Official Report 494KB pdf
We move on to agenda item 3. When we were in Brussels last week, the Scotland Europa people were keen to get our views on how we use the “Brussels Bulletin”. We explained that we find it very valuable.
Do members have comments or questions?
I note the Commission’s advice that more British students should take up more foreign languages at school. We have our one-plus-two programme in primary schools and the Scottish Government is taking steps to ensure that university departments are required to justify any cuts to languages provision. However, the fact is that too few Scottish and, indeed, UK students are confident in foreign languages and that bars them from applying to study on degree courses abroad.
One suggestion is that we send our one-plus-two inquiry report to the Commission for its attention. That would inform the process.
I note that the comment was about British students. We have the model in Scotland, but in the British context only a small percentage of students are involved. At the moment the model is used only in Scotland, but I hope that there will be a successful roll-out in Scotland and that the programme will become a benchmark.
I agree that it is important that we work with the British Council to encourage more use of its Erasmus and Comenius projects and more interworking. The statistics show that Scotland and Britain as a whole are underperforming on such engagement.
I have a similar point. We are trying to establish something in Scotland and we need figures that cover what Scotland is doing. Brussels needs to know that this is a Scottish dimension rather than a British one. It might wish to compare like with like, and that is fine, but this area is different, if I can use that phraseology.
I am keen on the idea of twinning schools, which has come up on a number of occasions. It is a valuable idea, but I am not sure where we are with it. We have had a lot of discussions about twinning our schools with our European neighbours, but I do not know whether we have actually done any of that since the programme started.
My other comment is on the work with people with special needs. I am not sure whether we have physically done anything about that. It has been brought to our attention and we have discussed it, but what have we actually done about it?
If someone could come back to us with that information, that would be helpful. If we have not done anything yet, that is fine. My comments are not meant as a criticism. I am just trying to establish a benchmark and say that the ideas have been brought to our attention, that we learned that there are opportunities, and that we need to take them to the next stages. We need to ask how the projects can be rolled out, who is doing them and how their success is monitored. We feel that they will be successful, but we need to prove that.
I would be grateful if somebody from the British Council or the education department could come back to us with a report on what has been rolled out since we launched the programme—not what was done prior to that but what has been done since then—and how successful or unsuccessful it has been. If it has been unsuccessful, we need to know what the challenges are, so that we can offer support to overcome them.
Is the committee minded to write to the British Council asking for an update?
Members indicated agreement.
The Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland’s Languages spoke about that issue in Parliament and noted that it would be a long-term roll-out and many years before we can establish how successful the programme has been in our schools. He was very much looking to the long term for the success criteria.
We need to do something for that to start happening.
I want to offer a comment on the open education section, on page 4, which talks about the initiative to provide open-systems architecture for learning, teaching and training in computer systems, to enable skills, materials and resources to be shared in one’s own language throughout the European Union. There is one comment that is a wee bit worrying, about us “losing the lead” in the process of global change. I do not know who we are losing the lead to—perhaps to America or to Asia—but it is connected with the message that was discussed earlier about investment in infrastructure.
Those systems are successful, but they do depend on decent and fast access to online materials, wherever they may be stored. For the European Union to be concentrating on that is good and welcome, but perhaps some countries are taking their eye off the ball in terms of investment in infrastructure, which we have been hearing for several months will take a major hit. That will affect quite a number of countries in Europe, and Scotland is ahead of the game compared with some of our European colleagues, but when you read something encouraging like that, you must always be mindful that behind the initiative is the problem of delivering it on the ground, particularly to rural schools throughout Europe. Despite the effort and the desire to participate in open-systems architecture, it will be difficult for some countries to achieve that. I do not know how we can keep a watching brief on something like that, but I am certainly interested in seeing how it develops.
We can ask for more information.
It would be interesting to inquire of the Scottish Government what its input to date has been on the new forest strategy presented by the European Commission.
European elections are to take place in 2014. My concern is that we have forces within the United Kingdom that seem to be focused on getting the UK out of EU membership, rather than being productive and proactive in their thinking. There has not been much national public comment about how leading figures from the UK could be nominated as president of the European Union, which is one of the most important positions to be had in Europe. If we want to change the direction of Europe, the thing to do is to be in there arguing the cause, not on the outside. I am pleased to see that that is noted in the bulletin, but I think that we ourselves have a bigger job to do in helping to get out there in the public eye the notion that, although next year is important for the referendum, no matter what side of the argument you are on it is also important that we have the same public discussions about the European elections.
Helen Eadie is absolutely right. That is one of the topics that I wanted to pick up on, and it leads into the next topic. I have made a bid for the Parliament day next March to be about Europe, so we can see how to work on that. The bid has been submitted and no decision has been made on it yet, but I hope that we can make it as robust as possible, because the timing is perfect.
Another element that worries me is something that Helen Eadie touched on slightly when she mentioned negative elements in the European election process. In Greece and in some other countries, we have seen the rise of far-right Golden Dawn-type organisations that are not only causing social unrest, but targeting individuals for assassination. When we see countries in such serious trouble, we have to ask what the rest of Europe can do to support those countries, and I do not mean financial support. I am talking about how we build the social fabric and build in support that allows us to point out that that behaviour is not appropriate and that we should be pulling together and not targeting individuals. Some of that activity has become extremely racist, because it is easy to blame minorities for social or economic upheaval.
It all ties in to the same thing and it worries me that, during the European elections, that agenda could get pushed to the forefront by some individuals and high-profile people who we expect would do that. We must ask how we can counter that here, and how we can support people in Greece, Portugal and other countries that are experiencing serious issues.
As Helen Eadie said, it is important that people are made aware of the European elections. One reason why the turnout is so low is that the average person does not really know what their MEP does for them, should be doing for them or can do for them. There should be more awareness among people all over Scotland of what the MEP is there for and what he can do, what good he can bring, and so on.
Or she.
Or she, of course. I beg your pardon. She could do it much better, probably.
There appears to be no programme of awareness. There is awareness of the European Parliament and all that, but no awareness of what the individual MEP should be doing or can do for his constituents. There would be a greater turnout if that was the case. How you do it, I do not know.
That is a very good point.
It would help if the media in the UK were not so absolutely hostile to Europe. Anti-European rhetoric is all that you read day in, day out, and it is time that members, supporters, politicians and other people spoke up for Europe and talked up the positive things that happen in a European context. We see it coming to our table every day, so it is a challenge for us as well, but it would help if the media would lay off Europe a wee bit and begin to promote some of the positive work that goes on in the union and reach out to the public and explain that.
I hope that the ranks and legions of journalists who obviously tune in to our committee every time we sit have heard you, Mr Coffey. I really hope so.
Are members content to pass the “Brussels Bulletin” on to the relevant committees? There are a few issues that they will want to know about. We have also taken some decisions on writing to the Commission, to the British Council and to the Scottish Government. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
10:28 Meeting suspended.