Lifelong Learning Inquiry (Brussels Visit)
Item 5 is a report from the visit that Annabel Goldie, Duncan Hamilton and Elaine Thomson made to Brussels during the recess. Annabel Goldie will lead off with a verbal report—no doubt Elaine Thomson and Duncan Hamilton will supplement it. We will also get a written report.
While one or two committee members were sunning themselves in Lithuania and diverse other places, Elaine Thomson, Duncan Hamilton and I sojourned in Brussels.
As Alex Neil indicated, my oral report will be brief. The visit was interesting and raised more questions than it answered, so we have asked for a lot of supplementary information to be provided to us. That will form the basis of our written report.
Four meetings were scheduled. The first was not an auspicious omen. It was to be held in Rue Belliard 7, which we failed to find. In our highly dubious French, we failed to elicit any information from passers-by. Finally, after half an hour of searching for the building and despite noble attempts by Judith Evans, our clerk, to get more information, we had to abort the meeting. What we subsequently learned greatly reassured us.
Is that when you caused a crash, according to Duncan Hamilton?
That is another issue altogether.
We were enormously reassured to learn after subsequent inquiry that the building has no number and no name and that no one can find it to attend meetings. I tried not to allow the incident to jaundice my attitude to the European Union.
What we found out from subsequent meetings was helpful. Basically, we realised that what is happening in the EU and what we are doing in the Scottish Parliament do not dovetail. The European Parliament Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport Committee has part responsibility for lifelong learning, as does the Employment and Social Affairs Committee. We were therefore trying to interface with a rather dislocated pattern, but we did our best.
It emerged from our meeting with the European Commission that it has published a lifelong learning memorandum. The next stage is to publish an action plan. We await more information about that, but we were given the impression that the action plan might be a slightly vague wish list. I do not know how much of substance will come from it.
Someone then attempted to describe to us responsibility for policy development. At that point, we were collectively beaten—there seem to be four pillars, five policy priorities and six key issues, which do not necessarily link with each other or together. That is one area on which we are seeking further clarification.
More pertinently, I should add that there are different interpretations of lifelong learning in the European Parliament and the European Commission. That is an important issue in relation to our activity. The Employment and Social Affairs Committee seems to take a similar view to ours on what lifelong learning is, while the Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport Committee takes a cradle-to-grave view. The interface is not particularly neat.
On the matter of a coherent strategy, the employment and social affairs directorate-general, which administers the European structural funds, said that Scotland appeared to lack a coherent strategy for lifelong learning. That concerned us somewhat. Later on, however, the MEP we spoke to from the Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport Committee said that the UK has one of the five best lifelong learning strategies in the EU. There seems to be a slight communication difficulty there. We are seeking more information on that.
One positive thing, from which we drew some comfort, was the emphasis by Commission staff on the need for outcome measurement, for which they were seeking impact studies. An example of a measure that has been discussed is number of people still in learning X months after a publicly funded intervention, the intention being to show that the intervention had led to something.
The good news was that Scotland is a model for social inclusion; apparently it is regarded as one of the best in Europe. The Commission was impressed with work in Scotland in that regard and best practice in Scotland will be disseminated throughout Europe. That is a feather in the cap for what we are trying to achieve here.
Various other issues arose, such as gender, adult literacy and Europe-wide action on learning. To go back to the submission from NUS Scotland, work is going on to consider the transferability of qualifications throughout Europe. That seems to be inter-institutional, about which we had some concerns, because we did not see how that could operate without threatening the autonomy of institutions. We were also concerned about the practicalities of achieving the structure for transferability. When we questioned a committee member about that, we got the impression that sanctions to enforce it would be undesirable, although it was thought that discussions would result in a move towards sanctions. More information about that will no doubt be forthcoming—we certainly had one or two questions about it. It was suggested that it might be worth while for the Scottish Parliament to consider Germany and the nordic nations, which have some models of excellence in learning. Again, we need more information about that.
That is a brief synopsis of a full and interesting visit. I hope that, when we get the further information that we have asked for, we will be able to draw those threads together and present a substantive written report.
Do Elaine Thomson or Duncan Hamilton wish to add anything?
I was pleased to hear that Scotland is at the leading edge in tackling social exclusion—the Commission is interested in hearing more about that. It feels like we need a more coherent and strategic overall policy—that fits in with much of the evidence that is beginning to come in. On the development of some sort of comprehensive lifelong learning policy, it was suggested that we consider the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries and some of the German states as examples of places that have coherent policies.
Some interesting bits and pieces came out. For instance, we are increasingly aware that we have literacy problems—about 20 per cent of the population are thought to be functionally illiterate. We were told that, in England, people in that situation tend to be unemployed, whereas in Scotland, even someone whose literacy is not great may still be employed. I found that quite interesting.
It is sometimes difficult to keep in touch with the different organisations about what is going on at the EU level and what we are doing here. However, that contact is important, as those organisations provide the overall context for an awful lot of what is happening. One of the subjects under discussion is the development of a pan-European or pan-European Union qualifications framework. Although that is probably a good number of years off yet, it is the direction in which people want to go.
I should emphasise that it is not accurate to say that committee members simply went to Brussels to find out what the EU strategy was and then brought it back with them to see whether the committee could catch up with it. In fact, what happened was quite the reverse. Most of the time, people told us that, as education was a matter of domestic policy, the issue was not their responsibility and they had almost no input into it. The committee should take some strength from the fact that we were more or less given the green light on this issue.
I want to flag up a couple of points that will be included in the written report. A rapporteur to the Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport Committee produced a fairly damning report on the 1996 European year of lifelong learning. The report unpicked what the Commission had done to date and suggested what had been wrong with the project's focus and resource aspects. I found the report to be a useful starting point, as other committee members might do; if we know what the Commission has done wrong, we can perhaps avoid some of those mistakes.
It is worth reiterating that there is a difference between the criteria selected by the Commission—or the committee—and its priorities. We were not convinced that the criteria and the priorities were the same. Criteria are often selected on the basis of departmental responsibility instead of necessarily matching, for example, the top three overarching priorities. The bottom line is that, although there is a great deal going on in the Commission to note, we should not feel hampered in any way, shape or form. This is a question of not being driven by what is happening in Europe, but of learning from it.
Will information on European-wide university, college or professional qualifications be made available to the members who visited Brussels? We have some experience on this matter under the right of establishment. A body with which I am associated became tremendously upset and overheated at the notion that members of the Paris bar might be more willing to descend on the Scottish legal profession than to the bar in Newcastle or London. Aside from the fact that the market has a role to play in these matters, the right of establishment rules caused considerable excitement. As far as the committee and partnership working with the Government are concerned, it would be useful to get a handle on the matter. Are measures not going to be introduced until 2015 or so, or are they coming soon?
It is difficult to answer that question. As far as I understand it, the comments that were made to us solely concerned the provision of higher education in the European Union, which means that they were about institutions, not wider professional organisations or associations. I got the impression that the European Parliament committee had got its teeth into and proposed to progress the matter; however, it is difficult to speculate on the time scale.
Although it was not a scheduled event, the three of us sat in on the committee. What was it called again?
Education.
It had a big long title. I do not know whether Duncan Hamilton has fully recovered from the experience. The interpretation was delivered in such a flat monotone that, if the interpreter could be imported to this country, he would be a cheaper option than Mogadon for the national health service. I dialled up the Italian version, which was akin to listening to Verdi. It was full of colour, excitement and expression, but I could not understand a word that the man was saying.
The interpretation meant that our brief visit to the committee, although interesting, was perhaps not the most enjoyable experience that the three of us have ever endured. It seemed to me that the committee takes on a topic—such as the one that we have been discussing—and then worries away at it, keeping it on the agenda until it comes up with something. All we can do is track where the committee is going with that matter, by reference to the committee itself or to the exceedingly interesting committee member whom we met, Dr O'Toole.
I do not want this discussion to be prolonged, but I believe that Ken Macintosh has a question.
Further to Miss Goldie's point, I have not quite got the idea of what that committee does. If it is an education committee, is it starting from a school-based focus—for example, on the international baccalaureate—rather than from degree-level qualifications? If not, is it looking at lifelong learning qualifications?
I cannot remember the full name of the committee, but education is the least important aspect of its remit. It was made clear that education is a matter that is more for domestic consideration—the committee merely touches on the subject.
I have a supplementary question. Perhaps we will find out otherwise, but I doubt whether Mr Hamilton's point captures the notion. The European Union exists to ensure mutual recognition and the bringing down of barriers. There are real issues around this aspect of education. If a substantive piece of work is going on at European parliamentary committee level, I would like to see how it was scoped, who is having input into it and where it is going.
That is the purpose of the teleconference that we are scheduled to hold with members of that committee in January. Once we get the written report, we will know what further questions we want to ask. The teleconference will be not with the whole committee, which has about 59 members, but with representatives of the committee. We are also considering involving people from the Commission in that teleconference, as a follow-up to the Brussels visit.
Can I put in a request for the same interpreter? I want to hear his interpretation.
Some of the things that we asked to be sent to us can be distributed to the rest of the committee. Annabel Goldie might have mentioned this, but we were told that there was a memorandum on lifelong learning, which has been voted on. The European Parliament committee then received a response to that in the form of a communiqué from the European Commission. From that, national plans and targets are being developed, which are out to consultation with each member state—that was done in the UK this summer.
The consultation came to this committee.
Did it?
That was what I described today as a slightly vague wish list—which was a quote. That is how it was described to us. That is one of the things worth following up.
The consultation ought to contain some stuff about the common qualification framework throughout the European Union.
I think that we agree that we need the written report and the follow-up documentation. To add to the support that the clerks give us, we might ask—through the clerks—for one of the advisers to assist us with the key questions that we would like to ask in the teleconference in January.
I have a minor, general point about making the most of a trip such as our Brussels visit. We found that the trip was useful but that it is worth doing a fair amount of homework before one goes. I would have found it more useful to have had a clearer view of the relationships between different organisations and what their remit was. Members who are going on such trips should have a clear idea of their objectives and what they are trying to find out. Otherwise, one can spend so much time trying to understand what the different bits and pieces are, that by the time one gets to that stage one is running out of—
That is a good point. Can we agree that as a matter of course on any further visits we—through the clerks—organise some pre-visit research as part of the planning for the visit? I think that that is a good suggestion.
Members indicated agreement.
We should also have a map with "X marks the spot".
Okay. That was a useful discussion.
Before we leave the subject of the lifelong learning inquiry, let me mention that we now have formal approval for the budget for the lifelong learning convention, which will take place on Friday 1 March. We hope that every member of the committee will put that date in their diary, because it is important that committee members participate in that all-day event at the Edinburgh International Conference Centre.
Meeting adjourned until 11:43 and thereafter continued in private until 12:09.