Mandate and timetable for the Convention
20. Considers it vital, with a view to effective reform of the Union, that the Convention should have a
decision-making procedure under which it can draft a single coherent proposal by consensus and present itto the Intergovernmental Conference as the sole basis for negotiation and decision;
21. Hopes that the Convention will start work immediately after the Laeken European Council and
complete its work in time to allow the Intergovernmental Conference to wind up its proceedings by theend of 2003 under the Italian Presidency so as to enable the new treaty to be adopted in December of thatyear, thereby ensuring that, in 2004, the European elections can act as a democratic fillip to Europeanintegration and that, together with the Commission, the European Parliament will be able to play its partin that process under the best possible conditions; considers that the period between presentation of theresults of the Convention and the opening summit should be as short as possible, and in any case notlonger than three months;
*
**
22. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission and to the Heads
of State and Government and the parliaments of the Member States and the candidate countries.
20.Europeangovernance
A5-0399/2001
European Parliament resolution on the Commission White Paper on European governance
(COM(2001)428/dashC5-0454/2001/dash2001/2181(COS))
The European Parliament,
Odash having regard to the Commission White Paper on European governance (COM(2001)428) Odash
C5-0454/2001)(1),
Odash having regard to of the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles1, 3, 5 and 6 thereof,
Odash having regard to Protocol No 7 to the Treaty of Amsterdam on the application of the principles of
subsidiarity and proportionality and Protocol No 9 on the role of national parliaments in the Euro-pean Union,
Odash having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Article39
(Right to vote and stand as the candidate at elections to the European Parliament), Article41(Right togood administration) and Article42 (Right of access to documents),
Odash having regard to the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council, in which the Commission, the
Council and the Member States were asked to set out by 2001a strategy for further coordinatedaction to simplify the regulatory environment, including the performance of public administration, at
both national and Community level,
Odash having regard to the Group of Senior Advisers set up by European ministers responsible for public
administration in Strasbourg on 7 November 2000, which should be involved in drawing up thestrategy specified by the Lisbon European Council,
(1) OJ C 287, 12.10.2001, p. 1.C153E/314 EN 27.6.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday29November2001
Odash having regard to its resolution of 10 December 1996(1) on the participation of citizens and social
actors in the institutional system of the European Union,
Odash having regard to its resolution of 15 April 1999(2) on improvements in the functioning of the Insti-
tutions without modification of the Treaties,
Odash having regard to its resolution of 26 October 2000(3) on the Commission reports to the European
Council: Better lawmaking Odash A shared responsibility (1998) and Better lawmaking 1999,
Odash having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2001on the reform of the Council(4),
Odash having regard to the Commission White Paper on reform of the Commission (COM(2000)200), and
in particular Chapter II(IV) thereof on improving the dialogue with civil society,
Odash having regard to its resolution of 30 November 2000 on the Commission White Paper on reform of
the Commission(5),
Odash having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions on new forms of governance: Europe Odash
a framework for citizens’ initiative of 14 December 2000(6),
Odash having regard to the Commission’s interim report of 7 March 2001to the Stockholm European
Council on improving and simplifying the regulatory environment (COM(2001)130),
Odash having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee of 25 April 2001(7) on orga-
nised civil society and European governance,
Odash having regard to the report of the Committee of the Regions of 20 September 2001on grassroots
representation(8),
Odash having regard to Rule 47(1) of its Rules of Procedure,Odash having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the opinions of the Com-
mittee on Budgets, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, Committee on Legal Affairsand the Internal Market, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, theCommittee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, the Committee on Women’s Rightsand Equal Opportunities and the Committee on Petitions (A5-0399/2001),
A. whereas reform of ‘European governance’ must be based on a fundamental critical analysis of the
democratic deficit and hence also a status report on the application of the principles of legitimacy,parliamentary scrutiny, open government, scrutiny and participation,
B. whereas the Commission considers its White Paper to be the first step in a reform that will take
several years, will be implemented jointly with the other institutions, and will contribute to the debate
on the future of Europe,
C. whereas the new international situation requires the European Union to improve the way it functions
and the consistency of Community policies in order to make its external action more effective and toassume a key role on the world stage,
D. whereas there are close and sometimes inseparable links between the reform of the Commission itself,
governance reform and the constitutional process on the future of the Union,
E. whereas the enlargement of the Union will confront its institutions with completely new challenges,
which require a far-reaching review of its working methods and whereas the European Parliament willmake its contribution to this process Odash in the form of internal reform which has already started and,in addition, within the framework of the work of a Convention with a view to the 2004 IGC on thefurther constitutionalisation of the Union,
(1) OJ C 20, 20.1.1997, p. 31.
(2) OJ C 219, 30.7.1999, p. 427.
(3) OJ C 197, 12.7.2001, p. 433.
(4) ‘Texts Adopted’, Item 12.
(5) OJ C 228, 13.8.2001, p. 211.
(6) CdR 182/2000.
(7) OJ C 193, 10.7.2001, p. 117.
(8) CdR 436/2000.27.6.2002 EN C153E/315 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday29November2001
F. whereas it is regrettable that the White Paper does not contain clear indications as to how ‘govern-
ance’ can be improved by increasing the transparency of the Council as co-legislator, through its Rulesof Procedure and without amending the Treaties,
G. whereas the concept of efficiency in the sense of administrative efficiency must not jeopardise demo-
cratic legitimisation,
H. whereas the degree of legitimacy and acceptance of the European Union depends to a great extent on
how effective its decisions are,
I. whereas the judicial mechanisms and the division of powers between the institutions are not, on their
own, enough to stimulate interest on the part of citizens, and whereas a new method, as well as anappropriate communication campaign, should be introduced,
J. whereas the White Paper’s main concern is to enhance the acceptance and legitimacy of the European
Union through greater involvement of citizens and civil society in the framing and implementation ofUnion policies,
K. whereas, on the one hand, elements of participatory democracy in the political system of the Union
must be introduced cautiously with a constant eye to the recognised principles and structural elements
of representative democracy and the rule of law and, on the other, citizens of the Union rightly expecttransparent decision-making processes and, at the same time, clear political accountability for deci-sions,
L. whereas the principles of specific authority (Article5 of the EU Treaty and Article5, first paragraph, of
the EC Treaty), subsidiarity (Article2, second paragraph, of the EU Treaty and Article5, second para-graph, of the EC Treaty), proportionality (Article6(4) of the EU Treaty and Article5, third paragraph,of the EC Treaty) and respect for the national identities of the Member States (Article6(3) of the EUTreaty) set strict limits on any horizontal delegation of powers to autonomous EU regulatory agenciesand any vertical delegation of powers and tasks directly by the Union to regional or local level for thepurposes of ‘stronger involvement of regional and local authorities in the Union’s policies’(
1), as the
Commission concedes,
M. whereas, on the other hand, the contention that the way in which the Union currently works does not
allow for ‘a partnership in which national governments involve their regions and cities fully in Euro-pean policy’(
1) does not appear to be justified, because the Member States are well able under the
Treaties to provide appropriately for the involvement of their regions and local authorities in theshaping and implementation of EU policy, in keeping with their respective constitutional systems,
N. whereas screening of the ‘unwieldy system’ of almost 700 advisory bodies on which the Commission
relies is long overdue but, according to the White Paper on reform of the Commission, a list of the
committees and working groups involved in formal or structured consultation procedures (Action 5)(
2)
was to have been drawn up and published by June 2001, on the other hand a number of proposalsmentioned in the White Paper such as ‘on-line consultation through the inter-active policy-makinginitiative’(
1) actually give rise to the risk of an escalation in consultation and such a development
would be incompatible with the White Paper’s other goal of ‘reducing the long delays associatedwith the adoption and implementation of Community rules’(
3),
O. whereas an easily achievable but important breakthrough in terms of transparency would be for the
Commission to undertake to attach in future to each legislative proposal a list of all the committees,experts, associations, organisations and institutes consulted when the proposal was drafted,
(1) White Paper 3.1.
(2) Reforming the Commission Odash a White Paper Odash Part II Odash Action Plan, Chapter II(IV) Odash (COM(2000)200).
(3) White Paper 3.2.C153E/316 EN 27.6.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday29November2001
P. whereas the Union should no longer put off steps to reduce the denseness of regulation, i.e. to tackle
the issue of how detailed regulation should be at Union level, not least in view of enlargement,because otherwise the bodies involved in lawmaking will be in danger of imploding,
Q. whereas a solution to this problem requires a new approach to the issue of delegation of lawmaking
(‘commitology’) and a change in the Community Treaty (Article202 of the EC Treaty) to put theCouncil and Parliament on equal footing and the Commission’s statements on this matter are thereforeto be welcomed and its further thoughts on this issue, in particular on a ‘simple legal mechanism’(
1),
are awaited with great interest,
R. whereas, although they have a direct impact on the general public, the measures funded from the
Union’s budget do not have a high enough profile and therefore fail to make people sufficientlyaware of the European added value provided,
1. Welcomes the Commission’s readiness to examine critically and without exception the rules, pro-
cesses and behaviour that affect the way in which powers are exercised at European level ‘Governance’(
2)
and to effect change;
2. Warns the Commission nonetheless against taking measures in the legislative sphere which might
affect the roles of Parliament and the Council in the legislative process before Parliament has been fullyconsulted;
3. Proposes instead that the White Paper should be seen as initiating a purposeful dialogue between the
institutions of the Union on governance reform, including measures in the ‘first phase’, and for the out-come to be incorporated into a revised text by the end of 2002;
4. Welcomes the establishment of an interinstitutional working group, as proposed by President Prodi
on 2 October 2001;
5. Reiterates its confidence in the Community method and advocates maintaining the institutional bal-
ance as the most appropriate way of moving forward in terms of integration;
6. Points out first of all that the principle of European governance cannot exist without democratically
adopted own resources and without a major simplification of budgetary procedures that will ensure thatthey are properly understood by the general public;
7. Welcomes the efforts being made by the Commission to improve the planning of procedures; con-
siders, however, that the strategic planning process should be reviewed in the light of the political prior-ities expressed by the budgetary authority and that the human resources allocated to implementing policiesshould be adjusted accordingly;
Principles
8. Confirms that the ‘parliamentarisation’ of the Union’s decision-making system presupposes increased
transparency of the work of the Council and that the involvement of both the European and nationalparliaments constitutes the basis for a European system with democratic legitimacy and that only regional,national and European institutions which possess democratic legitimacy can take accountable legislativedecisions;
9. Considers that Parliament cannot accept the move to reduce the legislative powers and the partici-
pation in the legislative process of the one institution to be directly elected by European citizens; enhanc-ing communication between citizens and the institutions of the Union necessarily entails strengtheningParliament’s legislative powers;
(1) White Paper 3.4.
(2) White Paper, I, footnote 1.27.6.2002 EN C153E/317 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday29November2001
10. Therefore attaches particular importance to the following considerations of principle being taken
into account in the further debate on governance:
(a) governance by the Union institutions requires democratic legitimacy; this is provided jointly by the
European Parliament and the parliaments of the Member States, the latter as the bodies exercising
democratic scrutiny over governments acting in the Council;
(b) democratic legitimacy presupposes that the political will underpinning decisions is arrived at through
parliamentary deliberation; this is a substantive and not merely a formal requirement; there is also anurgent need for democratic legitimacy and scrutiny when implementing rules are adopted by theexecutive;
(c) legitimacy is understood to mean that political decisions must be underpinned by a fundamental
consensus, such as that expressed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights recognised by the EuropeanUnion Odash in the sense of a list of individual rights and an objective value system;
(d) legitimacy in this sense is ultimately inconceivable without clear attribution of political responsibility
and cannot be replaced by ‘technical’ factors such as ‘effectiveness’ or ‘coherence’
Participation and consultation
11. Points out, on the basis of these considerations, with regard to participation and consultation that
(a) in terms of the criteria referred to in paragraphs8 and 10 above, ‘organised civil society’ as ‘the sum
of all organisational structures whose members have objectives and responsibilities that are of generalinterest and who also act as mediators between the public authorities and citizens’(
1), whilst import-
ant, are inevitably sectoral and cannot be regarded as having its own democratic legitimacy(2), given
that representatives are not elected by the people and therefore cannot be voted out by the people,
(b) consultation of interested parties with the aim of improving draft legislation can only ever supplement
and can never replace the procedures and decisions of legislative bodies which possess democraticlegitimacy; only the Council and Parliament, as co-legislators, can take responsible decisions in thecontext of legislative procedures, due account being taken of the opinions of the bodies specified inthe Treaties, i.e. in particular the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions,
(c) an important mouthpiece for civil society is, by definition and in accordance with its newly formu-
lated role under Article257 as amended by the Treaty of Nice, the Economic and Social Committee,which has advisory status and which, as the law stands, may also be consulted by the Council andCommission ‘in all cases in which they consider it is appropriate’(
3); early consultation of the ESC by
the Commission can be seen as a way of increasing participatory democracy at Union level(4)(5),
(d) it would not be consistent with good governance for the Commission to set up groups of experts and
delegate to them tasks which could better be carried out by the Economic and Social Committee inthat it is independent of the Commission(
6),
(1) Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the role and contribution of civil society organisations in the
building of Europe, 22.9.1999, paragraph7.1 (OJ C 329, 17.11.1999, p. 339).
(2) See also paragraph30 of Parliament’s resolution of 26.10.2000 on the Commission reports to the European Coun-
cil: Better lawmaking Odash A shared responsibility (1998) (COM(1998)715 Odash C5-0266/2000 Odash 1999/2197(COS))
and Better lawmaking 1999 (COM(1999)562 Odash C5-0279/1999 Odash 1999/2197(COS)) (OJ C 197, 12.7.2001,
p. 433).
(3) Article262 of the EC Treaty.
(4) Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee of 25.4.2001, points 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.6 and 5.5 ‘Proposals and
guidelines’, Proposals 1and 2.
(5) See also paragraphs28 and 37 of Parliament’s resolution of 10.12.1996 (OJ C 20, 20.1.1997, p. 31).
(6) A preliminary draft opinion of the Governance subcommittee of the Economic and Social Committee quotes the
example of the Group for Industrial Policy which is responsible for the competitiveness of industry and is made up
of 30 members from the Member States and 40 from the Commission, which leads to vast additional costs.
(Document CES 95/2001, 22.2.2001, 4.2.2).C153E/318 EN 27.6.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday29November2001
(e) however indispensable it may be to consult relevant groups and experts when drafting legislative
proposals in particular, it should not be allowed to add a further level of bureaucracy, for instancein the form of ‘accredited organisations’ or ‘organisations with partnership agreements’,
(f) in conjunction with the ESC, the Commission must find organisational structures so that a procedure
for consulting interested parties can be conducted in a meaningful and efficient manner; all ongoingconsultations should be listed in a register that is accessible via the Internet;
12. Proposes, following on from the suggestions made by the Commission and the Economic and Social
Committee(
1), that an interinstitutional agreement on democratic consultation be concluded committing all
three institutions to commonly agreed consultation standards and practices at Union level; points out,however, with regard to the independent role of many non-governmental organisations, that the creationof consultation standards must not be tied to any quid pro quo on the part of organisations of civil societybecause independent and critical public opinion is essential for a vibrant democracy; confirms, however,that the democratic requirements placed on the Community regulatory process as regards accountabilityand transparency must also apply to these organisations;
13. Points out that access to legislation is an important part of effective participation and consultation,
so that legislation must be both consistent and clear, access thereto must be practical, and there must bebetter understanding of laws by those concerned;
14. Takes the view that this requires effective publicity and the best possible forms of communication,
direct (to members of the public) and indirect (via the press), in order to arouse interest and win thepublic’s support for measures to be taken;
15. Emphasises the opportunity which new technologies present as regards meeting new challenges
concerning communication, consultation and the direct participation of civil society;
Autonomous regulatory authorities
16. Points out that the right of codecision and political scrutiny by the European Parliament and the
Council would become more difficult if EU administrative powers were increasingly delegated to European
agencies with decision-making powers;
17. Takes the view, based on the principles set out in paragraphs8 and 10, that the creation of further
independent regulatory authorities in addition to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market inAlicante, the Community Plant Variety Office in Angers and the European Agency for the Evaluation ofMedicinal Products in London within the framework described in the White Paper(
2) can only be approved
if specific scientific or technical expertise is required and a decentralised administration seems appropriate;however, this must not lead to a reduction in expert and judicial scrutiny by the Commission or to anywatering down of the Commission’s political accountability;
18. Points out, however, that the Commission must always have the necessary instruments to enable it
to account to Parliament and the Council for the activities of such authorities and it goes without sayingthat authorities of this kind can be created only on a clear legal basis;
Openness and transparency
19. Takes the view that increased transparency and openness on the part of the Council as legislator is
a sine qua non for good governance and that keeping interested parties informed of the Council’s legis-lative work is the basic precondition for improving understanding and increasing participation on the partof the general public;
20. Stresses once again in this connection the need for the Council to hold its meetings in public when
acting in a legislative capacity; in such cases, debates and votes must be made public; pursuant to theCouncil’s Rules of Procedure, public debates must take place at the start and at the end of all legislativeprocedures, and the results of votes and explanations of votes by Members of the Council must be pub-
lished;
(1) White Paper 3.1: ‘What is needed is a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue; a culture which is adopted by
all European Institutions and which associates particularly the European Parliament in the consultative process,
given its role in representing the citizen’ and ESC opinion of 25.4.2001, 3.5, 3.5.1.
(2) White Paper 3.2.27.6.2002 EN C153E/319 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday29November2001
21. Regrets that the White Paper makes no reference to the institution of the petition to the European
Parliament and complaints to the European Ombudsman, particularly given that the Commission makes amuch appreciated and frequently decisive contribution to the processing of petitions in the interest of theEuropean citizen;
22. Regrets that although the White Paper mainly deals with matters falling under good administration,
the Commission has not been able to take a position on the initiative by the European Parliament and theEuropean Ombudsman on good administration;
23. Finds it deplorable that the draft code of good administration does not serve as a point of departure
when the Commission elaborates concrete actions to follow the White Paper;
24. Regrets that the Commission does not mention the new regulations on access to documents in the
White Paper, since it is evident that proper implementation of these rules and the allocation of adequateresources to that end are of paramount importance for the achievement of good governance in the EU;
Involvement of regional and local authorities
25. Points out furthermore that, on the basis of the considerations set out in paragraphs8 and 10
above, that there is no question of the direct delegation of powers and tasks to bodies or authorities atregional or local level in the Member States as this would undermine the basic structure of the Union andbe in breach of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality which leaves it up to Members States todecide how to organise themselves internally;
26. Welcomes the White Paper’s concept of the role of the regions as intermediary between the citizen
and the supranational authorities; will welcome proposals from the Convention to redraft Article5 of theEC Treaty in order to make a specific reference to the function of constitutional regions within MemberStates; proposes that regions and local authorities, both of which have important duties in the implemen-tation of EU law and policy, be invited to involve themselves much more in consultative work in the pre-
legislative phase as well as in post-legislative monitoring of the effect of such legislation on the ground;
27. Is also of the opinion that the development of a dialogue with associations of municipalities should
result in municipalities and local authorities being consulted on all Commission plans that affect their
interests;
28. Notes in this connection that the administrative agreements sought also represent an interesting and
new kind of approach to implementing Community law, but that the effects thereof on Member States’
administrative laws, and in particular on the structures of local government, must be carefully studied;
29. Remains committed to the principle of autonomous enforcement of Community law by national
governments and regions, because this leads to a transparent division of tasks, clear accountability and
implementation of EU law that is close to the citizen; insists, however, on effective monitoring of com-pliance with obligations under European law, e.g. by means of Treaty infringement procedures;
Better lawmaking
30. Points out that an intensive exchange of views has been going on between the Union institutions on
this subject for years(
1);
31. Considers that the drafting of an ‘action plan for better regulation’ by a Council working party
(Mandelkern group on better regulation) and, at the same time, by a Commission working party with asimilar brief, represents a serious breach of the Community method, for Parliament, as co-legislator, wasneither informed of, nor involved in, the work of these working parties;
(1) Recent examples include: European Parliament resolution of 4.9.2001on the Commission’s 1 7th annual report on
monitoring the application of Community law (1999) (COM(2000)92 Odash C5-0381/2000 Odash 2000/2197(COS))
(‘Texts Adopted’, Item 6), European Parliament resolution of 3.7.2001on a draft interinstitutional agreement on a
more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts (2037/1/2000/rev. 1 Odash C5-0588/2000 Odash 2000/2266(ACI)) (‘Texts Adopted’, Item 5), European Parliament resolution of 16.1.2001 on the communication fromthe Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a review of SLIM: Simpler Legislation for the
Internal Market (COM(2000)104 Odash C5-0209/2000 Odash 2000/2115(COS)), and the abovementioned European Par-
liament resolution of 26.10.2000.C153E/320 EN 27.6.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday29November2001
32. Calls on the European Council not to adopt the ‘Action Plan for Better Regulation’ without first
consulting the European Parliament;
33. Recalls that, on 2 October 2001, Commission President Prodi assured the European Parliament that
the Commission would not present such a plan either to the Laeken European Council or at any othertime, without first obtaining Parliament’s opinion; calls on the Commission, therefore, not to submit an‘action plan for better regulation’, or any other document with the same content but under a differentname, to the Laeken European Council before Parliament, as co-legislator, has delivered an opinion;
34. Considers that there are currently no interinstitutional agreements on co-regulation which guarantee
Parliament effective exercise of its political role and responsibility, either with regard to the appropriatechoice of a legal instrument (while respecting the Commission’s right of initiative), or with regard to theform and implementation of a proposed co-regulation;
35. Believes that the use of so-called ‘framework’ directives must be accompanied by adequate mech-
anisms of democratic control; in particular, Parliament must in future have at its disposal a time-limited‘call-back mechanism’ for legislation which is delegated;
36. Points out that these methods require further examination and consideration in Parliament and
should be regulated by an interinstitutional agreement(
1); if the Commission assumes that co-regulation
‘should not be used in situations where rules need to apply in a uniform way in every Member State’(2)
then its scope of application is unlikely to be very wide; in no circumstances however should it be allowedto result in a situation in which targets for industry for the purposes of environmental protection are fixedin a way that circumvents Parliament and merely approved by the Council(
3) under agreements between
the Commission and trade associations which are neither ‘representative’ nor ‘accountable’(4);
37. Has fewer reservations about the open method of coordination if it is confined to the exchange of
procedures that have proved their worth and the comparison of progress achieved and does not apply in
the sphere of preparation of European Council meetings from which Parliament is excluded; it must underno circumstances lead to hidden parallel legislation by circumventing the legislative procedures establishedin the EC Treaty;
38. Points out that better law-making must become part of public administration ‘culture’ at all levels in
the European Union, and must also encompass the implementation of laws and rules by Member Stateauthorities; this will require effective and appropriate information and training of officials, both at Euro-pean level and at national, regional and local levels, in order to guarantee decentralised administration and‘Europe-friendly conduct’ at all levels;
39. Considers that any amendment to Community legislative provisions relating to the institutional and
legal aspects of governance must be made by means of amending the Treaties in force and hence be placedon the agenda for the next Convention;
40. Takes the view that the Commission must present more far-reaching proposals for reforming comi-
tology, as greater transparency and scrutiny by Parliament as co-legislator is also needed where the Com-mission implements Community legislation;
41. Calls on the Commission, in order to ‘give priority to consideration of any infringements of Com-
munity law’ Odash as it has expressed the intention of doing Odash not to hesitate to initiate measures possiblyleading to proceedings for non-compliance before the Court of Justice of the European Community againstMember States under Article226 of the Treaty;
42. Urges the Commission to intensify its efforts to complete its own administrative reform so as to
establish a first-class, open and transparent public administration, without which it will be impossible toaspire to being the principal executive in a well-managed and accountable Union;
(1) In its resolution of 26.10.2000 on better law making Parliament drew attention to the dangers of ‘voluntary agree-
ments among the parties concerned’ (see 7th citation, paragraphs23 and 24 of the resolution in the Würmelingreport).
(
2) White Paper 3.2, Box ‘Conditions for the use of co-regulation’.
(3) European Parliament resolution of 14.7.1997 on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the
European Parliament on environmental agreements (OJ C 286, 22.9.1997, p. 254). The most recent example of aplanned voluntary agreement with industry concerns the protection of pedestrians against injury as a result of
collision with a motor vehicle (Commission communication COM(2001)389, 11.7.2001).
(
4) White Paper, loc. cit.27.6.2002 EN C153E/321 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday29November2001
Cooperation with the European Parliament
43. Expects the Commission to intensify cooperation in particular with Members of the European Par-
liament and to support them in what is the most fundamental of their tasks, in maintaining a dialoguewith the citizens, the relevant Commission departments making available all the information needed forthis purpose, e.g. on progress with administrative procedures and upcoming deadlines, and in particularproviding full and detailed information upon request;
44. Stresses that the directly elected Members of the European Parliament are the representatives of the
citizens of the European Union;
Enlargement
45. Notes that the political dimension of enlargement is scarcely mentioned in the White Paper despite
the fact that in its opinion on the convening of the last Intergovernmental Conference the Commissionrightly pointed out that ‘enlargement requires changes in the way in which the institutions operate toensure their effectiveness in a Union whose membership is set to double’(
1); against the background of
enlargement, the question of the costs of the reforms to involve citizens and civil society proposed by theCommission also takes on a completely different light(
2);
Convention and Intergovernmental Conference
46. Points out that it will examine the topics dealt with in the last chapter of the White Paper (‘Debate
on the future of Europe’) on the basis of separate reports drawn up by the committees responsible and,consequently, these topics will not be discussed in this motion for a resolution in order to avoid over-lapping and repetition;
Individual measures and proposals from the Commission
47. Intends to examine carefully as soon as they are submitted to it the numerous individual proposals
and measures announced in the White Paper, such as:
Odash guidelines on collection and use of expert advice(
3),
Odash priority attached to treatment of possible breaches of Community law(4),
Odash criteria for the creation of new regulatory agencies(5),
Odash defining minimum standards for consultation and publishing them in a code of conduct(6),
Odash developing an approach to working with key networks(6),
Odash programme to review and simplify Community legislation adopted before 2000, supported by fast
track procedures(7),
Odash codifying the current administrative rules concerning the handling of complaints(7),
(1) Adapting the institutions to make a success of enlargement, 26.1.2000, COM(2000)34, p. 6.
(2) See, with respect to Parliament, the report adopted by the Bureau on 3 September 2001‘Preparing for the Parlia-
ment of the enlarged European Union’, PE 305.269/BUR/fin.
(3) White Paper 3.2.
(4) White Paper 3.2 (Box).
(5) White Paper, Proposals for change.
(6) White Paper 3.1Action Points.
(7) White Paper 3.2 Action Points.C153E/322 EN 27.6.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday29November2001
Odash examining how the framework for trans-national co-operation of regional or local actors could be
better supported at EU level(1),
Odash proposing twinning arrangements between national administrations(2),
Odash a review of the Union’s international representation(3);
*
**
48. Instructs its President forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council, the Economic and
Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the governments and parliaments of the MemberStates.
(1) White Paper 3.1Action Points.
(2) White Paper 3.2 Action Points.
(3) White Paper 3.3 Action Points.
21.Promotingqualityinemploymentandsocialpolicy
B5-0739/2001
EuropeanParliamentresolutiononaEuropeanstrategytopromotequalityinemploymentandin
socialpolicy
The European Parliament,
Odash having regard to the Social Policy Agenda adopted by the Nice European Council of 7 to 9 December
2000,
Odash having regard to the conclusions of the European Councils of Lisbon (23/24 March 2000), Stockholm
(23/24 March 2001) and Göteborg (15/16 June 2001),
Odash having regard to the Commission Communication ‘Employment and social policies: a framework for
investing in quality’ (COM(2001)313),
Odash having regard to the Commission’s proposal for a Council decision on Guidelines for Member States’
employment policies for the year 2002 (COM(2001)511),
A. whereas the Lisbon European Council set the strategic goal of making the Union the most competitive
and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, characterised by sustainable economic growthwith more and better jobs and greater social cohesion,
B. whereas the Social Policy Agenda, adopted by the Nice European Council, reflects the need to focus on
quality as a means to ensure a positive, mutually reinforcing interaction between economic, employ-ment and social policies,
C. whereas the quality of jobs should always be a goal, regardless of the state of economic growth,D. whereas the 2002 employment guidelines include ‘quality of work’ as a general objective,E. whereas the Stockholm European Council asked the Council and Commission to develop indicators on
quality in work, to be presented in time for the Laeken European Council,27.6.2002 EN C153E/323 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday29November2001