JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate -
Thursday, 10 Feb 2005

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

We are meeting representatives of Léargas, the Department of Education and Science and the Higher Education Authority to discuss EU proposals — COM (2004) 471 and COM (2004) 474. The proposals relate to a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council for the creation of the Youth in Action programme for the period 2007-13 and the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an integrated action programme in the field of lifelong learning.

On behalf of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Science I welcome the witnesses here this afternoon. From Léargas we have Mr. Jim Mullin, executive director, and his colleagues, Mr. Pat Halley, Ms Emer Malone, Mr. Des Burke and Ms Fionnuala Broughan. From the Department of Education and Science we have Mr. PJ Breen and Mr. Seán Harkin, principal officers, and their colleagues, Ms Anne Murray and Mr. John Dolan. From the HEA we have Ms Mary Kerr, deputy chief executive, and her colleague, Ms Louise Sherry. They are all most welcome to the committee.

I draw attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Before we begin the presentations I understand that Ms Kerr and Ms Sherry are anxious to be of assistance to the committee but will have to leave early as they have a prior engagement. They must get to Dublin Airport to catch a flight. I thank them for coming. They should feel free to leave when they need to go. I invite Mr. Mullin,Mr. Breen and Ms Murray to make theirpresentations.

Mr. Jim Mullin

I thank the Chairman for his kind invitation to speak here today and for the introductions. We have circulated a background briefing paper, which I will summarise in this brief presentation.

First, I will clarify our role as the national agency for these programmes. The European Commission asks national authorities — in Ireland these are the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment — to appoint national agencies to manage the Commission's programmes for education, training and non-formal education. In Ireland the national agencies are Léargas, the Higher Education Authority and the Department of Education and Science.

The three main programmes that Léargas is responsible for in Ireland are the COMENIUS, GRUNDTVIG and LINGUA actions of the SOCRATES programme and the YOUTH and LEONARDO DA VINCI programmes, which are co-funded by the Directorate General for Education and Culture, DGEAC, of the European Commission, and the Departments of Education and Science and Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Léargas also manages smaller bilateral programmes, primarily within and across the islands of Ireland and Britain. Our task is to promote the programmes and then to support applicants to access the funding available for their projects.

The Higher Education Authority is the national agency for the ERASMUS action of the SOCRATES programme in Ireland. The national agency is responsible for the distribution of funding for student, teacher and organisation of mobility grants to the higher education institutions under ERASMUS. The HEA also acts as the national agency for the Minerva action — open and distance learning — as a national contact point for the TEMPUS programme and as the national structure for ERASMUS MUNDUS. The Department of Education and Science is responsible for the management of the ARION programme and for the CEDEFOP study visits.

Léargas involvement in European programmes commenced in 1987 with the introduction of the EU's PETRA programme, which was concerned with initial vocational education and training. In the intervening years the Commission has developed a range of programme interventions to include the spheres of vocational education and training, formal education and youth mobility and non-formal learning. At each stage these programmes have undergone extensive evaluations which contributed to their further development.

The proposed programmes that we are discussing today represent the continuation of that process of further developing the programme tools to more effectively meet community needs and to assist in achieving our common goals in the field of formal, informal and non-formal education and training. Over the years, these programmes have brought many benefits to individuals, organisations and their communities. They have also had an impact on the development of policy and practice in each of their relevant areas. We have set out some of the benefits and outcomes in the briefing document and further examples are given in published reports.

I would like to set the context for the new round of programmes. As members will see on page 10 of the briefing document, education and training have been recognised as playing a key role in the stated aim of the Lisbon strategy to ensure that Europe becomes the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion.

Following on from the Lisbon agreement, the Education Council, in defining concrete objectives for education and training in Europe, identified three main goals which were then further sub-divided into 13 detailed objectives, each of which was included in the work programme adopted in 2002 by the Council and Commission and published at Education and Training 2010.

Currently the European Commission uses the YOUTH, SOCRATES and LEONARDO DA VINCI programmes to promote and enable the attainment of the Lisbon education and training objectives throughout the EU. The current phase of these programmes will come to a close at the end of 2006 in order to restructure the programmes for the next generation which will run from 2007-13.

The Commission has combined an evaluation of the current round of programmes with public consultation and input from national authorities and national agencies. Results of the mid-term evaluation of progress on the Lisbon strategy have also been taken into account. The aim of the next round of programmes is to more closely align them with the goals of key European education and training strategies and to more effectively enable the attainment of the aims of Lisbon and subsequent agreements.

Based on discussion and evaluation, it is proposed that the programme should be restructured. The non-formal education strand of the current programmes, the YOUTH programme, will remain separate from the more formal education and training programmes and will be retitled the Youth in Action programme. The SOCRATES and LEONARDO DA VINCI programmes have been integrated into one new programme of integrated lifelong learning which covers pre-school, primary, post-primary, tertiary, adult and continuing education and training.

The aim of the next round of programmes is to more closely align them with the goals of key European education and training strategies and to more effectively enable the attainment of the aims of Lisbon and subsequent agreements. Four sub-programmes form the main pillars of the restructured programme, as shown in the figure on page 11 of the briefing document. These pillars are COMENIUS, pertaining to school education; ERASMUS, pertaining to higher education and advanced training; LEONARDO DA VINCI, pertaining to initial and continuing vocational education and training; and GRUNDTVIG, pertaining to adult education. There are two horizontal programmes. The first of these is the TRANSVERSAL programme, which provides for policy development, language learning, the use of ICT in education and training and the dissemination of outcomes of the programmes. The second is the JEAN MONNET programme, which focuses on European integration research and studies.

I will briefly outline the proposals pertaining to the Youth in Action programme and the Integrated Programme for Lifelong Learning, starting with the Youth in Action programme. This programme has five main objectives, including active citizenship — providing ways for young people to experience European citizenship at European, national and local levels; solidarity between young people — supporting solidarity among young people, thus strengthening social cohesion; mutual understanding — enabling young people to gain insight and understanding into each others' cultures and values; improving supports for young people — enabling youth organisations to better support the young people with whom they work; and European co-operation in youth policy — promoting dialogue with and between young people and facilitating co-operation between youth organisations.

Targets have been proposed informally for the Youth in Action programme but these have not yet been agreed. They include the implementation of 40,000 projects for young people in the seven-year period. It is also intended to have 10,000 European voluntary services volunteers per year and, within the life of the programme, to implement 5,000 projects on training, information and the exchange of good practice.

The Youth in Action programme is subdivided into the Youth for Europe exchanges, European voluntary service, Youth of the World, youth workers and support systems and support for policy co-operation reflecting the aforementioned programme objectives. These actions are further described in the briefing paper.

New features of the proposed Youth in Action programme include participative democracy projects; meetings of young people and those responsible for youth policies; widening of the overall age bands in the programme from the range of 15 to 25 to that of 13 to 30; and the potential for the expansion of the geographical focus of the programme. A budget of €915 million has been proposed for the period 2007-13, of which €34.4 million is allocated to the Commission for administering the programme. The €915 million compares to a budget of €630 million for the current youth programme, which includes increases on the original fund decided upon on foot of EU enlargement.

The new Integrated Programme for Lifelong Learning brings together the SOCRATES and LEONARDO DA VINCI programmes in a more cohesive integrated programme of education and training, with a focus on "cradle to grave" learning for all European citizens. Its primary aim is to contribute through learning to the development of the Community as an advanced knowledge society, with sustainable economic development, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. The objectives, which are set out in detail in the briefing paper, include personal, economic and societal goals; development of linguistic knowledge and diversity; and the improvement of the quality of teaching, training and mutual learning. Each of the four pillars has its own objectives.

Ambitious targets for mobility and participation have been set for the new programmes. One in 20 school pupils should be involved in COMENIUS in the years 2007 to 2013 and three million ERASMUS students should experience mobility by 2011. Some 150,000 LEONARDO DA VINCI placements should take place per year by 2013 and 25,000 GRUNDTVIG adult learners should be involved in mobility by 2013.

All the pillar programmes share the following actions: individual mobility, partnerships, projects, networks, reference materials and the accompanying measures. In addition to the general objectives for the integrated programme, the sub-programmes have their own objectives. There is generally increased geographic coverage and a commitment to simplification in terms of financial management and documentation for beneficiaries. There is also a much greater emphasis on decentralising programme resources and management to national agencies.

Let us consider some of the new features of the new programme. Under the COMENIUS heading, new features include the introduction of mobility for upper secondary pupils — with 85% of the available budget being allocated to mobility support — and the incorporation of the e-Twinning action of the current e-Learning programme into COMENIUS. New features under the ERASMUS heading include a significant increase in student mobility numbers and in grant aid; the incorporation of LEONARDO DA VINCI placements for advanced training into ERASMUS; an expanded range of mobility options for students and teachers; staff training for non-teaching staff; and provision for co-operation of higher education institutions with enterprises.

The following are new features under the LEONARDO DA VINCI heading. More emphasis is placed on mobility and its quality, with 75% of the budget being allocated to mobility and partnerships; a distinction is now being drawn between development and the transfer of innovation of projects, with increased focus on the latter; and support for partnership formation. Under the GRUNDTVIG heading, new features include increased targets for adult learner mobility.

The proposed budget for the Integrated Programme for Lifelong Learning is €13.62 billion. COMENIUS should receive not less than 10% of the allocation, ERASMUS not less than 40%, LEONARDO DA VINCI not less than 25% and GRUNDTVIG not less than 3%. Some €831 million has been committed to the TRANSVERSAL programme.

Clearly, Léargas welcomes the proposed new programmes. A number of features of the proposals are worthy of mention, in particular the scale of the proposed interventions in terms of budgetary resources and proposed levels of participation, which should support the development of a critical mass. The extension of the age range in the Youth in Action programme and the proposed geographic flexibility, particularly in the Youth of the World action, are also welcome. We welcome the action involving youth workers and support systems together with the action for support for policy co-operation.

On the Integrated Programme for Lifelong Learning, we welcome the increased focus on research and policy development and the increased emphasis on dissemination of learning outcomes. We particularly welcome the commitment to proportionality in the administration of the financial regulations, which is vital to the success of the next cycle of programmes. The proposed integrated approach to learning removes the artificial barrier between education, vocational training and further and adult education. This approach reflects more closely the realities of many people's learning needs and should allow the programmes to better meet the needs of Irish and other citizens.

In evaluations of the current programmes, participants have stated that they find national agencies easier to engage with for help and support. The increase in decentralisation in the integrated learning programme is therefore welcome. I thank the committee for the time it afforded to us to present the programmes.

Mr. P. J. Breen

I thank the committee for affording me the opportunity to discuss with it the European Commission's proposal for the Youth in Action programme for the period 2007-13. The programme will follow on from the current YOUTH programme, which will end at the end of 2006. It is aimed at providing opportunities for young people across the member states and neighbouring countries to engage in activities that are developmental, have a beneficial effect on their society or community and help them to develop a European sense and respect for others. These activities include youth exchanges, European voluntary service and the development of innovative projects with a European dimension. The programme also provides for co-operation among youth services and support for youth workers on a European basis.

Given that Mr. Mullin, the executive director of Léargas, has outlined the various actions of the programme, I will not dwell on them. I will concentrate on the overall thrust of policy issues related to the Commission's proposal. The proposed programme has been discussed by the EU Youth Working Party, which is the equivalent of the education committee at European level. It is now being considered by the European Parliament. It is anticipated that the Parliament will furnish its views and findings in September 2005 and that a co-decision of the European Council and Parliament will be made in November 2005. The conclusions adopted by the Education, Youth and Culture Council meeting of 15 and 16 November 2004 on the mid-term evaluation of the current youth programme demonstrate that the programme was generally positive, with the aim of achieving an active contribution by young people to the construction of Europe through participation in transnational exchanges, solidarity measures for young people, initiative projects and strengthening co-operation having been largely achieved.

The Council concluded that the programme had a large impact on participating young people in many youth organisations and many local, regional and national policies and also provided a European added value. The Council also agreed with the recommendations in the mid-term review, among these the better targeting of the programme towards all young people, particularly towards those with fewer opportunities, greater simplification of procedures and increased transparency and coherence. The Council also confirmed, among other things, "The need to maintain and develop the existing instruments addressed to young people, which is essential for the development of member states' co-operation in the field of youth."

Ireland has been and remains very much in favour of a separate and distinct programme for the youth area which is in line with the Council conclusions. The country is an active participant in the current youth programme which is managed operationally by Léargas, the exchange bureau. We feel that youth exchanges and the European Voluntary Service, EVS, facilitate learning and development through foreign placements, both as hosts for citizens of other participating countries and as senders of Irish young people abroad. Youth initiatives provide a means for groups of young people to come together to carry out projects that invariably have a community focus and a European dimension.

Youth in Action builds very much on the existing programme. It proposes to widen the age brackets to extend to people between 13 to 30 years of age. The current programme's range is 15 to 25 years of age. This is broadly welcomed, noting however that specific activities will have specific age brackets. For example, EVS participants must be 18 years of age or older. The measures in the proposed new programme remain broadly similar in the main to the existing programme, with an increasing focus on the EU's neighbouring countries and other third countries. There is also a new measure focused on promoting co-operation on youth policy and supporting structured dialogue with young people in developing youth policy.

This latter point relates strongly to the youth agenda in the recent Irish EU Presidency. The overall theme of the Irish EU Presidency was progressing the European Commission's White Paper on youth published in 2001, with a particular focus on young people's participation in civic society. A conference of youth Ministers was held under the Irish Presidency with the theme of young people and politics which met with a very favourable reaction from the European Commission and young people themselves. The progress made at that conference has been explicitly referred to in a draft resolution introduced by the current Luxembourg EU Presidency for consideration by the EU youth working party on increasing participation by young people in the system of representative democracy.

The Youth in Action programme applies a number of recommendations from the mid-term evaluation of the current programme. It displays a greater simplification in terms of process, incorporating for example under a single legal base activities which were carried out under separate legal bases but related to the current programme. In this I refer to support for international non-governmental organisations, including the European Youth Forum.

The mid-term review carried out in Ireland states: "The delivery of the programme and the outputs and impacts generated have contributed significantly to the vision as set down in the European White Paper." It goes on: "Significant impacts have resulted in terms of equipping young people most at risk of social exclusion with the core personal skills which will enable them to proceed into more formal education and training and subsequent employment." The existing programme could therefore be judged a success and it makes sense to continue with a new programme, bearing in mind the mid-term review recommendations to which I have referred.

Ireland is very much in favour of a distinct programme for youth. At one stage it appeared that it might be amalgamated with some other programmes but we have also consistently and strongly advocated a separate youth programme and we are gratified that this is the case in the Commission's proposal. It is also worth noting that the programme in various actions specifically makes reference to disadvantaged young people and to making the various actions, projects and activities more accessible to them. This arose as a recommendation from the mid-term review, the synthesis of which at European level recommended that young people with fewer opportunities be the programme's main target group and that it be more closely adapted to the specific needs of this group. This is in line with the priority attached to social inclusion in general.

The Commission considered that the programme should remain accessible to all young people without discrimination but that some specific groups, particularly those young people with lesser opportunities, might be considered in modular fashion to be priorities for implementation of the actions. We have expressed some reservations about the proposal to allocate approximately one third of the budget to the European Voluntary Service in accordance with action 2. We also feel that the increase proposed in the numbers from approximately 3,500 to 10,000 might be over-ambitious. We would also consider that the potential to reach a larger number of young people would be greater with action 1 which relates to youth exchanges.

While there is no apparent reference to child protection in the proposal, the Commission has indicated that, following representations by the Irish Presidency and other Irish youth interests during the Irish Presidency, the Irish code of good practice, Child Protection in the Youth Sector, would be adopted as a basis for ensuring best practice during the current programme and would presumably continue into the new programme. This is of particular significance bearing in mind the proposal to reduce the age to 13 for some of the measures.

While the budgetary allocations have yet to be decided at the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council, the proposal is for a total spend of €915 million over the lifetime of the new programme. This compares to an overall amount of €630 million for the current programme. Ireland is generally satisfied with the European Commission's proposal and our information is that the GAERC of the EU may be in a position to decide on the budget in June or July of this year.

Ireland has two key objectives in regard to the proposed youth programme for 2007 to 2013, namely, a separate identified youth programme and increased funding for the programme. We are glad to report that we have been successful in both of those endeavours.

I thank the Chairman and the committee for allowing me to address them on the proposed EU youth programme and I am happy to deal with any questions they have.

Ms Anne Murray

I thank the committee for inviting us today to discuss the Integrated Programme on Lifelong Learning. In addition to what Mr. Mullin has already outlined, the Department of Education and Science supports the broad thrust of the Commission's proposals for the new integrated programme. It will provide a more integrated approach in formal and informal education and training and will help remove barriers in areas such as the movement from vocational training to further education and training.

In our joint interim report that was drafted during the Irish Presidency in 2004, we identified three key aims in education and training. One of those was to make lifelong learning a European reality and this new programme will go a long way towards achieving that goal.

Mr. Mullin outlined the Lisbon strategy, where Europe is to become the most competitive knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010. This Integrated Programme on Lifelong Learning will help to achieve that goal. We have circulated the conclusions that were reached in the May Education Council on the programme. At that Council, the Ministers for Education and Training in the EU welcomed the proposal and endorsed the broad approach the Commission has set out. That is without prejudice to the financial perspectives Mr. Breen mentioned in his presentation.

A further ministerial discussion took place in November 2004 during the Dutch Presidency. At that Council, Ministers again endorsed the approach the programme will take and focused on quality and mobility. Ensuring quality experiences for people undergoing mobility in the programmes is very important and the Ministers wanted to emphasise that point.

The Luxembourg Presidency now hopes to achieve political agreement on the text, again without prejudice to the outcome of the financial perspectives discussion at its Council in May. After that the dossier will proceed through the co-decision procedure with the European Parliament, hopefully taking on board any amendments or suggestions the Parliament makes, and we will come to a successful conclusion.

Again, I thank the committee for the opportunity to present the programme and I will be happy to answer any questions.

Deputy O’Sullivan

Will much of the increased budget and the numbers that are hoped will participate be made up of the new EU member states? What impact will that have on the extension of funds and numbers?

We all welcome a simplification of the system because many EU programmes are very complicated. Everyone also welcomes the assistance of Léargas, the Department and the HEA. How well is Ireland progressing towards the goals of the Lisbon strategy? Are we becoming a major knowledge-based economy? I am interested in those who dropped out of education at an early stage. Are we reaching those people to offer them training and education?

In the Léargas presentation, the GRUNDTVIG percentage is only 3%. Why is that so low in comparison to the other programmes? ERASMUS is an expensive programme but I am curious about the low percentage for the adult education sector.

I agree with the Department of Education and Science suggestion that people with fewer opportunities should be prioritised in the youth programme. The Department expressed concern that a third of the budget is going to the European volunteer programme and suggested that exchanges should receive a greater percentage. Why are there concerns about that area?

Deputy Hoctor

I welcome Léargas and the staff from the Department of Education and Science. Are the new EU member states fully integrated in this project in order that they can participate and benefit from these education programmes? Is there a blanket funding proposal for each school? Does each school get the same funding?

Has there been steady interest expressed by schools at both primary and secondary levels in the programme? Those that participate see the benefits and want to participate again. How do we involve new schools in these projects so the pupils benefit from the experience of their counterparts in other European countries?

Nenagh CBS participated in and benefited from the COMENIUS programme and I know how much work the teachers put in, convincing their colleagues that the programme is worthwhile. St. Mary's primary school in Nenagh is also involved with an Italian project and much time is spent outside school hours by teachers working on these programmes. In discussions with our counterparts in other EU states, has anyone spoken on behalf of teachers and sought additional hours for schools because those teachers must still perform their daily duties? The project is an extra interest and we depend on the goodwill of teachers to do this work. I would speak out on their behalf to enable them to demonstrate their commitment and interest by providing them with the time and resources that are needed for this project to work.

I commend Léargas for the work it does. We do not hear enough from the group or about it. It is doing excellent work that has a great impact on pupils' lives and broadens their experience at an early age.

Deputy Gogarty

I also welcome everyone to the committee. This is a welcome simplification and I hope the target in the Lisbon strategy is reached, although I suspect it will not be.

Upper secondary mobility was referred to in the documentation as a prime area for focus. Is that because the transition year gives secondary school children time to get involved in programmes? Will there be any impact on this in the proposed revision of the senior cycle curriculum? Is it a prerequisite for short-term, or even year-long, exchanges that they be done in transition year? Is there any scope for fifth years to get involved in something on a Europe-wide level that could be integrated into their leaving certificate results? This assumes the introduction of continuous assessment which the Minister is considering.

In the context of the change in age range from 15-25 to 13-30, the register of persons unsafe to work with children legislation has been delayed for the past two years. Screening is not agreed at European level. If this legislation is to be enacted will we have the opportunity to look at other European countries and draw up legislation that would tie in with theirs? Is this delay inhibiting mobility? If we had legislation based on best practice in other European countries it might enhance mobility, particularly for people working with children and volunteers.

In the report I received there was no agreed definition of voluntary work. Do any European countries consider military service as volunteerism? If so, how does that connect with Ireland? If not, can the delegates give an example of how one country's definition of a volunteer differs from our definition?

One could argue that adult education requires a smaller proportion of funding but given that our investment in this area is noticeably lower than in most other member states, how can we live with the 3% spending allocated to the GRUNDTVIG programme? Are there any plans to increase Exchequer funding to adult education programmes that would increase mobility because we are so far behind?

Mr. Mullin

Some of the questions relate more to the Department than to Léargas and I may refer them to my colleagues.

Prior to enlargement, the pre-accession countries had been involved in the programmes for some time and the budgets were increased. For example, the YOUTH programme budget was adjusted from €513 million to €630 million. The Commission proposal is for a real increase in the level of funding for an already enlarged community albeit that the countries were involved before their accession.

The achievement of targets is linked to the comment about the need for simplification in welcoming the commitment. The targets are ambitious. Unless the application and accounting procedures are simplified many people will find it difficult to apply. It will be necessary to phase the money in over the initial years while national agencies market the programmes because one cannot achieve an increase with a bang. Grant levels for individual mobility for project co-operation will make the programmes more attractive. If the next round of programmes addresses those issues Ireland can contribute to the targets.

The proportion of funding for GRUNDTVIG is relatively small but this is quite a new intervention. It was introduced in the last cycle of programmes. I will leave the question about using Exchequer funding to my colleagues in the Department. While 3% is small it is a starting point, and as it is a minimum amount over the lifetime of the programme, there is room to grow it as the action grows.

The funding for schools depends on levels of participation in the projects and how long they will last. There are arrangements for flat and variable fees depending on these factors. Each project will be assessed on the merits of its proposal. The selection committees will also note any assessments that we and independent assessors can provide and decide the level of the grant for the school.

Léargas is charged with making sure the programme is accessible and available to the widest possible audience. We invest a great deal of time in marketing programmes in various ways. These include information brochures designed to be attractive to the target audience for each programme which we circulate widely in hard copy and on our website. The website is central to our marketing strategy — it has a good hit rate and we devote a large amount of money and energy to it. We attend a wide range of events and conferences for the target audiences, whether the teachers' unions or youth organisations, where we put up stands and give presentations. We produce newsletters in print and through e-mail.

We hold many sessions where experienced participants are brought together with potential new participants. Each year, we examine where the participation came from, identifying gaps in it, so as to target them in the subsequent year. We are constantly broadening the level of awareness and participation in the programmes. One criterion used in applications is that new applicants are favoured more in terms of participating in the programmes. Huge effort goes into involving new participants.

We recognise the concerns about the time involved for teachers in projects. Léargas recognises that getting involved in such projects can be a big undertaking on the part of teachers, youth workers and vocational trainers. It is recognised that it is not always easy for them to participate, as it takes up much time and puts strain on colleagues who have to pick up for the leading teacher or trainer when absent from the workplace. It also puts strain on the curriculum, particularly at secondary school level, which is crowded. This is done in a situation where teachers, youth workers and trainers receive little recognition for their experience and skills developed in taking part in these international co-operation projects. We are aware of all of these factors which we included in our recently published study on mobility.

Regarding the register of persons issue, there are legislative aspects to it. As an agency we have worked hard on developing guidelines for child protection. This has been done in association with youth organisations, north and south, and the UK. We pay tribute to their input and do not take all the credit. We have worked hard at moving that issue to European level and, as Mr. Breen said, the Commission has now taken notice. It is intended that our guidelines will be adopted by the Commission and applied to this youth programme and future ones. As an agency working with young people, we are most anxious everything is done to ensure their safety, including screening. I recognise there are both legal and financial issues involved in this regard.

A definition has been agreed on the term"voluntary civic service". The main aims of voluntary civic service are defined as providing opportunities for engagement to enhance active citizenship, solidarity, tolerance, social cohesion, non-formal education, personal development, employability, social inclusion, international understanding, intercultural learning and peace. Another characteristic is its voluntary participation, meaning that no one is obliged to engage in this service. It is recognised and is under a statutory mandate, as the State assumes responsibility for managing, regulating and supporting voluntary civic service.

Mr. Breen

Deputy O'Sullivan raised the issue of the European voluntary service vis-à-vis youth exchanges. A better balance is needed in this area. In particular, there is a greater potential to reach more young people under the youth exchanges and, therefore, have a greater impact and be of greater value. It comes down to a question of balance.

My colleague, Mr. Mullin, referred to the code of good practice for child protection in the youth sector. This was the result of efforts on the behalf of the Department to bring national guidelines into operation in the youth work sector and were introduced in September 2002. An interdepartmental committee, chaired by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, was established to examine the issue of a national vetting register. While its work is ongoing, some progress has been made on considerations for screening.

At times, we receive documents referring to voluntary civic service. Those of us in Ireland and the UK think we will be conscripted into military service and correct it quickly. The documents refer to civic service and civil society and it is a question of interpretation.

Ms Murray

Deputies O'Sullivan and Gogarty referred to the 3% allocation of funds to the Grundtvig programme. The percentage breakdowns for each action under the integrated programme are not set in stone. Over the coming months we will decide on the appropriate funds for Ireland's case, which will be forwarded to the Commission. Neither is the overall budget set in stone. The Commission's proposal is not the final amount of funding that will be allocated to the programme. Again, we will shortly decide on appropriate funding allocations.

Mr. Seán Harkin

Deputy O'Sullivan's question on the Lisbon strategy is a broad ranging one. My answer is a rehearsal for next week's Commission inquisition on the national employment action plan. I will preface my remarks by saying that other member states believe that Ireland has already achieved the Lisbon strategy objectives. It can be somewhat embarrassing for departmental officials as we are inundated with visitors from member states asking for the secret of our success. The figures for early school-leaving were highlighted. When explaining our success, we point to the ten year perspective of the strategy. Many critical decisions in Ireland's case were made by past Governments, particularly those in the late 1960s. One contributory factor was the investment in the development of the regional technical colleges, particularly in training middle and higher level technicians. Another key was keeping a good binary and tertiary level system.

In more recent times there have been initiatives such as Early Start and Breaking the Cycle which, in a way, hit at early school leaving. There is a consensus that this is one of the major problems where we are weakest in terms of where we should be vis-à-vis the Lisbon Agenda. All the programmes for social inclusion and for the disadvantaged, the successive initiatives that have been taken, have been in this perspective and are in a way justified retrospectively by the Lisbon Agenda.

We also point to the Commission regarding all the ongoing initiatives which are constantly reviewed and evaluated with regard to early school leaving or which impact on it. The most recent one which comes to mind is the evaluation by the ESRI of transition year. We have been holding that up as an example and people are beginning to look at it as a marvellous innovation in second level education. One of the effects is that it is helping school retention.

The other aspects to which we draw people's attention and where we have taken steps in recent times which have impacted considerably on the Lisbon Agenda include, for example, the whole area of qualification and movement within the country, the development of the National Qualifications Authority and the framework and so on. There is now a movement towards a European qualifications framework which we like to think has been informed, if not actually driven, by our model. A number of officials from the National Qualifications Authority are now actively participating with the Commission in a restricted, expert working group in developing this area. That is worth mentioning.

Our literacy programmes also deserve note. A number of speakers alluded to the literacy problem, particularly among the older age group, people of 50 and upwards who were around before free secondary education. There is a big problem there, yet some of our responses and initiatives have been noted in European circles and I promote them there as models. An example is the television intervention in respect of literacy which seems to have been extraordinarily successful. A number of other EU states are looking at it.

The other foundation we have with regard to the Lisbon Agenda is the teaching profession. We have been very fortunate over the years and generations in the quality of our teaching force. When others talk of achieving the Lisbon objectives they do not accuse their teachers of being no good but speak in politically correct language about the quality of the teaching force not being what it should be and so on. We are very fortunate in that regard. While we should not be complacent, the lesson for the country is not to let that slide. I am straying into policy areas now but we must uphold the teaching profession in this country as being one of the cornerstones of our success to date and as a key to developing the rest of the Lisbon Agenda.

Deputy O’Sullivan

I am very interested in Mr. Harkin's response. It highlights my question initially about Grundtvig because in a way it demonstrates that the adult sector has not benefitted from the sort of historical development in education Mr. Harkin described. It is also perhaps a more diverse group than the other groups dealt with under the other programme.

Many community organisations are involved in adult and community education which might benefit from these programmes. Can they contact Léargas if they think they might possibly qualify? Is Léargas open to such queries?

Mr. Mullin

We would welcome such inquiries. We are always anxious to support organisations, particularly community and voluntary groups who find it more difficult than some of the larger institutions to get involved in such programmes. We will do our best to inform and support people if they contact us with a wish to participate.

Chairman

I thank the Léargas members, the Department of Education and Science representatives and the committee members for a very informative meeting.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.45 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 24 February 2005.