was nice to hear the minister's reflections on his trip to Lisbon. It was obviously quite an event. It was also nice to hear about the different ways in which lifelong learning is treated in different countries. Some treat it from cradle to grave; we seem to treat it from puberty to pension.
Programmes such as Socrates, Leonardo, Youth and Tempus III are hugely important, and it was good to hear about the minister's discussions of those programmes. Lisbon was obviously a good show and a big public relations event, but I would like to talk about how the Executive has dealt with some of those issues. We are often told by people who are involved in Europe that we need to get in there early to influence issues. There have been some disagreements about funding, as we heard from Hope Johnston. How did the Executive ensure that Scotland's specific requirements from those programmes were reflected in the end results?
You mentioned the British Council and the management of those funds. I am not sure whether it is within the remit of the European Committee to discuss with the British Council how those funds are expended. If it is within our remit, perhaps we should do that at some stage. Should not the Scottish Executive ensure that those funds are managed here in Scotland? I would like you to reflect on that.
I would also like to hear about the Luxembourg process, which you mentioned in passing as a follow-up event for EU ministers who are involved in education. What role will the Executive play in that?
I shall ask Hope Johnston to answer your question about Scotland's specific requirements and the relationship with the British Council. There will be Scottish representation on one of the new programmes, where there was previously no access to local British Council staff in Scotland.
It is important to let members know the scale and importance of the funding that is coming into Scotland for those projects. In 1998, for example, Erasmus placements in Europe, under Socrates I, were worth £1.29 million, and overall Leonardo I funding was £1.13 million. In 1999, there were placements and exchanges under Socrates I of £231,000, and, under Comenius, total funds were £260,000 for multi-lateral school partnerships. For in-service training, also under Comenius, the sum was £26,000. For Lingua, under Socrates, it was £211,000; for Arion, also under Socrates, it was £10,000. There are many different initiatives, which have been difficult to keep track of. We want to keep better track of what is going on and ensure that our funding matches our expectations over the next seven years.
We hope that funding will be about £1.5 million per year under Socrates, about £1 million under Leonardo and just under £500,000 under Youth. The key is to be able to access the programmes and to leverage the EU funding into Scotland. That is the challenge.
I ask Hope Johnston to speak about some of the organisational elements.
Perhaps we could discuss representation. I should stress that Scotland is part of the UK, and of the UK delegation. On behalf of the Scottish Executive, I regularly attend the meetings of the education committee to the Council of Ministers, which meets in Brussels roughly every month. I am a regular member of the UK delegation on that committee, and speak on behalf of the UK, not just on behalf of Scotland.
Of course, I put Scotland's case very firmly to our DFEE colleagues when we are agreeing a negotiating line. There is a continuing, constant input of Scotland's interests at the policy level. At the UK level, there is a UK management or steering committee for each of the three programmes. On behalf of the Scottish Executive, I speak for Scotland's interests on those committees.
Our links with the DFEE are constant and we exchange detailed information in both directions. We keep ourselves well informed of each other's policy positions.
The central bureau for educational visits and exchanges is officially part of the British Council, but acts almost as an independent unit. It had its own status for many years and only recently became part of, or brigaded in with, the British Council. It acts, however, very much in its own right. The central bureau office in Edinburgh is funded directly by the Scottish Executive, so we have management control over its activities. We exercise that control fairly closely.
The British Council aspect is not immediately relevant to the management of the various programmes. The Scottish Executive has two places on the British Council's Scottish committee, so we also have input at British Council level.
I will ask David Stewart to say a few words about the Luxembourg process.
I was looking for a political answer, convener. I understand Hope Johnston's position, and I fully appreciate the information that we have been given. We are dealing with contact at an official level, but the issues that I raised were in the political arena.
We can hear briefly from the minister's colleague, and then have a brief comment from the minister, but I really need to push on. A number of members want to contribute and we are starting to struggle for time.
David Stewart (Scottish Executive Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Department):
Under the Luxembourg process, each member state produces an annual employment action plan; the agreement at Lisbon was that those plans should also incorporate material on lifelong learning. The plan is for the UK as a whole, in which Scotland plays a key part in agreeing the process.
The plan covers four main areas: improving employability, developing entrepreneurship, encouraging adaptability in businesses and strengthening policies for equal opportunities. After the Lisbon agreement, lifelong learning issues will form a key part of the next round of the planning process.
As far as Scotland's specific requirements are concerned, we want to promote the programmes and maximise their take-up. The programmes have been simplified, but remain complex. For example, Socrates still involves Comenius, Erasmus, Grundtvig, Lingua, Minerva—the list goes on. To maximise take-up, people need a better understanding of the programmes, which must be better promoted.
We must encourage involvement. Perhaps that could include regular reporting back to the European Committee so that members are aware of progress, of the number of projects that are taking place in Scotland, and of the funding that is flowing into Scotland. I have a list with me, which I would be happy to make available to the committee, of a cross-section of the projects that are under way in Scotland; such a list brings the whole subject to life. Irene Oldfather is well aware of a number of the programmes; I am sure that other MSPs are too.
It is important to get a Scottish overview, and to track more closely the level of funding. When I asked a simple question about the total level of funding over the past years, it was difficult to get hold of the information. I am sure that, over the next seven years, the committee will want much more regular, accurate information about how the programmes are progressing.
During the committee's visit to Brussels last week, I heard some comment about the lack of emphasis or priority in the Scottish education system on the learning of other languages. All too often, we seem to take it for granted that other people will speak English. It is important, for social and cultural reasons, that we at least make an effort to speak other people's languages, and the minister mentioned the importance of that for economic or trading reasons. Does the Scottish Executive have a co-ordinated strategy for promoting the learning of foreign languages?
Part of the problem has been the rather elitist attitude—on the part of some people in the Scottish education establishment—that someone has to be a magnificent brainbox to speak another language. What is the Executive's strategy to promote not just learning, but lifelong learning, of other languages? Socrates, Leonardo and Youth are important, I dare say, but even collectively, they probably touch only a minority of people in Scotland.
The promotion of foreign languages requires radical action at school level. The Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill, which is going through the Parliament, aims to raise standards in education. I am aware that that is not your responsibility, minister, but might not the fact that the lifelong learning of language is split between two ministries be a problem? The Minister for Children and Education is responsible for school education, while you and Henry McLeish are responsible for post-school education. How can you overcome those difficulties and give a greater priority to language learning in the Scottish education system?
The starting point to answering that is to recognise and admit that there is a problem. We all recognise that we need to do more, and that the number of people participating in learning modern languages is not high enough. The level of attainment needs to be improved.
Initiatives are taking place, and more is being done to encourage the learning of languages at primary school level. There are now five different levels of attainment in languages at higher still level. A great deal has been done over recent years to try to improve the quality of language training and qualifications. However, the statistics that we have all seen still concern us. It is not the only area of the education system where we must increase involvement and improve standards, but it is a very important one because of its implications for our future trading and other relationships within and outside the EU.
Dennis Canavan mentioned the split between the education department and the enterprise and lifelong learning department, and in that area there is joint ministerial responsibility between Sam Galbraith and Henry McLeish. However, I think that the opposite of what Dennis suggests will occur and that because we are able to consider the significance of languages in the context of employment, skills and training, we can discuss the issues with the education department and place greater focus on them than ever before.
The same applies in other areas, such as some of the training and new deal initiatives. We are able to highlight problems among young people aged between 16 and 19 and to try to address them with our ministerial colleagues and civil servants in the education department, as part of a cross-cutting approach. The link between lifelong learning and enterprise is crucial. As they have been brought together in a new department, many issues of the sort that we have been discussing are being put on the agenda and brought to the attention of the education department. I believe that that will be healthy and will benefit Scotland. Issues such as language skills will move higher up the agenda as a result of the creation of the enterprise and lifelong learning department.
As members will have noticed, the convener has had to leave the meeting to deal with an urgent phone call. I have been asked to stand in for him for the next few minutes. I know that several members would still like to ask questions, but because we are running short of time, I make a plea for short questions and short answers. Members will have the opportunity to get more information in writing.
I will be very quick, because a great deal of what I wanted to ask about has been covered. I notice that the European year of languages is designed also to draw attention to lesser-used languages, and I would like to know how Gaelic fits into that. I would also like to talk about Gaelic-medium playgroups and nursery education, which are very good at promoting language skills. Like the Swedes, could we not also consider French-medium or Italian-medium nursery education, to give kids a start?
I would also like to ask about the Youth programme. Has any thought been given to involving the Scottish Youth Parliament, which is very enthusiastic? I have met several members of the Youth Parliament, both school pupils and youngsters who are at work, all of whom were 17 or 18 years of age. They would be very keen to get involved in such a programme.
Gaelic was not discussed at the meeting, but what the Swedish delegation was talking about—introducing languages at an ever-earlier stage—is a thought that I would like to pass on to colleagues in the education department, whose area of responsibility this is. We can give members more information on initiatives that are being taken in that area.
If the Scottish Youth Parliament would like to forge links with other EU countries, all of us would encourage that. The schemes that we have been discussing would be an ideal way of providing funding for those links. That is another excellent idea that I will mention to people who are involved in the organisation of the Scottish Youth Parliament.
You talked about supporting unemployed and disadvantaged young people. I cannot remember whether that was in the general context of lifelong learning or in the context of the specific programmes that we have been discussing. There still seems to be a desperate need for learning centres in some of our most disadvantaged communities, to enable young people who are dissatisfied with normal education to renew their links with education and then move into further or higher education. Do any of the programmes assist that type of development?
Hope Johnston is nodding, so I will ask her to answer that question.
I do not want to go into details, but the brief answer is yes. Both Leonardo and Youth are aimed at disadvantaged and unemployed young people.
I have two brief questions. First, how do the issues that we have talked about today generally—rather than the specific programmes—fit in with the activities of the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and the Scottish Further Education Funding Council? If my understanding is correct, they do not take a strategic view of people leaving further and higher education as currently structured with either language or IT skills. That might be a misunderstanding of how the councils currently operate, but it seems to me that someone should be taking a strategic view on the number of people who are leaving education with those skills, in addition to their substantive qualifications.
Secondly, will Scotland be represented, as part of the UK delegation, at the ministerial conference on knowledge and information society that will take place in Lisbon this weekend?
The answer to the second question is no. COSHEP is examining the role of languages within core skills. However, David Mundell makes a fair point, which links back to the point that Dennis Canavan was making—that we must take a more strategic look at the issue of languages and the full implications for lifelong learning. That means not only addressing it in the context of nursery education, but recognising that it is a key issue for further education colleges and universities.
The same applies to IT and the key issues that you identified earlier.
Exactly. There is some interest in the idea of a Europe-wide qualification in IT, so that basic skills mean the same thing in every EU country. That is very controversial, but many of the EU nations are interested in taking it forward, because of the importance of IT. Other nations resist it because it would mean the introduction of a core curriculum and a sort of superstate qualification.
I was pleased to see in the document that has been circulated the proposal to include people who are the most disadvantaged in our communities. However, I am concerned that people do not take up the programmes either because they do not know about them as they are difficult to access—as has been mentioned—or because the bureaucracy that is involved in dealing with the UK's benefits system can be very off-putting. That applies particularly to unemployed people or young people who are in education. Has any action been proposed to deal with that?
Are you talking about the fact that people's access to benefit can be affected if they go overseas?
Yes. They can find themselves further disadvantaged on their return or it can be very difficult to keep up their financial commitments while they are away.
Hope Johnston will address that point.
Cathy Jamieson has touched on a nerve. There is a recommendation on mobility that will be very wide ranging. It will cover not only students and young people, but trainees, trainers, teachers and so on. Currently, some of the stumbling blocks in the recommendation relate to the extent to which benefits can be transferred, carried with people or reinstated. That is an extremely complicated negotiation, and I think that it will take a long time.
I thank the minister and his officials for coming along. The number of questions indicates the level of interest in the issue. As I said earlier, I am sure that the committee will be interested in considering the next stage of development of the programmes and of the initiatives. We would welcome further information from you. I thank the minister for taking the time to come along—we hope to hear from you again in future.
Thank you for the invitation—I hope that the dialogue continues. We would be pleased, in due course, to give further briefings on the progress of those three important EU schemes.