Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the scoreboard on implementing the social policy agenda"

(COM(2002) 89 final)

(2002/C 241/20)

On 19 February 2002, the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 20 June 2002. The rapporteur was Mr Bloch-Laine and the co-rapporteur Mr Koryfidis.

At its 392nd Plenary Session of 17 and 18 July 2002 (meeting of 17 July), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 127 votes to two, with one abstention.

1. Introduction

1.1. At the time of the adoption of the European Social Agenda, both the Parliament and the Council underlined the importance of drawing up annual "scoreboards" to keep track of developments and verify the commitment and contributions of the different actors. An initial "scoreboard" was adopted in March 2001. A second, drawn up by the Commission in February 2002, was adopted at the Barcelona Summit on 14 and 15 March 2002. The Committee welcomes the fact that a process of regular assessment has begun, as regular follow-up is essential in an area such as this.

1.2. The European ESC has already issued an opinion on the Agenda and certainly intends to be involved in the assessment scheduled for 2003.

1.3. In the present instance the Committee has sought to avoid two pitfalls: one would be not to make any comment on the second stage of this ongoing process for which it has pressed so hard; the second would be to make premature and repetitive comments. The implementation of the Agenda is still at an early stage. It would therefore have been pointless to reiterate, in almost identical and unchanged terms, views that had been expressed during previous consultations.

1.4. The Committee will therefore draw up a more detailed and in-depth opinion mid-term in this process. In the meantime, it has drafted a brief and targeted document, which aims to:

- make a few assessments (II), and then

- formulate a few recommendations (III).

2. Assessments

2.1. Any interim assessment is an arduous exercise, such is the difficulty of properly distinguishing long-term trends from data relating to the immediate economic context (which is currently pointing to a downturn). In this respect, it must not be forgotten that there is always a time lag between a return to higher growth rates and the impact of this on employment. Given this delay, the temptation to call into question the effectiveness of active employment policies under the Agenda must be resisted. On the contrary, its guidelines and scope must be strengthened.

2.2. The Committee would have liked the document in question to prioritise its comments more effectively and, as well as listing existing or planned measures and decisions, to provide more and better information about the practical reality and about visible and tangible changes. In this respect, the assessment exercise to be conducted in 2003 will need to have more comprehensive and enlightening information at its disposal if it is to assess the actual repercussions of the Social Agenda on the social and economic structure of the EU Member States.

2.3. This said, the Commission document has the unarguable merit of being clear in that it highlights the contrasting results of the period, e.g.:

a) There has been a considerable increase in the number of new jobs created but, even if it is of course too early to say whether the intermediate targets of Stockholm and Lisbon will be achieved, there has been hardly any progress on issues such as older workers.

b) The number of new full-time jobs is rising, the unemployment rate is falling, and the number of jobs offered to low or medium-skilled workers has increased. However, structural weaknesses remain, such as gender gaps in terms of pay, a still very high rate of unemployment (especially among young people, where it is almost twice the general average), and considerable regional differences in employment and unemployment.

c) Poverty and social exclusion continue to be widespread, but the extent of the problem varies significantly between Member States.

Appropriately the "scoreboard" concludes by calling for the commitment of all actors to take up their responsibility.

3. Recommendations

3.1. In drafting this opinion, the European ESC did not want to raise scoreboard-related issues on which the debate has already been closed or not yet opened.

However, it wishes to point out that it has taken a very clear standpoint on issues such as:

- guidelines for employment (Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Decision on Guidelines for Member States' employment policies for the year 2002, OJ C 36, 8.2.2002); (Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Decision on guidelines for Member States' employment policies for the year 2001, OJ C 14, 16.1.2001),

- quality of work (Opinion on Improving the quality dimension of social and employment policy, OJ C 311, 7.11.2001),

- social indicators (Opinion on Social Indicators),

- health and safety at work (Opinion on the Communication from the Commission - Adapting to change in work and society: a new Community strategy on health and safety at work 2002-2006.); (Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Recommendation concerning the application of legislation governing health and safety at work to self-employed workers),

- pensions and retirement (Opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee: Supporting national strategies for safe and sustainable pensions through an integrated approach, OJ C 48, 21.2.2002. Opinion on Economic Growth, Taxation and Sustainability of Pension Rights in the EU, OJ C 48, 21.2.2002.Opinion on the Elimination of tax obstacles to the cross-border provision of occupational pensions, OJ C 36, 8.2.2002),

- governance (European Governance),

- employment at local level (Opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Acting Locally for Employment A Local Dimension for the European Employment Strategy, OJ C 14, 16.1.2001); (Opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Strengthening the local dimension of the European Employment Strategy, OJ C 149, 21.6.2002),

- not-for-profit social services of general interest (Opinion on Private not-for-profit social services in the context of services of general interest in Europe, OJ C 311, 7.11.2001),

- older workers (Opinion on Older Workers, OJ C 14, 16.1.2001), and

- youth (Opinion on the European Commission White Paper: A New Impetus for European Youth, OJ C 149, 21.6.2002).

3.2. At this stage, the Committee wishes to stress the following concerns:

3.2.1. Combating poverty and social exclusion is now an essential component of European social policy. The image of poverty portrayed in the national action plans for inclusion, which the Member States submitted to the Commission in June 2001, takes account not only of financial poverty, but also of the spiral of difficulties, hardships and insecurity in areas such as employment, housing, health, education, culture and access to services. Such recognition of the multi-dimensional nature of poverty is an important step forward. The Committee still believes, however, that further progress is needed in this direction. It is not enough for Member States simply to draw up a list of existing policies, as they did in the plans submitted in 2001; a more comprehensive and forward-looking approach must be adopted, in accordance with the targets set in Lisbon in March 2000.

To this end, we must go further than the first generation of plans in taking account of more than just labour market policy. While employment is a major factor of social integration, it is not the only one. The European strategy to combat exclusion must not be reduced to an employment strategy, however important employment may be. The ultimate target, however far away it may be, must be access to all fundamental rights.

The European ESC welcomes the adoption at the end of 2001 of a programme of Community action to encourage cooperation between Member States with regard to exclusion. This programme was adopted for the period 2002-2006 and was allocated funding of EUR 75 million over five years. Is this sufficient in the light of the resources of the European Social Fund, a financial instrument essentially dedicated to the employment strategy, which has overriding importance? Would it not have been better to widen the scope of the ESF to support actions to combat poverty and exclusion?

3.2.2. The document in question could suggest that the "social partners" do not participate as effectively as they should in implementing the Social Agenda. The European ESC has two comments to make in response to this(1):

a) Even if we can encourage the social partners to be still more active, they are carrying out their difficult task with continuity and determination.

b) We also recommend that in the "social dialogue", the defence of standpoints and acquired rights, whatever the justifications on either side, should not result in the suffering and concerns of the most vulnerable and underprivileged people in society being relegated to second place; this would lead to a serious lack of solidarity in the long-term in the European Union. We believe that the Union should be more attentive and imaginative vis-à-vis the right to asylum and immigration, and be more concerned - while there is still time - about the social impact of "enlargement".

3.2.3. For the Committee, this scoreboard does not always emphasise - or emphasise sufficiently - the role played in "organised civil society" by "not-for-profit private social services" that work for the general interest in Europe. In one of its opinions, the European ESC pointed out in particular that the Community authorities had not fully grasped the wide range of actions undertaken by these services, or the ever-greater responsibilities and difficulties that they have for a long time faced in the health and social field in a number of EU countries. There is a lack of indicators in our scoreboards to clarify the situation. There is no doubt that the concept of the "non-market sector" or "third sector" is still relatively vague. However, this is no reason for not seeing more clearly right now the tangible realities covered by this concept, in particular in the form of associations, foundations, cooperatives and mutuals. Not to address NGOs, or merely to pay them lip service, would be to maintain a gap, another "vagueness", in the European social project, i.e. to skimp, waste time and delay optimising a precious potential that is strong yet vulnerable. More recognition must be given to the space between the "100 % public" and the "100 % profit-making".

Such an approach needs to be adopted in the current EU set-up, but will be even more useful, with the prospect of enlargement.

3.2.4. When it comes to implementing the Social Agenda, everyone agrees on the need to consult and involve "organised civil society". But who does this term refer to? The "social partners" for sure, as well as the organisations mentioned in the previous paragraph. However, consideration must also be given to non-institutional groups set up and run by the so-called "excluded", and minority social groups; such key groups are better placed than anyone to warn, inform and mobilise people about the issues that affect them.

3.2.5. With regard to regional discrepancies in terms of unemployment and exclusion within the Union, the European ESC stresses the need to improve synergies between employment policies and regional policies.

3.2.6. The European ESC reiterates the need to continue with the difficult task of putting into place Quality indicators.

3.2.7. The European ESC recommends working without respite on the Adaptability pillar in relation to employment and social inclusion, and stresses the need to make a major and coordinated effort to develop an integrated and effective European domain of lifelong learning(2).

4. Conclusion

4.1. By committing itself to coordinating as far as possible economic and social policies, the European Union has sought to assert its identity. Beyond words and slogans, it is a difficult path. However, the only alternative option was to disappoint and fail.

4.2. The use of "scoreboards" is crucial. However, it may be better to use the term "road maps", as some people already do, as this expression better reflects the idea of a path and progression.

4.3. All paths are periodically revised, if necessary, in order to be confirmed, adjusted or corrected in response to reality. It is still too early to talk about the mid-term assessment of the Agenda in 2003. All we wish to say here and now is that the European ESC intends to participate actively in this exercise, which is not so far away. Its sole aim in issuing this opinion is to set out its stall, to fix a timetable, and to show its willingness to make the best contribution it can.

Brussels, 17 July 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke Frerichs

(1) See also the Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Directive establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community, OJ C 258, 10.9.1999, and the Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Decision on Guidelines for Member States' employment policies for the year 2002, OJ C 36, 8.2.2002.

(2) Opinion on the Memorandum on Lifelong Learning, OJ C 311, 7.11.2001.