Spain, Portugal and Malta are three countries which appear at a glance to have much in common. Catholicism, for instance. A culture of siestas, hot summers, and even hotter displays of temper. A curious obsession with blood sports, as well as a virtually non-existent sense of time...

Sadly, however, it seems that these three southern EU cousins are also comparable on another, considerably less appealing level. The results of this month’s Maastricht study – a comprehensive analysis of “vocational education and training” in 32 countries, including all 25 EU member States – place Spain, Portugal and Malta (in that order) squarely at the bottom of virtually every graph or table of any importance... most notably, those detailing the incidence of early school-leavers (Malta’s score of 48.2 per cent being almost exactly triple the EU25 average of 16), and population “with at least upper secondary education and training” (in which Malta’s average stands at around half the EU’s intended benchmark of 85 per cent for 2010).

In view of this, it may or may not have been a coincidence that, at the end of a day fielding countless interviews with the press, EU Commissioner Jan Figel would find himself staring across a table at journalists from Spain, Portugal and Malta... the selfsame three countries which pose the most immediate threat to the EU’s hopes of becoming “the single largest knowledge-based economy in the world” by 2010.

Unsurprisingly, all three of us share very similar concerns, and after a hasty corridor meeting we produce a list of “common questions”, starting with: “Your Excellency: considering that there are currently 80 million underqualified Europeans, how feasible is the commission’s declared aim to reduce that figure to 40 million in only five years’ time?”

In his replies to this and other questions, the 44-year-old Slovak exudes remarkable prudence, but also a certain degree of resigned pessimism.

“First of all,” he begins, “2010 should not be viewed as ‘the end of history’. We would like to meet that deadline, but we must also be realistic. At the same time we shouldn’t be giving up on past strategies simply because they are difficult to achieve. The sooner steps are taken in this direction, the better.”

At times, Mr Figel’s answers are peppered with well-turned soundbites, which sound suspiciously like prerehearsed “Euro-rhetoric”. These include: “Knowledge is the key to the future”; “we must strive for a culture of excellence”, and “teachers must be more valued as a profession.” However, despite the rhetoric there is a certain directness in his overall approach.

In answer to the question “how can the EU help”, the Commissioner immediately explains that, while the EU does provide direct financial support in the form of regional and social finds, it is at present far keener to provide support of a less financial and more technical nature: a framework he refers to as “the creation of space for higher education.”

“By 2007, the EU will have invested e3.7 billion in programmes such as Erasmus and Leonardo, which are aimed at helping the individual citizen. Meanwile, the present rate of 50,000 Leonardo students is expected to increase to 150,000 in the coming years. By 2011, over three million European students will have benefited from the Erasmus programme.”

However, Mr Figel also sounds a clear word of caution. Although his view as commissioner is that educational reforms must include “more and better investment”, it would be unwise for member States to expect too much of this investment to come directly from EU funds.

“The European Union has no intention to replace national educational systems, still less national spending on education. It is important that individual member States set their own long-term strategies to promote higher quality and more issue-oriented education.”

Reluctant to commit himself when asked if there would be any repercussions for failing to meet the Lisbon criteria, Mr Figel stresses that at the end of the day, it is up to national governments to implement policies according to their abilities.

Talk turns to Europe’s competitivity levels on a global scale. Comparing the situations in European and the United States, Mr Figel discerns two fundamental differences: first, that the US has a single, more or less homogenous model covering the entire continent... unlike Europe, with its myriad and often incompatible educational systems. Second – more important to Figel’s mind – that education in the States is “more closely linked to industry.”

Point one raises a few immediate questions. Considering that Malta has already moved away from the traditional O- and A-levels towards an international Baccalaureate model, would it be reasonable to assume that some form of harmonisation of European educational systems is in the pipeline?

The Commissioner shakes his head emphatically. “What we want to achieve is compatibility and convertability, not harmonisation.” However, Mr Figel added, the EU can no longer afford to allow discrepancies between qualifications acquired in different member States to pose barriers to employment. This, he said, is one of the main reasons the EU is about to launch the “Europass” – a tool whereby skills and qualifications can be assessed and “translated” into a common standard, allowing for the recognition of qualifications across European borders and consequently for greater market flexibility.

Mr Figel’s second observation, that of closer links to industry, is altogether more relevant to the changing face of Europe. “Again, it is not up to the Commission to oversee reforms in all member States, but one area in which we can learn from the United States is by focusing more on private-public partnerships.”

Learning from one another sounds like one of Figel’s favourite soundbites, but considering that he is talking directly to representatives from the three EU States, which (apparently) need to learn the most, his advice bears repeating here in full.

“I don’t like to single out any individual examples to follow, but among the success stories of Europe, the Scandinavian model has been most noticed in recent years. Especially Finland, which has itself become a world standard in education... although Poland, too, has made giant strides. These models – and there are others – show that it is possible to reconcile global competitiveness with a country’s social cohesion. My advice for all member States would be: learn from each other. Following other examples will not lead to harmonisation, but it will result in less fragmentation in policies and therefore greater compatibility.”