Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-04-Speech-3-284"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030604.8.3-284"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, we first need to question the reason why an own-initiative report was proposed, for we have noticed that this method is spreading to many areas. In Lisbon, it was recommended to apply this method to the information society, research and innovation, company policy, education and training, social inclusion, economic policy, migration policy, etc. However, we have noticed that Parliament's input and control are very restricted. There is a great lack of transparency in the decision-making process and in the reasons why some elements of the method are, or are not, being used.
This is why the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs has decided to carry out a thorough analysis of the way in which things are being done, which has resulted in a report containing the suggestion that, if the Commission wished to start an open method of coordination, this should require the permission not only of the Council but also of Parliament. Moreover, the Commission must indicate the components of the method it wants to use. These components are common targets, common indicators, guidelines, common indicators, a summary report, national reports and recommendations. These are the conventional components that are used either wholly or in part. Parliament must give an opinion on the guidelines, the summary report and the recommendations, and the social partners must be consulted on matters relating to social policy and labour. Finally, the Commission is also asked to draw up a study on the method's effectiveness and on the linking of money from the Structural Funds with the recommendations that have been put to the Member States.
To organise this in a structured manner and to prevent the open method of coordination from being developed in one area or another without Parliament's knowledge, input or codecision, it is necessary to enshrine the general mechanism and Parliament's codecision right in the constitution. The question is, however, whether we will succeed in doing so? Judging from the texts drawn up to date by the Convention's Presidency, I notice that we have met with partial success. For example, it is stipulated that the open method of coordination is applied to economic policy and to employment policy and that – this is an improvement on the current texts – it can be applied to social policy. It is also stipulated that Parliament must be consulted or informed of the guidelines and recommendations.
Needless to say, this is a step, albeit a small one, in the right direction. It is in any case more than what was deemed possible at one stage on the basis of the discussions in the Convention. However, it remains a drop in the ocean. Parliamentary powers and possibilities for control remain restricted. Those who are opposed to this method and labour under the illusion that if we do not mention it in the Convention, it will not be used, are, of course, mistaken. Nobody can stop this method from going ahead. A simple Council decision without any input from Parliament therefore leads to the method being used in one area or another.
I will illustrate this with migration policy. If the ministers involved in migration decide to apply the method – also because, for example, they are unable to lay down legislation in this area – the open method of coordination will be applied to migration policy. Our problem is not so much the fact that it is being applied, but the fact that Parliament has no, or very little, involvement in it. This is why we said in the committee: fine, let us then, in the Convention, adopt an article clearly stating that it is obviously not prohibited to apply the open method of coordination but if it is, that it should be done in consultation with Parliament. This was, in fact, the meaning of the article.
We have thus seen that some progress has been made in the Convention, that we have achieved what we wanted to some extent. However, it is imperfect and incomplete compared to what it should be. I would reiterate my two key comments: I fear that, on the one hand, the open method of coordination could result in no legislation being laid down and, on the other, that some of the national powers may possibly be removed if the open method of coordination is applied. There is, in fact, only one solution in both cases, which is: to allow Parliament the right of codecision. It is precisely the opposition to the open method of coordination that has led to this not being achieved satisfactorily. I can only say that this is regrettable. I think that we have drawn up a sound report and I would thank all the members of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, for they have made a marvellous contribution to this report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples