Opinion of the Commission pursuant to Article 251 (2), third paragraph, point C of the EC Treaty, on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position regarding the proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a programme of Community action to encourage cooperation between Member States to combat social exclusion amending the proposal of the Commission pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty
Date: 2001-06-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU action, European social policy, intergovernmental cooperation (EU), marginalisation, poverty

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 29.06.2001
COM(2001) 375 final

2000/0157(COD)

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

pursuant to Article 251 (2), third paragraph, point C of the EC Treaty,
on the European Parliament's amendments
to the Council's common position regarding the
proposal for a

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

establishing a programme of Community action to encourage cooperation between
Member States to combat social exclusion

AMENDING THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMISSION
pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty

1.

INTRODUCTION

Article 251(2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty provides that the Commission is
to deliver an opinion on the amendments proposed by the European Parliament at second
reading.

2.

BACKGROUND

The proposal COM(2000)368 final (2000/0157(COD)) was sent to the European Parliament
and the Council on 16 June 2000. The European Parliament gave its opinion in a first reading
on 16 November 2000. The Economic and Social Committee adopted its opinion in its
plenary session of 19 October 2000 and the Committee of the Regions on 13 December 2000.

Following the opinion of the European Parliament and pursuant to Article 250 (2) TEC, the
Commission adopted an amended proposal and sent it to the Council and the European
Parliament on 24 November 2000 (COM(2000)796 final).

The Council reached a political agreement on a common position during its session of 27/28
November 2000. The Council adopted its common position on 12 February 2001.

On 17 May 2001, at its second reading, the European Parliament adopted 15 amendments to
the Council Common Position.

This opinion sets out the Commission's position on the European Parliament's amendments in
accordance with Article 251 (2)(c) of the EC Treaty.

3.

PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSAL

The proposal was tabled by the Commission in response to the Conclusions of the Lisbon
European Council's conclusions which state that "Policies for combating social exclusion
should be based on an open method of co-ordination combining national action plans and a
Commission initiative for co-operation in this field to be presented by June 2000" (Paragraph
32 of the Conclusions). It is based on the TEC provisions, in particular Article 136 and Article
137, paragraph 2, subparagraphs 2 and 3 thereof. The proposal provides the legal basis for a
5-year programme of Community action aimed at
improving understanding, organising
mutual learning within the context of Member States' National Action Plans to combat
poverty and social exclusion, supporting participation of all stakeholders and networking at
European level. It will contribute to enable the Union and the Member States to enhance the
effectiveness and efficiency of policies to combat poverty and social exclusion.

4.

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION ON THE AMENDMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT

The Commission can accept 5 out of the 15 amendments, in full, in spirit or in part. The
Commission can not accept the remaining amendments or part of the amendments.

2

4.1.

Amendments accepted by the Commission

Amendment 2 (Recital 2) proposes to add a reference to the new EU Charter on Fundamental
Rights, in addition to the reference to the Social Charter of the Council of Europe. The
amendment is in line with the conclusions (page 9) of the Communication of the Commission
to the EP on the Common Position (Ref. SEC(2001)208).

Amendment 4 (Recital 23 new) proposes to add a reference to the compatibility of the
proposed budget with the current financial perspective. The amendment is identical to recital
21 in the Commission's amended proposal.

Amendment 6 (Article 3, points a and b) highlights the importance of comparable
indicators/parameters at the level of the objectives of the programme, which is in line with the
Lisbon, Nice and Stockholm Council conclusions. As the objectives of the programme should
be formulated clearly and concisely the following rephrasing is suggested: (a) improving the
understanding of social exclusion and poverty, supported by comparable indicators; (b)
organising exchanges on policies which are implemented and promoting mutual learning in
the context of the national social
inclusion action plans on the basis of comparable
parameters.

Amendment 7 (Article 3, point c) is only acceptable where it proposes to enhance the
dialogue with all levels and provided it is rephrased as follows: c) developing the capacity of
actors to address social exclusion and poverty effectively, through networking at European
level, and by promoting dialogue with all involved, including those at the local and regional
level.

Amendment 14 (Annex, Section 1, Strand 3, points 3.1 and 3.2) is only acceptable where it
refers to a 90 % financing ceiling instead of an 80 % one, and in exceptional circumstances
only.

4.2.

Amendments rejected by the Commission

Amendment 1: proposes to add to the list of relevant Community tasks 'solidarity among MS'.
The fight against poverty and social exclusion in each MS is seen as a purely national effort,
and should be placed in the context of promoting national action plans, underpinned by
Community-level objectives and policy oriented co-operation.

Amendments 3, 10 and 18: propose creation of an advisory committee instead of a
management committee for the programme and deletion of Article 7 which describes
implementing measures
in accordance with the management procedure; while the
Commission proposed an advisory committee in its original and amended proposals, it could
accept the creation of a management committee as it might be interpreted as a sign from
Member States to become more strongly involved in the management of the Programme. In
this way it can support co-operation between Member States, in the context of the open
method of co-ordination, more effectively.

Amendment 5 is superfluous and potentially confusing as it introduces language on 'the
overall aim of the programme is …" in Article 2 (Principles) whereas objectives of the
programme are defined in article 3; moreover para 1 of article 2 in the Common Position
provides a more accurate statement of the same.

Amendment 5 also stipulates that targets should be agreed by the Council and the Parliament
whereas the conclusions of the Lisbon and Nice European Councils refer to the Council only.

3

Amendment 8 does the same in respect of the objectives. And amendment 12 demands that
the Commission reports to both the Council and the Parliament on progress achieved under
the programme in its annual synthesis report to the spring European Council. All these
amendments seek to strengthen the role of the European Parliament in the open method of co-
ordination. The institutional scope of these amendments extends beyond the programme
which is but an instrument in the open method of co-ordination.

Amendments 7 and 13 propose to open funding under the programme to 'innovative projects
with a European added value in combating social exclusion'. In line with the open method of
co-ordination, the aim of the programme is to encourage cross-national policy co-operation
and mutual learning and not to fund actions on the ground.

Amendment 11 (Article 9, paragraph 1a new) asks the Commission to assess the effect of its
policies and programmes on poverty and social exclusion. This amendment goes beyond the
scope of the programme, as it refers to the assessment of policy impact – an aim which is
being pursued in the context of the Commission's annual Synthesis Report to the Spring
European Council. Moreover, the wording of Article 9 is considered sufficient to ensure
overall consistency between activities of this programme with other relevant Community
policies, instruments and actions.

Amendment 14 proposes to name the actors to be consulted in the preparation of the annual
roundtable conference. Such a list risks to be more restrictive, incomplete and less flexible
than the more general term "all actors concerned".

Amendment 9 proposes to raise the budget of the programme from 70 to 100 million
Commission maintains at this stage that the budget of 70 million
appropriate and consistent with the availability of its human resources.

. The
which it has proposed is

€

€

5.

CONCLUSION

Pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty, the Commission amends its proposal as set out
above.

4