President. – The next item is the report (A5-0256/2002) by Mrs Smet, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Legal Affairs, on the scoreboard on implementing the social policy agenda [2001/2241(INI)].

  Smet (EPP-ED), rapporteur. – (NL) The purpose of the annual scoreboard for the implementation of the social policy agenda is to ascertain how much progress has been made towards the objectives laid down in Lisbon and Nice. The essence of these objectives is the creation of a European social model to eliminate poverty and unemployment, create high-status jobs, encourage lifelong learning, modernise the social security system and do away with all forms of discrimination. The 2000-2006 period is a crucial time in this respect as changes in the economy, demographics and migration have rarely been as great as they are now.

It is therefore to be expected that Parliament, as the mouthpiece par excellence of what is of concern to the European population, should keep a close watch on assessment of progress. The document put before us by the Commission gives us a first-class overview of the activities which have been undertaken and of what we can expect in the near future. But what is missing – and this is my main criticism – is a six-year summary of what has to be done. Parliament takes the view that the extent of annual progress can only really be judged in the light of the targets set for the six-year period in question. Parliament expects more from the Commission than an annual report. It requires a six-year programme containing initiatives to be taken and the instruments to be used for each initiative, such as legislation, open coordination or negotiations between social partners, and deadlines for the completion of these initiatives. As part of its interim evaluation in 2003, the Commission must attempt to work out a different type of scoreboard and present it to Parliament. Parliament already made this request last year and is repeating it this year.

This brings me on to my second criticism: the lack of Parliament's involvement. The Commission knows full well that the European Parliament is the greatest advocate of the social aspect of European development, much more so than the Council of Ministers. We have plenty of examples of this, starting with European legislation which Parliament usually pushes further than the Council of Ministers would like. I therefore fail to understand why the Commission took so little trouble to involve Parliament at an early stage in devising the social policy programme. The Commission's document is dated 19 February 2002 and was approved at the Spring Summit in March. Parliament needs at least 2 months to produce a report through its committees and plenary sessions, and that does not give us much time. I would therefore advise the Commission to ensure that it submits its next report by the end of December, so that a useful dialogue with Parliament can be organised. It should be possible for this dialogue to progress positively and quickly if the Commission takes account of the comments made in Parliament's two previous reports.

Finally, a few words on one of the instruments of social policy, open coordination. The success of this method lies in the fact that it has given us a way to coordinate the policy of the 15 Member States, to bring the 15 Member States behind a coherent set of objectives and to provide the 15 Member States with best practices to achieve those objectives. And all this in areas where binding European Union legislation is not desirable or not possible. The difficulty for Parliament is that its involvement is not, or not adequately, regulated. The method has a high input from many groups outside this Parliament. This raises the question of whether the use of the open coordination method and the participation of the European Parliament can be better aligned in the context of the Convention and the Intergovernmental Conference. We hope the Commission will support us in this.

  Diamantopoulou, Commission. – (EL) Mr President, I should like to make a point of thanking Mrs Smet for her report on the scoreboard on implementing the social policy agenda. As she quite rightly points out, the social policy agenda for the years 2000 to 2006 is the first common commitment adopted, including by the Council, and the first European charter of social commitments and actions.

The first year, 2001, was a special case which we discussed last year. It was the first year we ran it and it had serious shortcomings and problems. This year, we have our first detailed scoreboard, containing a step by step analysis of the progress made in this particular policy area. The comment last year was that the description only applied to the Commission. I think it is clear that, this year, we have a detailed description of all the agencies involved in each action. One example is the proposal for socially sensitive restructuring in the business sector, which describes the role of the Commission, the European Parliament, the social agencies, the social partners, governments and civil society. Of course I agree with Mrs Smet and her comment in the report that we should always look forward as well as back, i.e. not just to how specific agencies have been involved but also to the objectives they have set for the following stages.

The following stages will be examined to a certain extent in the first mid-term review in 2003. The period from 2003 to 2005 is also important. There will be an initial progress report and we shall be able to make any changes deemed necessary. I should point out here that the European Parliament will be fully involved in this mid-term review because as Mrs Smet says, and I am sure no-one disagrees, Europe's basic ally in all social policy proposals is the European Parliament. It is more often than not Parliament which is the driving force behind the European Union in social policy.

I should like to comment on three points which I feel are instrumental to the debate. First that, with cooperation between the Commission and the European Parliament, most of the social policy agenda initiatives planned for 2000 to 2002 have been brought to a successful conclusion or are under way. Secondly, as has already been mentioned, we have found a modus operandi with the method of open cooperation between the Member States and, to a certain extent, a way of including the role of Parliament in this method. Of course, this is a first step and what we need to do is identify the basic, fundamental role of the European Parliament and this is something the Convention will need to address. The third point is that, as with the European Parliament, we need to find a legal basis for involving civil society in discussions in the Convention.

I should like to make a point of thanking the European Parliament for its constructive cooperation. We look forward to receiving your individual comments.

  Κaramanou (PSE), draftsperson of the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities. – (EL) Mr President, the scoreboard on implementing the social policy agenda is obviously extremely valuable because it allows us to draw conclusions as to the progress made.

I have had the honour of drafting the relevant opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights. To be perfectly honest, I had little to add to the very detailed report drafted by Mrs Smet, who also happens to be an active member of the European Parliament's Committee on Women's Rights. The importance and value to women of implementing this agenda is obvious, given that, over recent years, most increases in employment have affected women. Around two-thirds of the new jobs which it is estimated will be created between 2002 and 2010 will be filled by women, which is why I was especially pleased, Commissioner, with your communication a short while ago about the new initiatives which you have taken on behalf of the Commission to coordinate economic policy and employment policy.

The procedure for assessing progress, despite the shortcomings pointed out by Mrs Smet in her report, is without doubt a very useful tool, especially at a time of economic recession, when the pressure is on to relax social policy and to abandon efforts to reduce economic inequalities and combat social exclusion. We therefore welcome the initiative taken by the Danish Presidency to highlight the problem of social exclusion and the various repercussions that social exclusion has on the two sexes.

  Pérez Álvarez (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr. President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by congratulating Mrs Smet on her excellent work. The scoreboard on the application of the Social Agenda must allow the progress made in terms of the application of that Agenda to be monitored, but it must also act as a rapid alarm call when there are delays in the implementation of the measures announced. I believe that the rapporteur has been able to harmonise both aspects in her report.

Furthermore, in its application, the Social Agenda should not, in my humble opinion, be treated as an unaltered or unalterable programme. Designed by people for people, I see it as an evolving programme which demands subsequent adjustments, as the mid-term assessment of the progress achieved, to be carried out in 2003, will demonstrate.

Commissioner, much has been done in terms of the development of the European social model, but I would venture to say that there remains much to be done, and in different fields. Sex equality policy, measures to combat social exclusion and poverty, policies on the integrating of disabled people socially and taking advantage of the capacities they do have, and opting for life-long learning and training and, with it, the need to adapt to the new forms of work and the reconciliation of work with family life.

In any event, there is a demand which I would like to highlight and draw the Commission’s attention to. I am referring to the new forms of work, with the new risks inherent in them and therefore the concern about the forms of participation in productive processes by means of productive externalisation or decentralisation – subcontracting, the presence of freelancers, independent workers – in the field of the risks of the contracting company, etc.

Hence the need for the application of measures aimed at preventing risk – inherent in all forms of work, but sometimes imperceptible and blurred in the context of these new forms of production – being converted into work accidents. I believe that these measures would be viable for all workers, employers and society.

  De Rossa (PSE). – Mr President, I want to congratulate the rapporteur on this report and indeed congratulate Commissioner Diamantopoulou for her very excellent work in this area of social policy. A major step forward was made for the European Union at the Lisbon Summit, in its commitment not only to a competitive, dynamic economy but also to a society which is cohesive and based on full employment. Too often we hear spokesmen from the various political groups talking purely about the idea of a competitive economy and ignoring the balance we need to ensure within the European Union in terms of modernising and deepening the social model that we have in Europe.

The Nice Summit also took a major step forward in adopting the new social agenda. If we had had a referendum in Ireland on that, rather than on the Treaty of Nice, it would have received 100% support. Unfortunately we do not have to vote on these issues at this stage. But it was an important advance.

I have to say, however, that progress seems to have considerably slowed down since then. I have no doubt there are forces or elements in the European Union – both in the Commission and in the Council – which are deliberately seeking to slow down progress on this agenda. It seems to me to be short-sighted. If we are serious about creating a European Union which has the support of the citizens, we must give a balanced commitment to the development of a social Europe. Even for the centre right it makes sense. If they are serious about Europe and creating a Europe of states and peoples, then we must ensure that equality, cohesion and solidarity rule right across the Union.

I feel there are inadequacies in the scoreboard itself. Not all the progress has yet been measured. I welcome the idea of a mid-term review for early next year and I look forward to participating in it. I hope that in the years ahead, particularly in the Convention and the subsequent IGC, we can succeed in ensuring that the commitment that began to be developed in Lisbon and subsequently in Nice can be incorporated and deepened in a constitution for the European Union which guarantees that we have not only a competitive Europe but a Europe that cares equally for all of its citizens.

  Andersson (PSE). (SV) Mr President, I too should like to begin by congratulating Mrs Smet on having, as usual, done a sterling job. In my own country, Sweden, a national election campaign is under way right now. Those in Sweden who belong to the same political group as Mrs Smet usually maintain that the social agenda is not something for Europe but that social policy is a matter only for the individual Member States.

I usually put forward Mrs Smet’s view. Despite our belonging to different political groups, we are in complete agreement about the need for national social agendas. A European social agenda is also needed, however, as something which is becoming more and more important. Like Mr De Rossa, I approve of what happened in Lisbon. Incredible progress was made, and we succeeded in broadening and deepening the social agenda.

At the same time, I am rather uneasy about the signals which have been produced in the course of last year and which I see in terms of attempts to throw the Lisbon process off balance. The talk now is simply of companies and of competition between companies, and the social dimension is forgotten. It is therefore good that there are MEPs who wish to go beyond party boundaries in promoting the social aspects, and I wish again to congratulate both the Commission and Mrs Smet on their work.

I also share Mrs Smet’s views on the scoreboard, namely to the effect that it must be more forward-looking and strategic and be based upon the conclusions from the spring European Councils. I hope that the Commission too will take that view on board, as well as the open coordination method, which is something to which we have returned time and again. We have debated this on many occasions, and I am myself a proponent of the open coordination method. It has meant that we have been able to develop cooperation in new areas. If the open coordination method is to be successful in the long term, it must not however be applied behind closed doors. If the method is to be employed for a long time, it must be subject to democratic control and be debated both here in the European Parliament and in the national parliaments. We must hope that the Convention will get to grips with this issue so that the open coordination method is taken account of in the Treaties.

The social agenda is important in another perspective too, namely people’s willingness to take the EU project to heart. The social agenda concerns precisely those questions that people consider to be important – the fight against poverty, together with increased employment and a more just society – and that is why the social agenda is important.

  Bastos (PPE-DE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Social Policy Agenda is a dynamic programme and, therefore, likely to be adjusted. Hence the importance of the annual assessment panel, enabling the European Parliament to monitor and control the implementation of the Social Agenda, analysing the past and programming the future.

The rapporteur, Mrs Smet, has presented a magnificent price of work, which criticises the Commission communication and lays bare its weak points, as well as making clear and lucid contributions to the future implementation of the Agenda. Employment is the European Union’s number one priority. In 2000, the employment rate reached 63.2%. Despite the creation of around 3 million new jobs, it is still 7% below the Lisbon Summit objective for 2010 and the number of unemployed still persists, at 14.5 million European citizens.

The low employment rates of older workers, the disparities between men and women, both in terms of the employment rate and of remuneration (18% and 14% respectively) the high levels of unemployment – around of 8% of the workforce – and regional differences in employment constitute structural weaknesses that require attention and active measures. The committed involvement of the social partners is crucial. Poverty and social exclusion are other issues that deserve increased attention. More than 60 million people are living at risk of poverty. This phenomenon varies, as is known, between Member States, but we are not mistaken in considering the fight against poverty and exclusion and their eradication to be the greatest challenge facing us. Therefore, the Commission must speed up the works that are underway in the aim of understanding and assessing the phenomenon, paying particular attention to women. With regard to promoting equal treatment between men and women, this Commission assessment panel still lacks an overall strategic approach. Consequently, the Commission must propose measures to improve the situation of women and, in parallel, to adopt initiatives to promote their full participation in decision-making in the workplace.

  Κratsa-Τsagaropoulou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, I share the regret expressed by Mrs Smet in her report about the delay in submitting the contents of the last scoreboard on implementing the social policy agenda. The social agenda, as we all know, is not a set of social policy proposals, it is a strategic plan to modernise the European social model and face up to future problems and challenges. A single annual scoreboard would create a strategic mechanism for evaluating progress in policies and any adjustments deemed necessary.

Now we see that the scoreboard method falls short of these ambitious aims. The report looks more like a routine job than a fundamental approach. It tends towards the superficial and hardly looks like an integrated tool for analysing the current situation, allowing a proper appraisal of progress, programming future action in areas broached by the European Commission, such as integration of the disabled, involvement of the elderly, worker mobility and outstanding legislative proposals, or suggesting new topics.

Another comment I have to make is that it does not highlight the entrepreneurial aspect of social development plans, even though our new perception of European policy includes this aspect. Then there is the outstanding question of cooperation with and the involvement of the social partners and the Economic and Social Committee and the subject and results of social dialogue, although I was pleased to hear the Commissioner refer to efforts to start up a dialogue with civil society. So we need to make more of an effort with the form and content of the mid-term review, which the European Parliament expects to receive before the next spring Council because, as you know, Commissioner, it wishes to play a part in shaping social Europe, and rightly so.

  Diamantopoulou, Commission. – (EL) Mr President, I should like to extend my special thanks to the honourable Members for their interventions, which we shall take into account, as we did last year.

I should just like to reply to some of the Members' comments. Obviously the report reflects efforts which have either been completed or are under way and legislative activities which have either been completed or are at the consultation stage. However, all it can do is reflect the Commission's possibilities under the Treaty, as far as Parliament's and the Council's proposals and possibilities at later stages are concerned.

I say that because topics such as the disabled or the elderly, which Mrs Κratsa mentioned, and other special social policies are, as we all know, purely national policies at present. The debate at this stage of the Convention is extremely tense and I think that all of us who support the need for a European dimension to social policy have a huge political opportunity, at this stage of the game, to bring about change, including at the Convention.

  President. – Thank you Commissioner.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 12 noon.⁽¹⁾

(The sitting was closed at 12.09 a.m.)