8 Implementation of the White Paper on
A New Impetus for European Youth
| (26088)
13856/04
COM(04)694
| Commission Communication on the follow-up to the White Paper on A New Impetus for European Youth: evaluation of activities conducted in the framework of European cooperation in the youth field
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 22 October 2004
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 4 November 2004
|
| Department | Education and Skills
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 17 November 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
8.1 In November 2001, the Commission published a White Paper on
A New Impetus for European Youth. It proposed a framework
for cooperation in the youth field.
8.2 On 27 June 2002, the Council adopted a Resolution
approving the framework and calling for the "open method
of coordination"[13]
to be applied to four priorities:
- participation;
- information;
- voluntary activities; and
- greater understanding and knowledge of youth.
The Resolution also invited the Commission to report
in 2004 on progress in implementing the framework of cooperation
set out in the White Paper, including an evaluation of the application
of the open method of coordination.
8.3 In November 2003, the Council approved the Commission's
proposals for common objectives for the first two of the priorities:
participation and information.[14]
8.4 In November 2004, the Council approved common
objectives for the remaining two priorities: voluntary activities
by young people and greater understanding and knowledge of youth.[15]
8.5 Article 149 of the Treaty establishing the European
Community (the EC Treaty) provides that the Community is to contribute
to the development of "quality education" by encouraging
cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by supplementing
and supporting their action. The Article provides that Community
action is to be aimed at, among other things, "encouraging
the development of youth exchanges and of exchanges of socioeducational
instructors". The EC Treaty provides no other legal base
for Community action in the youth field, but there is a youth
dimension to other matters, such as employment and social cohesion,
for which there are legal bases.
8.6 Article III-182(2)(e) of the Constitutional Treaty
proposes that Community action should be aimed at "encouraging
the participation of young people in democratic life in Europe"
as well as encouraging youth exchanges and exchanges of "socioeducational
instructors". Article I-16 of the Constitutional Treaty proposes
that the European Union should have competence to carry out "supporting,
coordinating and complementary action" related to youth.
Article I-13 expressly excludes youth from the matters for which
competence would be shared between the Community and Member States.
The document
8.7 The Commission says that its Communication has
been produced in response to the request in the Council's Resolution
of June 2002 for an evaluation of the framework of cooperation
proposed in the Youth White Paper.
8.8 The Communication summarises the action the Commission
and Council have taken, such as:
- consulting on, devising and
adopting the common objectives for Member States to pursue;
- organising and participating in seminars, conferences
and working groups to promote action on the common objectives
in the field of youth;
- providing information for and about young people;
and
- reinforcing the youth dimension in other policies
(for example, in May 2004, the Council adopted a Declaration on
racism in relation to young people and intolerance and a Resolution
on young people and social inclusion).
8.9 The Commission notes that the open method of
coordination for youth is different from the open method of coordination
in other areas in two main ways. First, the objectives are qualitative,
not quantified. Second, the implementation of the common objectives
"is not the subject of national plans of action coordinated
at European level". The Commission says that these two differences
were "indispensable for a consensual approach in the implementation
of the new cooperation framework". But it adds that it is
now important to consider the balance between the method's flexibility
and effectiveness:
"The implementation of the common objectives
by the member States is crucial for the success of the OMC [open
method of coordination]. Each Member State, depending on its national
situation, should draw up a plan of action to achieve the agreed
objectives."[16]
8.10 The Communication concludes that:
"All the undertakings in the Commission White
Paper have been fulfilled. A consistent cooperation framework
has been created. A widespread mobilisation of young people, youth
organisations, public authorities, ministers and European institutions
has been achieved.
"Yet, already, the Union is facing new challenges
in this field. It is important to prevent any loss of the new
impetus imparted by the White Paper. Once the new Constitution
has been ratified, new actions will be needed, given that society
in general and youth in particular are evolving so fast."[17]
The Commission says that:
"The balance between the flexibility and effectiveness
of the open method of coordination in the youth field must be
reassessed.
"The open method of coordination must lead to
effective action at Member State level, in particular in order
to continue to guarantee young people's support for and commitment
to the process."[18]
The Government's view
8.11 The Minister of State for Lifelong Learning,
Further and Higher Education at the Department for Education and
Skills (Dr Kim Howells) tells us that:
"The Commission's conclusions may lead to the
identification of new priority areas for policy cooperation for
the future, but none are suggested here. The UK Government would
prefer that work on new priority areas is not undertaken until
the common objectives already agreed can be implemented and their
impact assessed. We will be pressing for this approach to be adopted
in Council Working party discussions."
Conclusion
8.12 We share the Minister's view that commitments
to new work should not be made until what has already been agreed
has been done and assessed.
8.13 We have reservations about two aspects of
the Communication:
- First, it seems clear to
us that the Commission believes that the open method of coordination
as it applies to youth policies should be modified. The Commission
appears to favour the quantification of the common objectives
and the imposition of a requirement on Member States to submit
national action plans. The Commission refers to "new challenges"
facing the Community and the need to prevent any loss of the
impetus imparted by the White Paper. But the Communication does
not explain what these new challenges are or provide evidence
that there might be a loss of impetus. It seems to us, therefore,
that the Commission has not provided a sufficient justification
for changing the current method of open coordination which, as
the Communication says, has been indispensable for consensus in
the implementation of the new cooperation framework.
- Second, the Commission says that, when the
Constitutional Treaty has been ratified, new actions will be required.
As we understand it, Article III-182(2)(e) proposes only one addition
to the action the Community may take: "encouraging the participation
of young people in democratic life in Europe". It does not
appear to us that this addition would either amount to a major
extension of the Community's competence in the youth field or
necessarily call for new action.
8.14 We ask the Minister to tell us whether he
shares our reservations on these points. We also ask him to keep
us informed of the progress of the negotiations on the Communication.
Meanwhile we shall keep the document under scrutiny.
13 Conclusion 37 of the Lisbon European Council on
23/24 March 2000 described the open method of coordination as
a means to help Member States progressively develop their own
policies by fixing guidelines for the Union with specific timetables
for achieving goals; establishing quantitative indicators and
benchmarks as a way of comparing best practice; translating the
European guidelines into national and regional policies by setting
specific targets; and periodic monitoring, evaluation and peer
review. Back
14
(24446) 8489/03 and (24448) 8490/03: see HC 63-xxix (2002-03),
para 13 (10 July 2003). Back
15
(26017) 12563/04 and (26018) 12564/04: see HC 42-xxxv (2003-04),
para 7 (3 November 2004). Back
16
Commission Communication, page 7. Back
17
Commission Communication, page 10. Back
18
Commission Communication, page 11. Back
| 
