Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Strengthening the social dimension of the Lisbon strategy: Streamlining open coordination in the field of social protection"
Date: 2003-11-20
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU employment policy, European social policy, political cooperation, social security

C 73/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.3.2004

the CoR feels it

the
background,
forthcoming constitutional treaty before taking a final position
on the question of a framework directive;

is necessary to await

in conclusion, the CoR would urge the Commission
2.8.3.
to enter into an in-depth and systematic dialogue with the CoR

Brussels, 20 November 2003.

and associations representing local and regional authorities in
the EU on these authorities’ experience of organising and
operating SGIs. Drawing on accumulated experience is an
important prerequisite for a sophisticated and balanced debate
on how the task of delivering SGIs can be discharged in the
best possible way.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the
Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions on Strengthening the social dimension of the Lisbon strategy:
Streamlining open coordination in the field of social protection’

(2004/C 73/03)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Communication to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Strengthening the social dimension of the Lisbon
strategy: Streamlining open coordination in the field of social protection (COM(2003) 261 final);

having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 22 May 2003 to consult it on this subject,
under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

having regard to the decision of its President of 19 June 2003 to instruct its Commission for Economic
and Social Policy to draw up an opinion on this subject;

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, etc.: Review at the halfway
stage of the socio-political agenda (COM(2003) 312 final);

having regard to the European Council
conclusions;

in Lisbon, 23 and 24 March 2000: The chairmanship’s

having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 224/2003 rev.) adopted on 22 September 2003 by the
Commission for Economic and Social Policy (rapporteur: Ms Lena Celion, Municipal Commissioner,
Gotland Municipality, (SE/EPP),

adopted the following opinion at its 52nd plenary session, held on 19 and 20 November 2003 (meeting
of 19 November).

23.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/15

1. The Committee of the Regions’ views

The Committee of the Regions

agrees with the Commission’s overall views on the
1.1.
need for a more effective coordination of Member States’ social
protection policies. As an important part of this field also
involves local and regional
initiatives, the Committee wel-
comes, in particular, the possibility that such coordination,
according to the Commission, could be expected to make the
process less burdensome for local and regional actors. The
Committee’s view is that a simplified process could also reduce
costs for the actors involved;

1.2.
agrees, moreover, that the Open Method of Coordi-
nation could be an effective instrument for achieving the
It is the Committee’s view that the
desired coordination.
method must be developed further and — in particular —
simplified and that the exchange of experiences can contribute
to ideas as to how, above all, the interaction between Member
levels can be developed
States’ national and local/regional
within the framework of the coordination method. In this
interaction, there is always a risk that the local/regional level is
not accorded importance in the process, which can adversely
affect the end result and also contribute to reduced interest in
the issues. The national action plans should, for example,
always state how the local and regional
levels have been
involved in the work on the plan in question. The various
political strategies and activities at regional and local level
must be made visible in the annual report on social protection,
and the Commission should ensure that the joint report on
pension strategies is widely disseminated and discussed;

Treaty, or as regards governance and responsibility. As regards
issues concerning the social protection system, it is important
that this system is developed on the basis of local and regional
conditions and that the fundamental principles concerning
subsidiarity and the need for diversity are always kept alive.
An awareness of the mutual dependence of the three policy
fields could have a major positive impact on development at
all levels of society but must not lead to ambiguity concerning
the different circumstances which apply to the governance of
each field. Within the field of social protection, it is, as was
also pointed out in the Commission’s communication, the
Member States who have full responsibility for their health
and social policies and for funding and organising their
own systems. The EC Treaty makes no provision for direct
Community influence on health and social policy beyond the
exchange of information and the comparison of methods and
results. The open coordination of these policy fields may not
result in Member States coming under pressure to adjust their
social standards downwards;

1.5.
demands that the Commission proposal for stream-
lining open coordination will simplify administration for the
Member States. Especially given the fact that Member States
are to be obliged to update their plans annually, the Committee
of the Regions demands a cogent concept for making the
requisite reduction in administrative outlay;

1.6.
considers the statement in the Communication that
equality will form part of an overall theme to be positive. It is
also important that the field of equality is emphasised jointly
for all three fields within the ‘policy triangle’, i.e. also in terms
of economic and employment policy;

1.3.
agrees, in accordance with what has been previously
stated, for example, within the framework of the socio-political
agenda, that there are strong reasons for creating ‘a policy
from the three fields of economic, employment
triangle’
and social protection policy. This fundamental view on the
interaction between these three fields also makes it easier to
see social protection policy as an important productive factor.
This view involves having a deeper sense of the role of social
protection policy as a dynamic factor in the national economy,
and the Committee of the Regions would like to have seen
these arguments developed further in the Communication
referred to here;

1.7.
shares the Commission’s view of the challenges faced
by Member States. Of these, the challenge to contribute to
growth and the creation of new jobs is of particular note.
Another common challenge is the demographic changes
which, amongst other things, are resulting in an older popu-
lation. However, the Committee of the Regions wishes to
emphasise in this section that these demographic changes can
to some extent be seen as the result of a successful welfare
policy that gives people the possibility of a longer and more
active life which, if handled correctly, could result in more
resources for society;

1.4.
shares the view that the synchronisation of the pro-
posed coordination of social protection with the coordination
process, which is now to take place between the EU’s economic
and employment policies, can lead to both greater effectiveness
and simplification. However, the Committee wishes to stress
that the three components of the process cannot be placed on
an equal footing on the basis of the legal foundations of the

1.8.
has a number of questions concerning the Com-
mission’s discussion relating to health and long-term care.
Firstly, it is unclear what is meant by this term in this context.
A useable definition is important, not least given the fact that
Member States have different
forms of organisation and
funding within the field of healthcare and that the definitions

C 73/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.3.2004

of what is covered by this field also differ between Member
States. Clarification is important, not least with regard to
Article 152 of the Treaty, which states that within the field of
public health the EU must fully respect the responsibility of
Member States for organising and providing healthcare;

tight. Support in developing the exchange of experiences
between current and future Member States may, however, help
to speed up the process.

also has a number of questions with regard to the use
1.9.
of the term ‘long-term care’, which cannot be deemed to cover
the initiatives carried out as part of care for the elderly, which
in many countries is now also provided as social support and
not solely as healthcare. One definition that would also include
the important category of the disabled could be ‘the care of
and provision of services to the elderly and disabled’;

1.10.
agrees that, in order to live up to the fundamental
ideas of rationalising the process of social protection, common
indicators must be developed. The Committee thinks it vital
that these indicators should not be too far-reaching and should
be based, wherever possible, on information which is already
available. Far too many indicators involve an unacceptable
amount of additional work at local and regional level. Within
a field such as social protection, it is also important that the
indicators are not simply quantitative but that qualitative
indicators are also used. When only quantitative indicators are
used, there is a risk that important information could be
missed;

1.11.
also wishes to emphasise that the quality of the
statistics forming the basis of the indicators should be sufficient
to enable the levels of Member States to be described and
compared; an average value at national level can hide large
regional variations and it may therefore be appropriate to also
use statistics from the regional level. However, the prerequisite
for this is that such statistics should already be widely available,
in order to avoid a considerable amount of additional work;

1.12.
agrees with the Commission’s analysis as regards the
need to adapt the time frames for the new rationalised process
for social protection to the process concerning employment
and economic policy. This coordination is expected to take
place from 2006 onwards, which imposes exacting demands
for speed and also on the support that the European level can
provide in development work, such as by presenting the
necessary background material;

agrees that it is important for the new Member States
1.13.
to be included in the proposed coordination process. EU
enlargement will make social
issues even more important
within the Union. However, the Committee believes that the
time frames for the new Member States may be rather too

2. The Committee of the Regions’ recommendations

The Committee of the Regions

2.1.
recommends that the continued development of the
Open Method of Coordination should also include simplifi-
levels find
cation, which means that
that participation in the process is justified with regard to
effectiveness and use of resources;

local and regional

2.2.
believes that the Open Method of Coordination should
be constantly assessed. In this assessment, special consideration
should also be given to the experience gained in using the
method at local and regional level, particularly as regards the
implementation of the national action plans. In many of the
Member States, the Open Method of Coordination affects
municipal and regional core issues, which also involve compre-
hensive local and regional responsibility for funding. The
principle of subsidiarity should therefore be used as a guide in
applying the method. New benchmarking methods should be
tested on the basis of the idea that exchanging experiences is
in itself a fundamental idea within the framework of the Open
Method of Coordination;

demands that when streamlining takes place,

2.3.
the
distinction between the degrees of coordination in individual
policy fields must be maintained. For example, the existing
differences between guidelines and (framework) objectives
should be maintained. Within the field of social policy, too,
the degree of coordination must be differentiated in the light
of subsidiarity;

2.4.
wishes to underline the importance of ensuring that
the message concerning healthcare, which is also referred to in
the Communication with which we are concerned here,
considers the fact that Member States have different organis-
ation and funding systems and that healthcare represents an
important part of the Member States’ economies. Even modest
steps towards more similar systems could have major effects
in terms of healthcare policy and national economics;

2.5.
stresses the importance of the work being carried out
at EU level to clarify how the goal of ‘making work pay’ can be
fulfilled and how social protection can contribute to this goal,
as regards for example the incentive structures of benefit
systems. The general challenges that the Commission refers to
indicate that this development work should be intensified over
the next few years;

2.6.
thinks the development work concerning indicators
should be beefed up and targeted more on developing
‘qualitative indicators’. Since social protection systems differ

23.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/17

the indicators that are
greatly in the different countries,
developed should be based on a patient/user perspective,
which can largely be considered as being independent of, for
example, the way in which healthcare is organised in each
country;

believes that it is very important to provide the new
2.7.
Member States with plenty of support, so they can coordinate
their work within the proposed policy triangle with other
Member States. This support should also provide opportunities
for the exchange of experiences between countries.

Brussels, 19 November 2003.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Communication from the Commission
Investing efficiently in education and training: an imperative for Europe’

(2004/C 73/04)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Communication on Investing efficiently in education and training: an imperative for
Europe (COM(2002) 779 final);

having regard to the decision of the Commission of 11 February 2003 to consult it on this subject, under
the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

having regard to the decision of its Bureau of 19 November 2002 to instruct its Commission for Culture
and Education to draw up an opinion on this subject;

having regard to its opinion on European benchmarks in education and training: follow up to the Lisbon
European Council (CdR 349/2002 fin) (1);

having regard to its opinion on The eLearning Action Plan — Designing tomorrow’s education (CdR
212/2001 fin) (2);

having regard to the endorsement by the March 2002 European Council in Barcelona of the Detailed
work programme on the objectives for education and training systems and the specific objective Making
the most efficient use of resources, which is informed by the Lisbon Council’s call to increase investment
in human resources whilst ensuring fair, efficient distribution of the resources available;

(1) OJ C 244, 10.10.2003, p. 50.
(2) OJ C 19, 22.1.2002, p. 26.