16.8.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192/1

1.1

endorses the recognition of the specific nature of public aid for the provision of services of general economic interest and the definition of public service contracts which clarify the rights and obligations of each party;

1.2

welcomes the neutrality of the regulation with regard to the social and territorial objectives pursued by each competent authority;

1.3

supports the principle of contractual arrangements, which recognises the role of public service obligations in meeting social and territorial cohesion objectives. Public service contracts make it possible to specify public service obligations and the costs they entail in a transparent manner.

2.1

welcomes the fact that, with due regard for the subsidiarity principle, the proposed regulation provides local and regional authorities with the necessary flexibility to respond more effectively to the specific or complex local requirements of public transport services, in line with their social and territorial cohesion objectives;

2.2

reiterates its commitment to the principle of free administration of local and regional authorities, which recognises their right to freely choose how to organise their public transport services; this is in line with legislation in most Member States;

2.3

welcomes the fact that the competent authorities are free to choose the method of management, which goes some way towards recognising the diversity of local requirements and production conditions;

2.4

broadly supports the rule concerning the geographical jurisdiction of internal operators (Article 5(2)), which will help to remove most of the suspicion surrounding ‘incompatible’ aid, while maintaining the possibility to use an internal operator; believes that the principle of geographical jurisdiction does not rule out the possibility for a local authority to operate certain transport services which extend beyond its administrative boundaries;

2.5

reaffirms its favourable position towards opening up markets in the local public transport sector, in line with the principles of ‘regulated competition’, which underlines the requirement to meet the needs of the most vulnerable members of society and job-seekers in less advantaged neighbourhoods while at the same time being environmentally sustainable;

2.6

welcomes the fact that the proposed regulation recognises the responsibility of the competent authorities for organising the provision of services on the basis of contractual arrangements. The competent authorities will be able to choose whether to base the operation of transport services on one or several contracts, and are free to determine how to allocate risk;

2.7

welcomes the flexibility allowed in competitive tendering: the public service contact procedure may involve negotiations (Article 5(3)) or be replaced by a direct award in the event of the disruption of services (Article 5(5));

2.8

is surprised that inland waterway and maritime transport in urban areas have been excluded from scope of the proposed new regulation. Similarly, it regrets that the proposed regulation does not apply to inland water transport services where such services are an integral part of the local public transport network.

3.1

notes that the regulation does not restrict private initiative on passenger transport markets which have been deregulated at national level (without exclusive rights and without compensation);

3.2

feels that the nature of regulation is such that it will help to prevent the emergence of new monopoly positions in local public transport and will not exclude SMEs from the market;

3.3

is satisfied with the proposed balance between the relative powers of the competent authorities and large transport companies. In order to ensure good, efficient local transport it is important to have strong regional influence in planning and organising public transport. With commuter transport on the increase, a high degree of coordination of national and regional public transport tenders is also required;

3.4

supports the exclusion of long-distance and regional rail transport from the scope of Article 5 of the regulation;

3.5

has doubts about the feasibility of implementing the proposed rules to determine fair compensation for public service obligations. The difficulty (even impossibility) of determining fair compensation could become a source of legal uncertainty;

3.6

points out that no provision is made for regulating direct awards in the regional or long-distance rail transport sectors. Some companies will be able to operate on the basis of ‘direct awards’ in the regional and long distance sectors and at the same time take part in invitations to tender. A close eye needs to be kept on possible distortions of competition.

4.1

is surprised that nowhere in the proposal does the Commission explain why it has opted for a regulation, the most binding instrument of Community integration;

4.2

notes that, as situations vary widely across Member States, the draft regulation proposes definitions which are quite loose in some cases, but entrusts Member States with the responsibility of establishing more specific definitions in their respective territories. This applies particularly to the definition of urban areas (Article 2(m)), where the requisite transport zones rarely coincide with the authorities' geographical boundaries.

—

calls for a clear priority rule to be set out — based on the principle that the more specific law takes precedence (lex specialis) — in respect of the provision of the present proposal for a Regulation vis-à-vis the rules laid down in the general Directives on public procurement;

—

would like to see the inclusion in the present regulation of detailed provisions on concession contracts which clarify the arrangements governing them in relation to public procurement directives (93/37 and 2004/18);

—

calls for more explicit treatment in Articles 5(1) and 8(1) of BOT (Built, Operate and Transfer) contracts. The regulation must clarify the legal conditions which apply where an exclusive right (and/or compensation) is associated with the construction of heavy infrastructure.

4.8

Paragraphs 5 and 6 of this Article shall not apply in cases where the directives on the award of public contracts are applicable. In these cases, the maximum duration of the public service contract shall be set at thirty years from the effective date of the commencement of work.

16.8.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192/8

1.1

notes that the Commission's communication Healthier, safer, more confident citizens: a health and consumer protection strategy, advocates bringing together health and consumer policy; this can generate a synergistic effect on knowledge-sharing, working methods and the more effective use of administrative resources;

1.2

welcomes the Commission's efforts to ensure that people have greater scope to make healthy choices and acquire healthier consumer habits. The Commission communication highlights the tremendous importance of health both for individual well-being and for achieving the Lisbon strategy objectives, as better health makes for a more productive Europe and helps increase labour force participation and promote sustainable growth. An internal market in goods and services that is responsive to consumer needs and wishes will further improve EU competitiveness;

1.3

stresses that health and consumer issues should also be taken into account in other areas of EU policy. To achieve the overall objectives in the fields of health and consumer protection, there must be more coordination of political processes in other areas, such as employment and agriculture. It is, for instance, inappropriate that the EU should be continuing to subsidise the consumption of unhealthy foods as for example high-fat dairy products or, in the 2005 Community budget to support the tobacco industry to the tune of EUR 916 million, substantially more than the EUR 14.4 million it is spending on support for tobacco control. The CoR is therefore pleased that aid for the tobacco industry is to be phased out completely by 2010;

1.4

supports the call for the establishment of a minimum set of rights, on a horizontal basis, that all consumers will have when using services of general interest (e.g. gas and electricity, postal services, telecommunications, water) whether at national or cross-border level, based on the principle of universal service provision (i.e. universal access for services of general interest that are essential for participation in modern society). This is an area in which the universal service principle should remain supreme, and which must meet consumer expectations with regard to access, security, reliability, price, quality, and choice;

1.5

considers that there is a need to continue to observe the impact of the internal market on the health service and consumer habits in the Member States. The interplay between Community rules and national health and consumer protection policies should be examined when implementing the Treaty objectives of a high level of health and consumer protection through Community initiatives;

1.6

pleads for a stronger consideration of consumer interests in the EU's competition policy taking into consideration the relationship between consumer protection and competition policy set out in Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, which state that the aim of the competition rules applying to undertakings is to protect competition on the market as a means of enhancing consumer welfare;

1.7

believes that Community initiatives should be assessed for their impact on public health. Such assessments should examine how decisions taken affect the health of the population and not only look at how the various measures affect the organisation and orientation of the health service. They should also consider the impact of EU measures on the underlying values of the health service in the individual Member States. It is important to bear in mind that the impact of a Community initiative may vary from one Member State to another;

1.8

feels that steps should be taken to ensure democratic and transparent decision-taking and responsibility in the field of consumer affairs. It is particularly important to ensure that the foodstuffs industry takes environmental and public health issues on board and provides fresh and nutritious food for everyone, irrespective of their social and economic background;

1.9

takes the view that any linking of health and consumer policy must not result in food producers marketing their products directly as ‘healthy’ or ‘recommended by doctors.’ Producers cannot be allowed to use the fear of disease either as a means to sell their goods or mislead consumers into thinking that certain foods can replace a healthy and balanced diet. It is therefore important for any European consumer policy to steer trends towards better health and healthier products and prevent consumer disinformation;

1.10

stresses that the legal bases of Community public health and consumer protection policies are completely different. According to Article 152 of the EC Treaty, in the field of public health ‘Community action (…) shall complement national policies’. However, consumer policy, as set out in Article 153 of the EC Treaty, is largely subject to common approach, with a view to promoting consumers' rights and protecting their interests, in particular when this concerns the completion of the internal market. Invoking a shared legal basis for the two policies is therefore in contradiction with the subsidiarity principle.

EU consumer law must not be a conduit for specific rules or laws in the field of health, that interfere with the organisation and orientation of the health service in the individual Member States. However, bringing consumer protection policy into line with the strict complementarity and subsidiarity criteria that underpin public health policy could have an adverse effect on EU's own consumer protection powers;

1.11

considers therefore that, instead of talking about a strategy for ‘health and consumer protection’, it would be more accurate of the Commission to refer only to ‘public health and consumer protection’ throughout its communication as this would be in accordance with the EU competences laid down in Article 152;

1.12

stresses that linking health and consumer policy must not result in patients in the healthcare system being placed on the same footing as consumers on the market. The health service market differs in a number of substantive ways from the general consumer market, as is apparent in the uncertainties about healthcare requirements and the costs involved, the external impact of healthcare use and the information imbalance between providers and consumers/patients. At the same time, the desired objective is that people should enjoy equal access to health services — and equal opportunities — irrespective of social and economic background. It is essential that Member States retain scope to set priorities, act and intervene as appropriate;

1.13

recommends that the specific needs of health and consumer protection should continue to be catered for, despite their being brought together under a single, joint programme. That can be done by earmarking budgetary resources specifically for one policy area or the other. The Commission's programme details the precise breakdown of resources to be allocated for the 2007-2013 period. As far as possible, priorities should be adaptable to change as the programme develops, perhaps in conjunction with the planned evaluation after three years. That is in keeping with the programme's intention to draw on flexible action plans;

1.14

acknowledges that in certain areas of the health service greater coordination between the Member States through the open method of coordination appears desirable. This applies, for example, to patient mobility and the training and recruitment of health service staff;

1.15

takes the view that the prerequisites for good health are created right on people's doorsteps. The health service organisation is only one of many players. In a number of Member States, it is the regional and local authorities that are responsible for health services and the public health of their communities. The Committee of the Regions, and the regions and local authorities responsible in these areas, must therefore be given influence over the Community's global health strategy. Particular attention should be paid to the Committee of the Regions' views on decisions and initiatives that touch on local and regional authorities' healthcare remit and public health responsibilities. Regional and local authorities must, for instance, be involved in and have a say in implementing the initiatives to establish health indicators and benchmarking and public health strategies in areas such as involvement and influence, mental health, diet and nutrition and alcohol;

1.16

stresses that civil society must be called upon to take part in and contribute to the development work. Grassroots citizens must be guaranteed a say in Community policy on both health and consumer affairs. It is important to support specialist health and consumer protection networks, and give them an opportunity to make their views known at Community level. This applies, for example, to consumer organisations, patients' associations and other networks of professional relevance;

1.17

stresses that the Commission must ensure that staff in the executive agency have the necessary skills to be able to implement and apply the Commission's programme, not only in the fields of health and consumer protection but at a cross-sectoral level as well;

1.18

feels that to meet the shared and prospective challenges of health and consumer protection, it is vitally important that particular attention be paid to the new Member States. Clear priority should be given to supporting the new Member States in promoting their healthcare and consumer interests in order to reduce the discrepancies and imbalances that exist on the health front within the Union and thus, gradually, to come within range of the top EU benchmark. For instance, it is unacceptable that average life expectancy, according to Eurostat, is significantly lower in the new Member States than in the old Member States;

1.19

acknowledges that, under the proposed Commission programme concerning the European Regional Development Fund for 2007-2013, money from the Structural Funds can be used for the improvement of public health. The CoR would observe here that these resources can only be used in the initial phase of public health-related projects, and not in their day-to-day management;

1.20

feels that to meet the shared and prospective challenges of health and consumer protection, it is vitally important that particular attention also be paid to the EU's neighbouring countries. Clear priority should be given to supporting these countries in promoting their healthcare and consumer interests in order to reduce the discrepancies and imbalances that exist on the health front across Europe and at its fringes;

1.21

stresses that bringing consumer protection and health care together under one roof can also help promote more equality within Member States, especially since social and economic differences often result in differences in health and consumer protection. Particular attention must be paid not only to inequalities between Member States, but within them as well. An increased focus on marginalised groups, such as those on low incomes, those suffering from obesity, and ethnic minorities, is of prime importance in achieving the overarching objective of equal opportunities for all. It is also important to underline the importance of the individual's own responsibility for his or her health. A health and consumer policy that encourages people to make healthy choices is a useful tool in efforts to stamp out lifestyle-related diseases. Research shows, that marginalised groups more often suffer from ill health and lifestyle-related diseases. Helping marginalised groups make healthy choices can alleviate social and economic inequalities;

1.22

is of the view that the information to be provided by the Commission must be of use to recipients. Ways must be found to skew awareness-raising campaigns to the desired target group. The plan is therefore to conduct interactive information and awareness-raising campaigns rather than merely distribute the same information across the board. When spreading information on health and consumer protection, it could be particularly appropriate to target children and young people so as to counteract at an early stage bad consumer habits that may lead to bad health in the long term. Pre-schools, schools and voluntary organisations can have an important role to play in this regard;

1.23

considers that when conducting information campaigns, the Commission must give due regard to the prerogative of individual Member States to lay down the rules for rights and obligations relating to health care within their own social security systems and in line with the arrangements in place for the various different services and consumer rights;

1.24

recommends that information be provided wherever the public requests it, and that it should be followed up by competent advice and guidance in the individual Member States. Providing information to marginalised groups is a local and regional responsibility. Care must be taken to ensure that more vulnerable patient groups also have an opportunity to acquire information on health and consumer protection. Standardised documentation for all EU citizens would simply aggravate the inequalities between the different social and economic groups within the Member States, since investigations show that the better-off groups in society are more responsive to information campaigns than disadvantaged groups. It is important for the success of such campaigns that the local and regional level be involved in this work;

1.25

urges the Commission to keep abreast of developments in technology and communications when collecting data and planning awareness-raising campaigns. These are areas that are changing rapidly. It is essential to keep up to date in order to stay visible;

1.26

notes that, given that the agrifood market is to a large extent subject to imports from third countries, in which health and authenticity guarantees may be lower than those provided by European safety standards, consumers must be given clear, comprehensive information on the traceability of these products so that they can make an informed choice;

1.27

is pleased that the Commission is to focus on fewer, bigger and more visible awareness-raising campaigns. This also makes for more cost-effective operations. It is important that the joint secretariat is not assessed merely on the number of completed projects but also on the quality and ultimate impact of the projects pursued;

1.28

urges the Commission to support the development of networking for the exchange of experiences and dissemination of best practice. This is a key part of the open method of coordination. In that connection, it is important to involve the Committee of the Regions and to ensure that the regions and local authorities responsible for health services are given influence over the Community's global health strategy;

1.29

stresses that the Commission should maintain close contacts with the research community so as to maintain the reliability and impartiality of its information and prevention campaigns. Member States may benefit considerably from structured, coordinated European-level cooperation geared to exchanging experience, sharing knowledge and promoting research into health and consumer-related developments, as the Committee also notes in its opinion on the seventh R&D framework programme (CdR 155/2005 fin). That must be done in close conjunction with the European framework programme for research;

1.30

is of the view that if Member States are to adopt best practice and compare standards — and thus also put in place the conditions needed to implement many of the proposed initiatives in the field of health and consumer protection — then it is of vital importance that they have access to reliable data and high-quality information. Joint databases and indicators should be established in conjunction with other players in the field and coordinated with the UN, the OECD, the Council of Europe and the WHO. It is up to the individual Member States to take action or launch new initiatives using the comparative data and information collected;

1.31

is pleased that there is to be a significant increase in budget resources compared with those for the two existing programmes. This sends out a clear signal that health and consumer protection are important both for the quality of life of individual EU citizens and for the competitiveness of the EU as a whole;

1.32

notes that the negotiations on the financial basis are not yet completed. The final budget is contingent on the ongoing negotiations on the EU's 2007-2013 financial perspective. The Committee of the Regions would like to see this area receive greater financial priority, as advocated in both the programme and the strategy.

16.8.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192/12

1.1

welcomes the Green Paper of the European Commission and initiatives to raise energy-efficiency in general in the light of the current trend, which points to an increase in Europe-wide energy consumption of up to 10 % in the next fifteen years;

1.2

stresses the outstanding importance of energy efficiency, particularly in the light of the current crisis on the gas market. Europe's sources of energy supply must be diversified in order to minimise dependency of the kind currently seen in Ukraine or Bulgaria. On the basis of the Green Paper on Energy Efficiency it is possible to reduce overall dependence on crude oil and natural gas and thus to draw up a European action plan;

1.3

welcomes the fact that measures are being considered at all potential levels of implementation (EU, national, regional, local) and calls for compliance with the subsidiarity principle in the process of implementation;

1.4

is aware that energy-efficiency makes a significant contribution to all three relevant energy-policy objectives: security of supply, environmental and climate protection and competitiveness;

1.5

also emphasises the important social dimension of energy-efficiency measures which include the creation and safeguarding of local and regional jobs and which safeguard consumers from non-sustainable energy costs;

1.6

points out that further energy-efficiency rules for the Member States must not be drawn up too hastily. As stated in the Green Paper, many energy-efficiency measures are already in force in the EU or are being drawn up which have not yet had time to have an impact or which still have to be implemented. Examples of these are the buildings directive, the combined heat and power (CHP) directive, the emissions trading directive and the energy end-use efficiency directive;

1.7

draws attention to the fact that in many Member States and regions strategic plans and programmes of measures with very similar objectives or effects to those set out in the Green Paper already exist. Examples are the climate protection strategies (since the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol), National Allocation Plans (under the Directive on Emissions Trading) and the reduction of atmospheric pollutants (under the Directive on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants — NEC Directive). Therefore in the medium term the emphasis should be not on new efficiency plans but on the consistent implementation of the existing plans.

As experience of the implementation of these plans shows, in many cases these are measures in respect of which decisions to implement can be taken rapidly but whose effects are visible only in the longer term;

1.8

points to the numerous initiatives on energy-efficiency and renewable energies taken at local and regional level, the results of which are publicly available on numerous websites. Examples of this are the collections of good practice from all over Europe on the websites of ManagEnergy und Energie Cités (6);

1.9

is aware that raising energy-efficiency requires a policy of small steps. These small steps are being taken on a large scale by local and regional authorities which, given their closeness to the grass roots, have an awareness-raising function to perform;

1.10

makes the critical point that EU objectives regarding liberalisation of energy markets (increasing competition in order to reduce prices) and energy-efficiency are difficult to reconcile. Falling prices do not promote energy-efficiency. Moreover, power station renewal is being delayed for lack of suitable investment conditions;

1.11

considers measures to promote demand-side policy in the liberalised energy market to be appropriate. This entails also including the environmental costs in the consumer price and ensuring equal access to the grid. Strategies to raise energy-efficiency can play a key role wherever a counterweight is needed to current supply-side policies.

2.1

recommends that, if it is decided to introduce energy-efficiency plans, these be structured as five-year plans with at most two evaluations. Annual plans and annual evaluations do not in practice produce satisfactory results and are therefore not appropriate (question 3);

2.2

particularly emphasises that, when drawing up measures, special attention needs to be paid to past achievements and potential in the individual Member States, and that cost benefit analyses need to be carried out on each individual measure;

2.3

rejects the establishment of absolute efficiency increase targets. Those Member States which have in the past been less economical in the use of energy must not be given a competitive advantage. Member States which have already made savings or which use particularly efficient technologies have less potential for further efficiency increases and would be clearly disadvantaged by the application of absolute targets;

2.4

recommends instead a benchmarking system which, on the basis of an analysis of different climatic conditions and past energy-efficiency achievements, would lay down national energy-efficiency objectives for each Member State. These national objectives could then be incorporated into the definition of European standards and would thus make it possible to take account of national circumstances and previous achievements in a fairer way;

2.5

considers that the emissions trading mechanism should be structured in such a way that power stations would receive, after a reasonable transitional period, only as many certificates under the allocation plan as correspond to the production of the planned amount of power and heat in a gas turbine CHP power station. This would be a clear signal in favour of the objective of raising the energy-efficiency of electricity generation (question 13);

2.6

proposes that thought be given to a similar emissions certificate calculation for industry. Each industrial plant would receive only as many emission certificates as correspond to the planned amount of production in a plant with the highest energy-efficiency standard. This would mean transferring costs in accordance with the polluter pays principle and would bring major energy and CO2 savings (question 2);

2.7

calls for state aids for measures to introduce environmental innovations and productivity improvements with a view to increased energy-efficiency to be allowed. This aid could be structured as investment aid, with support for innovative, energy-efficient technologies being exempted from the notification requirement. On the other hand, energy-efficiency should be taken into consideration as a general criterion in environmental protection support, as this is implemented to a great extent at local and regional level; particularly advocates block exemption for aid aimed at raising energy-efficiency, or at least sufficiently high thresholds in order to reduce administrative burdens and any delays in implementing projects of this kind (question 5);

2.8

calls for account to be taken of energy-efficiency criteria in public purchasing at all levels (EU, national, regional and local). As this accounts for 16 % of EU GDP, greater demand for energy-efficient equipment, vehicles, buildings etc would be a strong incentive for industry to develop such products and bring their cost down. There is a wealth of experience in individual Member States of environmentally conscious public purchasing criteria;

2.9

rejects, however, binding rules on the award of contracts, as many regional and local authorities have very limited budgets. Instead, local authorities with limited budgets should be shown the advantages of the award of energy-efficient contracts, making it easier for them to chose between the lowest and the best bidder principles (question 6);

2.10

welcomes financing programmes for energy-efficiency projects. For the regional and local level, however, this would mean that financial resources and support could be made available only on a voluntary basis, in line with the authority's budgetary situation (questions 7 and 22);

2.11

calls on the Commission to take account of energy-efficiency criteria in all policy areas falling within the EU remit. Particularly in the areas of the Structural and Cohesion Funds, rural development and support for research, the Commission could make energy-efficiency a compulsory project-selection criterion. This could also be seen as an indirect incentive for the local and regional levels (question 12);

2.12

rejects any extension or tightening of the EU Buildings Directive before the results of implementation of the existing text have been evaluated. Before the directive is extended sufficient time must be allowed for assessment of the existing directive (question 8);

2.13

advocates intensive publicity work at all levels. Campaigns should be of national, regional or local relevance and focus on issues where practical alternative forms of action are actually available to the target group. Cooperation between the European Commission or its representative offices in the Member States and the regional and local levels of government would be desirable (question 12);

2.14

points out the need for information and training which should not be restricted to energy sector professionals, but extended in particular to those working outside the energy field, such as architects, construction companies, property developers, planners and infrastructure managers;

2.15

strongly advocates the accelerated introduction of CHP plants. In addition to committed implementation of the CHP directive, the associated market for heat must also be developed more rapidly than hitherto (question 13);

2.16

supports the overhaul of older, inefficient district heating systems as an important contribution to raising energy-efficiency and calls on the Member States to use Structural and Cohesion Fund resources for this purpose;

2.17

supports the European Parliament's call to the Commission to propose legislation for an efficient heat and cooling market. For the local level of government the efficient use of heat energy is just as important as appropriate cooling solutions. The use of air conditioning has in recent years led to an enormous rise in electricity consumption in the warm seasons of the year. As, via building regulations, the market for heat and cooling falls within the remit of local government, a special policy of information and advice would appear to be important here too. Local decisions should be influenced so as to take greater account of energy-efficiency. Innovative examples of district heating and cooling are available in the collections of best practices on the Internet referred to above;

2.18

supports the emphasis on and promotion of decentralised production referred to in the Green paper, but points out that the relationship between power station capacity and local consumption needs to be studied closely. Here too CHP should be viewed as a particularly efficient form of production. High energy-efficiency is easiest to achieve when the heat produced is used locally;

2.19

stresses that, with regard to power generation from renewable energy sources too, attention must be paid to energy-efficiency and the most environmentally sound handling of existing resources. When constructing new plants, consumption should first be optimised in all areas and only then should the supply system be adapted to optimised consumption. The following factors should, however, be considered and — depending on national law — examined with the involvement of the competent local and regional authorities: location, type of technologies, plant size, use of capacity;

2.20

rejects a system of white (energy-efficiency) certificates where the provider is required to carry out energy-saving measures for the final consumer. It is feared that the economic cost of introducing and operating a further trading system would exceed the savings thereby made. Apart from the high administrative cost, fair allocation would be even more difficult than in the case of emissions trading (question 15);

2.21

calls for further investment in the development of local public passenger transport and rail infrastructure. Only if reasonable alternatives to individual transport (cars) exist can a reduction in car traffic be expected in the longer term; welcomes in this context the fact that the European Commission's Proposal for a Regulation on public passenger transport services by rail and by road accepts the principle of local and regional authority autonomy in the provision of this service of general interest, which constitutes recognition of the role of these authorities in providing local public passenger transport services;

2.22

calls on the Commission to encourage industry to shoulder its responsibility and to adopt various measures aimed at reducing final consumer prices for energy-efficient equipment and renewable-energy technologies; concurs with the European Parliament that impressive cost reductions have been achieved in individual technologies in recent years, but that additional reductions are needed to make measures to raise energy-efficiency attractive to the public;

2.23

sees it as the duty of the EU, given Europe's relatively high environmental standards, to negotiate tariff or non-tariff advantages in the WTO for energy-efficient products.

16.8.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192/15

1.1

takes note of the Communication on European policies concerning youth, implementing the European Youth Pact, and welcomes its wide-ranging overview of the issues, which covers many different EU policy areas;

1.2

welcomes the element of continuity that this Communication brings, following on from the Commission White Paper on A new impetus for European youth, the Council Resolution of 27 June 2002 and the Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs, adopted by the Commission on 12 April 2005;

1.3

endorses the objective of strengthening youth policies in all areas of activity, given that investing in young people is essential for Europe's future;

1.4

stresses the need to for all levels of decision-making — EU, national, regional and local — to work actively to ensure that youth citizenship can be genuinely harnessed in all political contexts in European society. It is particularly important that initiatives aimed at improving quality of professional, social and family life should be forthcoming, in order to create the conditions for active citizenship for young people. It is vital to the EU institutions' long-term integration and legitimacy in the eyes of the European public for young people to become involved;

1.5

emphasises that real participation by young people can only be guaranteed if the EU's proposed initiatives involve local and regional authorities, youth organisations and all the social partners who have various degrees of contact with young people. The success of the initiatives outlined by the Commission chiefly depends on whether such a consultation process is properly implemented.

2.1

The CoR hopes that the application of the open method of coordination will make sufficient use of the role of local and regional authorities, thereby respecting their remit.

2.2

The CoR believes that, with regard to youth policies, the objectives of the open method of coordination should be: a) to draw young people into local life so that they become more involved in policies concerning them; b) to reach a stage where, in framing EU and national policies, greater consideration is taken of the specific needs of young people. The role, remit and knowledge of local and regional authorities are central to achieving these aims, particularly with regard to the specific strategy outlined in the Communication.

2.3

The CoR therefore recommends that the participation of regional and local authorities in the design, implementation and monitoring of youth policies be guaranteed at national level by Member States and at EU level by the Council.

3.1

The Committee welcomes the Commission's approach to youth employment and social inclusion policies; young people are particularly at risk of unemployment, lack of job security and low wages. In particular, the CoR feels it is important to fully implement the related aspects of the Lisbon Strategy, which aims to increase both the quantity and quality of jobs.

3.2

The CoR calls on the Commission to propose quantitative targets with regard to combating youth unemployment (currently 18 % at EU level).

While it is the duty of Member States to implement these policies, it is at the political and administrative level of local government in each State that responsibility lies for carrying out, developing and managing the processes of integrating employment, social and inclusion policies, anti-discrimination policies and policies combating social exclusion.

3.3

The shaping of measures designed to proactively recast and restructure welfare systems in order to increase the scope for young people to participate in the workplace and in society in general, requires a radical change in the approach taken to issues of inclusion/exclusion, in such a way as to gain a global understanding of the social conditions of youth. The employment aspect is inextricably linked to a whole range of socially enabling conditions such as good health, basic education and society that encourages and nurtures initiative.

3.4

In the case of European employment strategies and competitiveness measures, national and European action plans and structural funds are directed towards the objectives of employment growth, equal opportunities and social cohesion. Increasing the adaptability of workers and enterprises to economic change and increasing employability levels provides young people with a testing ground for integrated policies implemented and integrated mainly at local level.

3.5

The CoR calls on the Commission to promote measures, by common agreement, fostering the development of knowledge, skills and of all implementing instruments which serve to strengthen and capitalise on the work of local and regional government, with particular reference to:

3.6

Such action should be taken to increase the effectiveness of the contribution of local and regional authorities in the following key areas:

3.7

The Social Inclusion Strategy can improve the situation of young people (particularly the most vulnerable) insofar as there is to be effective integration, at EU and Member State levels, of the various policies directly implemented by local and regional authorities. To this end, the development of each social inclusion strategy and of the mutual learning employment programme will benefit from the active and direct involvement of the various local and regional authorities.

3.8

The joint cooperative efforts of the various levels of government can then be focused on the difficulties young people have in entering the labour market. These difficulties are evidenced not merely by unemployment levels but also by the levels of inactivity among young people, who are neither studying, nor working, nor even seeking employment — a particularly serious issue considering that many young people drop out of compulsory education before the age of eighteen.

3.9

The CoR calls on the Commission to encourage the inclusion in national reform programmes of measures to ensure sufficient financial and organisational support for youth entrepreneurship projects.

4.1

The CoR stresses that the European Youth Pact must not lead to a harmonisation of either the content of education and training programmes at EU level, or the organisation of education and training systems, as these areas are the full responsibility of Member States and in some cases of local and regional authorities. This in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty, which limits the Commission's competence to developing the European dimension in education and developing exchanges of information and experience on issues common to the education systems of the Member States.

4.2

The CoR hopes that information exchange on best practice (and on measures and procedures) developed by individual Member States will be enhanced and stepped up to ensure the active and effective participation of local and regional authorities in the process of adapting qualifications systems and frameworks.

4.3

In particular, each initiative towards the framing of a European qualifications framework — which will be linked to and supported by credit transfer and quality assurance arrangements, to the common European principles for identification and validation of non-formal and informal learning and to Europass (the European single framework for the transparency of diplomas, certificates and competences) — will require the contribution of local and regional authorities, including in the monitoring and initiative-assessment stages.

4.4

Naturally, this should also apply to the test phase of Youthpass — part of the Commission's Europass initiative — planned for 2006. In this respect, appropriate economic and procedural instruments will have to be put in place.

4.5

The same procedure should be used in the case of the Commission's proposal to invite Member States to provide more transparency and information about employment and training opportunities, in order to make mobility easier, as part of the modernisation of employment services and to reinforce their strategies for removing obstacles to mobility. In this respect, the assessment and implementation of initiatives such as the European Voluntary Service (EVS) and the information portals EURES (European job mobility portal), and PLOTEUS (portal for learning opportunities in Europe) will also be able to take better account of the needs of young people insofar as they will incorporate local authorities' assessments and proposals.

4.6

The need to coordinate national education systems, in order to maximise the free movement of citizens and the development of local systems, can also be met by stepping up information and good practice exchanges. Specifically, EU support for transnational dialogue and collaboration can accompany Member States' efforts towards establishing a comparable validation framework for non-formal and informal education.

4.7

Close cooperation between EU institutions and local and regional authorities is needed to help develop the role of universities as centres of knowledge and cultural exchange for young Europeans. This can also be achieved if universities are more firmly anchored within their locality and if they take on board the principles, methods and styles of partnership more thoroughly and systematically.

5.1

The CoR welcomes the fact that the Commission document is fully in line with EU policies on the free movement of workers and the mobility of students, teachers, trainers and trainees, particularly young people.

5.2

The CoR therefore fully supports the Commission's stance on the mobility of young people within Europe, for both training and employment purposes.

5.3

For the purposes of increasing knowledge of Europe and of the way it operates and of involving young people in political life, the CoR calls on the EU institutions to set up a youth programme based on the United Nations model, which would involve secondary school pupils and university students in a genuine simulation of the work of the EU institutions (European Parliament plenary sessions, Council meetings, etc.).

5.4

The issue of youth mobility is no longer limited to within the EU, but is increasingly concerned with non-EU countries. The Committee hopes to see closer cooperation between the Commission, Member States and local and regional authorities in efforts to promote the involvement of young people in voluntary organisations and international solidarity. Proper attention should be paid to cross-border mobility. The EU population currently comprises large minorities originating from immediate neighbourhoods, whose mobility should be promoted and contacts harnessed. In this regard, NGO networks from different Member States, operating in the same area of development, could provide a testing ground for support action from local, national and EU levels of government, working in synergy with each other.

5.5

As another step towards real mobility of young workers within the EU, the CoR calls on the Commission and the Member States to encourage stronger emphasis on language learning within national programmes.

6.1

The Committee would again emphasise the autonomy of Member States with regard to the shaping of policies and methods for promoting the reconciliation of professional and family life.

6.2

Here too, the Commission's efforts could be directed towards strengthening and increasing the opportunities for exchanging and mainstreaming the wealth of information, knowledge and experience built up by regional and local authorities, both in the areas referred to by the Commission and in the promotion of equal opportunities across the generations.

7.1

The CoR believes that the Commission should operate a sustained policy of debate and consultation with young people, aimed at being as effective as possible, on programmes and initiatives that they have developed themselves, in the course of which new procedures could be tested.

7.2

To this end, local and regional authorities, according to the territorial structure of each Member State, being closest to local circumstances and the first point of contact for young people in the process of integration into political, civil and economic life, must be able to play out their full role, and must do so effectively. Consultation with local authorities should be accompanied by measures aimed at:

Transnational dialogue helps to strengthen and stabilise experience, reducing the risk of it fading too early.

7.3

The Committee believes that the Member States should run campaigns on participation and how to exercise citizenship, and aim to promote, through school and training programmes, awareness of the responsibilities that each individual must assume in a democratic society, particularly within their community. In this context, schools and secondary education centres must be viewed as an important common space where young people can become involved and learn how democracy works.

7.4

The CoR hopes that the exchange of good practice regarding ways of involving young people in local government will be promoted, as well as mobility initiatives to enhance knowledge of the various forms of local government, with a view to fostering better-informed participation in political life.

7.5

The Committee calls on regional and local governments to promote experiments such as ‘Youth Councils’, which are not only a mechanism or a means of involving young people and for entering into dialogue with them, but are also practical methods of training these young people to be active citizens.

7.6

However, to support local participation and active citizenship, the Commission must encourage the joint transnational drafting of precise criteria and details regarding the specific objective of participation, i.e., details concerning how it will work, its scope, who will be involved, etc.

7.7

To eliminate or minimise the risk that only the large national networks will benefit from youth consultation and participation, it will be necessary to actively involve youth organisation networks operating at local level. To this end, it would be useful to directly involve local and regional authorities that have developed models within their own area for programming and administering consultative youth policies.

7.8

The CoR hopes that in implementing the planned initiatives (the campaign For Diversity — Against Discrimination, the European initiative on the health of children and young people, the public consultation on sport focusing on the educational and social values of sport for young people, etc.) the Commission will not underestimate the key role that local and regional authorities can play in reaching out to, informing, raising the awareness of, motivating and galvanising groups and individuals.

7.9

The CoR is pleased to note that much of the responsibility for youth policies lies with Europe's local authorities and regions. It is crucial, therefore, that local and regional authorities take some share of the responsibility for young people's education, work and leisure.

8.1

The Commission and the other EU institutions can play a key role in creating appropriate operating conditions and instruments to allow Member States to properly exercise their rights. The multi-faceted and horizontal nature of youth problems requires the various levels of government, in accordance with their particular responsibilities and remit, to have an up-to-date understanding of the issues at hand.

8.2

The CoR therefore calls for the introduction of initiatives aimed at developing a coordination mechanism for youth observatories which, making use of work carried out in other multi-faceted horizontal areas:

8.3

The CoR hopes that the specific programmes and measures for spreading awareness of and exchanging good practice and for training local players in youth policy will help to spread a European youth policy culture, thus creating a European area in which decision-makers can compare notes on the implementation of youth policies. In particular, the CoR is willing to work with the Commission on a new campaign to publicise the content of the European Youth Pact.

8.4

For the youth policies to be effective it is vital to set up impact and outcome assessment procedures. Given that there are no established recognised models in the area of youth policy, assessment would allow experience to be built up, increase know-how, and produce coherent reproducible models. More specifically, local and regional authorities must be involved in the assessment procedures.

8.5

In the development, organisation and implementation of each individual programme and measure, the role of the regions and of local authorities in the governance of youth policies must be enhanced, combining the principles of vertical and horizontal subsidiarity, which is particularly important at local level. Consequently, when youth programmes and measures are implemented, experience of effective, balanced and representative partnerships must be exploited and promoted.

8.6

The CoR stresses the need to mainstream the youth dimension in EU policies. In the case of cultural initiatives, where in the past some account was taken of the added value of youth mainstreaming, due consideration must also be given to the need to direct funds towards and allow scope for initiatives implemented by and aimed at young people. We must also stress the importance of social equality and of equal opportunities across the generations, partly in consideration of the risk of social exclusion faced by young people.

8.7

The CoR calls for recognition to be given to the key role of local and regional authorities in the implementation and assessment of the Youth and European Voluntary Service programmes. The same recommendation applies to the Youth in Action Programme 2007-2013. Only in this way can we ensure that the projects are locally based, have the required impact in the areas concerned and are effectively integrated into local policies.

8.8

The CoR believes that youth measures must take into account other issues, apart from those covered by the European Youth Pact, which — even if only indirectly — could help achieve the objectives of the Pact itself. More specifically, we would highlight as particularly relevant the problem of housing (given that it concerns policies on employment, mobility and the reconciliation of work and family life), and other areas of family welfare and policies on access to credit. Member States must therefore be encouraged to make greater efforts to develop effective reforms in these areas.

8.9

The CoR also calls on the Commission to encourage, in line with the Lisbon Strategy, the inclusion of measures in national reform programmes, aimed at:

9.1

The CoR points out that, consistent with the complexity of the issues in question, the Commission document is too vague with regard to the financial resources required for the practical implementation of youth measures.

9.2

It therefore recommends that in the successive phases of framing EU directives, specific European funds be systematically allocated, given that such ambitious youth projects, which are undoubtedly needed, require financial resources which Member States themselves often cannot provide. Ultimately, the CoR urges the Commission to earmark increased funding for European youth policies.

9.3

The CoR recommends that the process of simplifying administrative procedures be continued and stepped up, in order to facilitate access to the programmes and initiatives, not only for local and regional authorities but chiefly for young people themselves and their representatives. This would make for reduced costs, simplified processes and shorter implementation times.

9.4

The CoR hopes that adequately funded programmes will be introduced to follow on from the measures announced in the Commission Communication. Aside from the specific programmes (Youth and EVS), a degree of funding could be allocated to every EU programme for specific youth measures.

16.8.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192/21

1.

Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) can contribute directly and indirectly, to a considerable extent, to meeting the goals of the Lisbon strategy;

2.

The ambitious plan for connection at high speeds, taking into account equal rights and digital opportunities without the introduction of discrimination, for a pan-European information infrastructure, must play a major role in the approach of the whole of Europe, the Member States of the EU and all the future candidate countries, the cities and rural areas, enterprises and citizens;

3.

Investments in research and innovation are of decisive importance and must naturally be increased so that the ICT sector continues to contribute to development and employment;

4.

It is of vital importance to develop an effective and modern information infrastructure for new and existing enterprises and modernised public services;

5.

Equal opportunities in the information society must be counted among the rights of European citizens as regards interconnectedness and services independently of the type of user, the social situation and the location;

6.

The information infrastructure and the broadband provision will need to be regarded and managed in the same way as water and electricity supplies;

1.1

welcomes the concise nature and the clarity of the Commission's analysis and conclusions in its Communication on i2010: A European Information Society for growth and employment;

1.2

agrees with the statement that knowledge, research and innovation are driving forces of sustainable development;

1.3

firmly supports the view that building a fully inclusive information society is one of the priority tasks;

1.4

accepts the view that ICT constitute a powerful lever for development and employment, in line with the statistical data indicating that 25 % of the increase in GDP and 40 % of the increase in productivity in the European Union are due to ICT;

1.5

recognises that the digital convergence of services, networks, equipment and means of mass communications is rapidly taking place, with the result that the channels of access for citizens to the wealth of information are being broadened;

1.6

points out that the achievement of digital convergence is facilitated by social convergence and the establishment of sets of operational rules;

1.7

welcomes the i2010 strategy for the European information society and agrees with the general policy orientations and the basic priorities;

1.8

agrees that the i2010 strategy serves the open and competitive digital economy and makes provision for quality and avoidance of social exclusion;

1.9

underlines the importance of defining the three priorities of the i2010 strategy and agrees on:

1.10

expresses the conviction that the i2010 initiative will contribute to improving the quality of life for citizens and more generally to a better society.

1.11

supports the forward-looking policy approach of the European Commission, taking the view that in the ICT market of the European Union there is vast potential which must be fully exploited. A single European market with rules which do not differ from one country to another is particularly suitable for entrepreneurial activity;

1.12

underlines the need to recognise and give shape to the role of regional and local authorities in implementing the i2010 strategy;

1.13

is pleased to note the attempt to tackle the main challenges, but points out that the results will be evaluated taking account also of the proposed action programmes;

1.14

underlines that the challenge of achieving faster broadband services in structurally weak and disadvantaged areas calls for the allocation of significant resources from the Structural Funds and that those of achieving rich information content, interoperability and security of transactions call for the allocation of significant resources from the research and development programmes;

1.15

takes the view that high-quality broadband access at reasonable prices is one of the major factors in determining the quality of services for citizens, in particular, by increasing the quality of services provided by local authorities while making it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to offer their products for sale. Remote regions and communities especially the outermost ones in particular are expected to benefit considerably from more and faster access to broadband services;

1.16

underlines that society is particularly sensitive to questions of consumer protection and personal data protection, a fact which must be taken into account in formulating the strategy and the operating rules of the ICT market;

1.17

expresses, by extension, the conviction that the new ICT services and applications should in all cases respect the rules of data protection, while consumers must always have the opportunity to check on the processing which their personal data undergo. The ‘raising awareness of the need for self-protection’ proposed by the Communication (8) will also need to be accompanied by stronger safeguards;

1.18

attaches special importance to the security of transactions, to combating illegal and harmful Internet content, and to the need for the EU to guarantee that services and high quality communications are offered at reasonable prices, ensuring territorial cohesion throughout the EU, with special attention focusing on remote and outermost regions;

1.19

takes the view that the content of the new services and the new digital media must not be planned only on the basis of economic criteria but must be developed according to social and cultural needs;

1.20

encourages the setting up of science parks and the development of a suitable framework for investment by small and medium-sized enterprises.

1.21

strongly supports the European Commission's approach to more and better ICT research in Europe. However, on this subject, it will be necessary to ensure a transfer of the ensuing knowledge, producing results in such a way that the whole of European industry benefits and that progress towards the Lisbon goals is maintained in all regions;

1.22

holds the view that it is necessary to ensure a high budget allocation for research in the 2007-2013 period, ‘even if other parts of the budgetary plans for the period 2007-2013 were to change’ (9);

1.23

underlines the fact that despite the vital importance which the transformation of research results into products has for every economy and every technology, the special features of the ICT sector will need to be taken carefully into account. This is particularly true in as much as ICT influence the way in which local and regional authorities work (on-line governance), are organised and carry out their tasks (supplying a range of services to the individual, co-managing historical and environmental heritage, co-managing infrastructure and networks for local mobility, on-line learning, on-line health, teleworking etc.).

1.24

recalls that in any case, ICT are a key factor for improving coordination and cooperation in various fields between local, regional national and European authorities, and between them and European citizens and private entities. Moreover, ICT provide a major opportunity to improve public services.

1.25

emphasises the need to maintain a balance between the positive economic effects of ICT and the likely social, legal and cultural consequences of their introduction for the life of European citizens. It is therefore essential for ICT strategies to be linked with the policies on youth and education and fundamental human rights;

1.26

shares the view that ICT may be expected to boost quality of life, and that their more widespread use might enhance existing ICT-based health services and facilitate the establishment of new ones, thereby helping to improve people's health overall and give them better and more effective access to public health services;

1.27

considers that the use of ICT as a new ‘cultural technique’ alongside reading and writing may lead to a decline in the traditional sources and channels of information (newspapers, correspondence). So that these basic skills can be maintained, it is necessary for learning through ICT to complement traditional forms of communication rather than to replace them;

1.28

continues to point out the need to maintain cultural and linguistic diversity. The use of a single language as the most important one in the ICT sector (10) must not influence the necessary supply of specialised services for citizens in all languages, as well as respect for multiculturalism and multilingualism;

1.29

points out the need for digitalisation of the written European cultural heritage so that it can be preserved for future generations. This effort must be made in all languages, for all regions and for all countries of Europe;

1.30

emphasises that ICT use should produce substantial gains in productivity rates and in competitiveness, generating major benefits for society;

1.31

endorses the three ‘flagship’ proposal priorities identified for ICT: the needs of the ageing society, safe and clean transport and cultural and linguistic diversity;

1.32

highlights the importance of using ICT as a new ‘social instrument’. To this end, ICT strategies must be linked to community social policy;

1.33

favours the creation of libraries and pictorial museums of digital content on the historical and cultural heritage with general access for all;

1.34

supports the promotion of the digital dialogue (e-consultancy) with the aim of exchanging proposals, views, ideas, comments and best practices among countries, regions and more generally civil society.

2.1

proposes that the Commission and the Member States attach special importance and high priority to the decentralisation of the management of:

to the local and regional authorities on i2010 matters, so that infrastructure and services are set up to improve the development and quality of life of citizens in the regions;

2.2

recommends that the Commission promote the formulation and application of indicators for comparative representation and evaluation of the regional distribution and use of ITC, to provide a continuous source of conclusions which would be useful and necessary for adopting measures to bring about socio-economic and technological convergence between the regions;

2.3

wishes to be informed of the results and conclusions of the interim evaluation report on the i2010 strategy, which should be made known in good time, and to give its views on them;

2.4

recommends that the Commission, when planning the action programmes, take account of the fact that a large part of the sector's development derives from the computer games industry and that great emphasis should therefore be placed on the quality of this development and the effects which it has on society and the younger generation in particular;

2.5

asks the Commission to involve the CoR fully in initiatives which may be organised to revise or adapt the agreed strategy once it has been implemented;

2.6

informs the Commission of its intention to make additional approaches to the Member States to encourage them to give effective support to the i2010 initiative and to adapt their national reform programmes, including those on ITC, with the primary objective of strengthening their regions, in particular remote the outermost and rural regions and island communities who can best benefit from the socio-economic benefits of developing ICT;

2.7

suggests that the Commission pay special attention to the less economically developed regions, so that they can make use of the opportunities for effective convergence offered by ICT, and can avoid the risks of exclusion which ICT creates for those who do not have access to them.

In conclusion, the Committee of the Regions emphasises and considers that it is necessary to broaden and maintain an unhindered and continuous dialogue on the strategy ‘i2010 — A European Information Society for Growth and Employment’. This is made necessary by the speed of technological developments and the needs to which they constantly give rise.

16.8.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192/25

1)

WHEREAS the degree of success of the European policy on freedom, security and justice over the coming years will decisively influence the European public's judgement of the value added by the European Union;

2)

WHEREAS in most Member States, local and regional authorities have public order and security responsibilities, and are often also (jointly) responsible for tackling social and community problems that can foster a sense of insecurity;

3)

WHEREAS the local and regional authorities are often partly responsible for determining the effectiveness and efficiency of a number of aspects of the European Union's policy on security, freedom and justice — such as citizenship, crisis management, the fight against terrorism, integration, information sharing and combating organised crime — through the way in which they fulfil their responsibilities in these areas;

4)

WHEREAS the crucial role played by local and regional authorities in these aspects of security policy is at present insufficiently recognised and acknowledged;

5)

WHEREAS recognition of the role of local and regional authorities at European Union level should help create the conditions for, encourage and facilitate their involvement on the basis of a clear vision of an effective and balanced division of tasks in the field of freedom, security and justice between, on the one hand, the European Council and the Commission and, on the other hand, the national governments, combined with a proactive approach on the part of the local and regional authorities themselves, both within and outside the framework of the Committee of the Regions;

1.1

appreciates the way the Commission has set about fleshing out the Hague Programme. The comprehensive list of measures and actions in the Action Plan COM(2005) 184 final and the framework programmes COM(2005) 124 final and COM(2005) 122 final are evidence of the will and determination to promote the interests of freedom, security and justice in Europe.

1.2

believes that freedom, security and justice are rightly high-priority issues in the European Union. These are issues to which the people of Europe are attached. The discussion concerning the Constitutional Treaty has shown that many people are dissatisfied with the achievements of the European Union. It is clear that the policy pursued up until now of ‘reconnecting Europe to the people’ has not worked well. As local and regional authorities are close to the grass roots, they are well aware that people are turning their backs on the European Union more and more.

1.3

believes that there is a unique opportunity to attract fresh public support by renewing and modernising European policy on freedom, security and justice. The average person should be able to see that the European Union is making a real and important contribution to improving security in his neighbourhood and protecting his rights and freedoms.

1.4

notes that renewal and modernisation of policy on freedom, security and justice require, however, recognition of the crucial role played by regional and local authorities; points out an important omission in current policy, with its strong emphasis on the role of national governments. There are many problems which national governments cannot solve without the efforts of local and regional authorities. Local and regional authorities form the front line in providing the initial administrative and operational response, for example, to serious terrorist attacks, pandemics, natural disasters, explosions or fires at industrial sites, power failures, disasters at public events, etc. Local and regional authorities also form the front line in, for example, dealing with anti-social behaviour, street crime and violence, encouraging the effective integration of new European citizens and adopting measures to prevent intimidating radicalisation in whatever sphere of activity.

1.5

believes that the European Union — the Member States collectively — and the local and regional authorities — need each other in order to achieve an improvement in freedom, security and justice that is visible and noticeable to the ordinary person. This is not sufficiently taken into account in present European policy. Clearly therefore, if the policy is continued in its present form, it will not be sufficiently effective. The front line receives insufficient support and its strategic deployment is inadequate. There is also insufficient awareness that, with many problems in the field of freedom, security and justice, an appropriate and efficient deployment by the front line can be enough to win the battle.

1.6

considers that renewal and modernisation must also take the form of a more systematic, structured vision of European policy on freedom, security and justice. The long list of very varied and, at first sight, disconnected measures and actions, which forms an annex to the Action Plan, is not conducive to the understanding, recognition and practicality of the policy. It is revealing that not all the points of the Hague Programme are fully worked out in the Action Plan, that in some areas the Action Plan contains new points compared with the Hague Programme, and that the financial framework programmes published to date do not cover the entire Action Plan.

1.7

calls for a combining of forces to tackle the serious problems in the field of freedom, security and justice in Europe. There is a great sense of urgency among the public, the business community, organisations, institutions, administrators and (democratically elected) representatives at all levels of government. It is no longer enough to exchange more or less non-committal opinions. A decisive approach, free of bureaucratic obstacles, is essential, for which it makes a number of concrete proposals below, which could form the starting point.

2.1

considers that the contents of the Action Plan for the implementation of the Hague Programme should be adapted to reflect its opinions. In the Action Plan the Commission itself already comes to the conclusion that — in view of the political nature of the policy on freedom, security and justice — it must be possible to adapt the Action Plan where necessary. A mid-term review of the Action Plan is scheduled for the end of 2006. It should be made explicit in the texts drawn up in connection with the mid-term review how the position of local and regional authorities in the policy has been strengthened.

2.2

supports the adoption of the framework programmes in the following ways:

2.3

notes that the present framework programmes are described in the explanatory texts as a significant simplification of the system of budgeting and financing. From the Brussels point of view, this may well be true; from the perspective of the local and regional authorities, however, the system in its present form is far too complicated and does not meet practical needs.

2.4

proposes that, for the purposes of the mid-term review of the Action Plan, an outline report be drawn up for each Member State on the significance of the Hague programme and the Action Plan for the local and regional authorities of the Member State concerned. In any event, the following questions need to be answered:

2.5

asks that local and regional authorities in the Member States be involved in compiling these reports. A European benchmark should be drawn up on the basis of the reports. A round table conference should be held in 2006-2007 attended by the Commission, representatives from the Member States and its members, if possible together with experts and relevant network organisations, to discuss this benchmark and come up with conclusions and recommendations.

2.6

requests authorisation to draw up — in conjunction with the Commission — an Action Plan on Freedom, Security and Justice in 2006/2007 that contains concrete objectives for the local and regional authorities committed to the plan. These objectives could contribute to a more effective European policy on freedom, security and justice, among other reasons, because of the ‘spin-off’ of such an action plan for other local and regional authorities. Such objectives should in any case include reference to:

2.7

stresses the need for local and regional authorities themselves to be (jointly) responsible for taking initiatives in order to strengthen their position with regard to European policy on freedom, security and justice, with a view to increasing the overall effectiveness of the policy.

2.8

proposes that steps be taken to ensure that local and regional authorities have sufficient information on European policy on freedom, security and justice. A great deal of information is indeed available but is not easy to find or is not accessible enough. Those in the local and regional authorities who have little or no idea of the relevance of the activities of the European Union in the field of freedom, security and justice — and this is still a large group of people — are not getting this information. The following possibilities should be considered:

2.9

considers that the process of developing, implementing, maintaining and evaluating European policy on freedom, security and justice should be organised in such a way that the involvement of local and regional authorities — especially in those policy areas that directly involve the responsibilities of those authorities — is ensured throughout the whole chain. In so far as there is any involvement at present, the results are hardly noticeable. This opinion should be considered at the round table conference referred to in point 2.3.

2.10

considers that we should progress beyond vague phrases such as ‘it is very important to actively involve local and regional authorities’, and take more specific action, for example by adapting the working methods of the Council, Commission and European Parliament. Thus, in the field of freedom, security and justice, we could, for example, include a standard chapter on The role of local and regional authorities in the explanatory texts of communications, proposals and decisions. The added value of such a chapter does not lie so much in its final content as in the stimulus it gives to the process of preparing documents.

2.11

points out that use should be made — in line with point 2.6 — of local and regional authorities as a ‘breeding ground’ for concrete, operational ideas with regard to the policy on freedom, security and justice. As the ‘front line’, the local and regional authorities in Europe collectively have at their disposal practical experience, insight and expertise which are often less available at national government level. The available brainpower should be mobilised and be given a prominent role in preparing policy.

2.12

stresses that specialist teams from the local and regional authorities should be encouraged to become involved in the proposed monitoring of the Hague Programme and Action Plan (the annual scoreboard) with regard to the policy issues for which local and regional authorities are directly responsible. In this way we can learn at first hand how the policy works in practice.

2.13

would like a more systematic, structured vision to be adopted if it is considered desirable to continue the current programmed approach of European policy on freedom, security and justice. The basic assumption must be that measures have a chance of success only if they are implemented as part of a logical chain of interconnected activities.

2.14

points out that there is little point in giving governments more powers to obtain information about the integrity of individuals (for example applicants for licences or subsidies), if governments have no policy in this area, no means of conducting integrity tests and if they do not enforce the rules on integrity. Equally there is little point in stepping up policing in individual areas to tackle insecurity if there is no investment in the physical or social infrastructure.

2.15

recommends that we focus on such linkages of interconnecting activities so that it can be established what areas — with due regard to the subsidiarity principle — the European Union should concentrate on. A number of priority issues should be carefully chosen and other issues should be left to national governments. As many tangible objectives as possible should be established. Economy and concentration lead automatically to the necessary transparency and stability.

2.16

considers that local and regional authorities should be given the opportunity to consider not only the separate, specific components of European policy on freedom, security and justice, but also the underlying strategic concepts. The substantive scope of the policy field should be determined as well as possible and also the opportunities to strengthen the role of security in other policy areas (external integration). A stronger emphasis on security in the field of environmental policy, for example, could mean the rules on access to companies' environmental information allowing more scope for non-disclosure of sensitive data.

2.17

highlights the need to give consideration to the extent to which local and regional authorities' usual systems and organisational principles (for example categorisation of policy according to individual criteria, target group, issue or area) could also be useful at a European level.

2.18

notes that, in establishing a (renewed) systematic, structured vision in the European policy field of freedom, security and justice, the legal basis should also be (re)considered. The Constitutional Treaty has served as a guideline for the standard that the Hague Programme intends to reach. We should consider the consequences of the current situation regarding the Constitutional Treaty for policy on freedom, security and justice, and the appropriate response to it. On the other hand, it can also be deduced from a (renewed) vision which preconditions the (European) legal basis should comply with. Legitimatisation of policy on freedom, security and justice on a solid democratic, rule-of-law basis is indispensable. Moreover, the essential contribution of local and regional authorities ought to be properly defined.

2.19

recommends that a clear communication strategy with regard to European policy on freedom, security and justice should be drawn up for the benefit of the public and the business community. Local and regional authorities are usually the first (official) point of contact for the public and business. It is then precisely the local and regional authorities which should be actively involved in order to show the public and business how Europe is helping to ensure public security.

2.20

points out that the terrorist attacks in London and in Madrid, the flooding which affected large areas of Europe in 2005, the outbreak of infectious diseases affecting both humans and animals, the effects of protracted power failures and the recent disturbances in French cities are all examples of situations where local and regional authorities are, to a large extent, (primarily) responsible for an effective policy of crisis management.

2.21

points out that the professionalisation of crisis management is a necessary development; certainly in relation to the fight against terrorism, but also in a broader sense. The recent establishment of a European network in the field of crisis management, the Council of Europe's European Forum of Local and Regional Disaster Management, is an example of the widely felt urgent need to reach such a level of professionalisation.

2.22

considers that European policy on freedom, security and justice must support an effective approach to crisis management in two ways:

2.23

recommends that crisis management be designated as a priority, and stresses in this context that the responsibility for an efficient organisational framework for crisis management is primarily a matter for the national governments.

2.24

is convinced that both the coordinating, accompanying role as well as the stimulating role of the European Union should be worked out in concrete measures, which can be added to the agenda for 2007-2013 at the mid-term review of the Action Plan. High priority should also be assigned to the implementation of the measures listed in point 3.5 of the Annex to the Action Plan. Funds should be made available to professionalise crisis management in the broader sense (not just related to the fight against terrorism), inter alia:

2.25

asks that the scope of the Proposal for a Specific Programme on Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence Management of Terrorism, for the period from 2007 to 2013, be broadened, with a basis being laid for financing the improved management of crises not caused by terrorism.

2.26

notes that people who live in fear of indiscriminate terrorist attacks have lost their fundamental freedoms. This ought not to be the future of the European Union. Following on from its opinion on the fight against terrorism (CdR 465/2004), measures in the field of prevention, preparation and response have been supported. The Committee stresses that, if a preventive approach is to be successful, it is necessary to look into and take appropriate action regarding the deeper causes of terrorism, which is rooted in extremism, and calls for the connection with integration policy to be recognised as well as the need to ensure that integrated immigrants can also actually play a full part in European society.

2.27

stresses that encouragement should be given — especially in a number of European regions where radicalisation constitutes a real threat — to focusing on radicalisation trends and to establishing which groups are susceptible to radicalisation and extremism. In addition to the threat which arises from the limited numbers of people who make the transition from a process of radicalisation to actual terrorist activities, there is also no less a threat from the process of polarisation. From the point of view of security, quality of life and tolerance, undesirable consequences might arise which could threaten the cohesion of society. These processes constitute a great risk in several European countries. As a means to identifying these radicalisation and polarisation processes, early warning indicators could be established. With the help of such indicators, governments but also housing associations, social, youth, educational, health and welfare organisations etc. could identify and respond at an early stage to people who might become radicalised, offering another way of combating the creation of ‘home grown’ terrorists. At the same time it must be ensured that the measures undertaken will not hinder the integration and employment of immigrants. It is highly important to prevent large groups of people in the centre ground, who feel that they are not (yet) or only to a lesser degree part of European society, from developing in the direction of radicalisation.

2.28

points out that this type of reaction capacity should take shape mainly at local authority level and that support should be given to local authorities to improve their information position, for example by setting up a local information exchange for early warnings of radicalisation, able to advise local bodies on the interpretation of signals and on possible responses.

2.29

considers that encouragement should be given to the development and organisation of training courses for local authority officials on how to recognise and report relevant signs of radicalisation.

2.30

also recommends an examination of ways of preventing recruitment by extremist organisations and that an effective approach be adopted to dealing with extremist rallying calls and the dissemination of practical instructions for terrorist acts via the Internet.

2.31

recommends that a decision be taken on a faster and thorough exchange of information on financial transactions, which should contribute to greater transparency on the part of institutions and organisations, also for the benefit of local authorities. Money often appears to flow via institutions and organisations supported by local authorities (for example for the purpose of integration activities). Intelligence can help cut off this flow of money. The planned proposals on the subject should be brought forward to 2006.

2.32

points out that, in order to research ways of fighting terrorism effectively, greater cooperation and exchange of information is needed both between EU Member States and between authorities within Member States. The Action Plan proposes the establishment of a contact point in each country, which will have access to all relevant information on (possible) terrorist activities. A contact point can only be effective, however, if there is also a good information network involving local and regional authorities — on the basis of the ‘need to know, need to share’ principle. The Member States should have to show how this information network has been made secure and — where necessary — draw up plans in order to achieve an improved information network.

2.33

wishes to see the exchange of expertise on a structural basis on the learning effects of combating terrorism, for example by setting up a centre of expertise for this purpose. The exchange of information on current operational matters is of great importance, but it is certainly just as important afterwards to share experience on the strategic approach to the fight against terrorism as rapidly as possible. Networks of local and regional authorities in particular should be involved.

2.34

recommends that attention be paid to listing not only vulnerable infrastructure — as proposed in the Action Plan — but also crowded places such as stations, stadiums, event sites, tourist attractions, etc. and points out that local and regional authorities often play an important role in securing and safeguarding such places.

2.35

asks that local and regional authorities be assisted in drawing up professional risk analyses and the development of best practices for protection and security, stresses that a suitable legal basis should be provided for local authorities to ensure that owners and managers comply with regulations on the protection and security of vulnerable targets and encourages the introduction of ‘toolkits’, by which the authorities could assist owners and managers to enforce the regulations effectively.

2.36

urges that there be a revision — for example in the field of access to environmental information — of the basic principles of the rules on what the public has the right to know about the hazards in their surrounding neighbourhood and the extent of disclosure of operational information on the characteristics and security of vulnerable targets.

2.37

recalls that the quality of (private) security organisations is essential to ensure the security of vulnerable targets and that, to this end, research should be undertaken on whether further measures to improve quality are necessary or indeed possible.

2.38

regrets the absence of any reference in the Action Plan to ways of raising the risk awareness of the public, which expects local authorities to keep them properly informed about the risk of possible attacks in their neighbourhood, and advocates the establishment of a clear communication strategy.

2.39

recalls that the debate on fundamental rights places a great deal of emphasis on preventing the erosion of fundamental rights and regrets the fact that insufficient attention is paid to the sustained efforts of the authorities to promote the security of the population.

2.40

notes that the debate on fundamental rights can be effective only if it includes a discussion about duties — e.g. in relation to integration and calls for European policy on this point to be brought closer to the people by encouraging active local discussions on the subject — for example in the form of town hall debates. Such discussions are essential in order to determine the measures which can be effectively deployed to maintain the balance between rights and duties.

2.41

supports the establishment of an office for fundamental rights — as provided for in the Hague Programme — which could list, describe and disseminate best practices and contribute to the debates on discrimination, racism, integration and terrorism in view of the increasing concern over possible attacks or disturbances.

2.42

deplores the fact that, as a consequence of the uncertainty concerning the Constitutional Treaty, the proposed improvements with regard to legal protection at the European Court of Justice are threatened, especially regarding the power of any natural or legal person to institute proceedings against regulatory acts of the Union which are of direct concern to him or her, and therefore asks that this gap in legal protection be filled, in the knowledge that Community policy on freedom, security and justice is to be stepped up over the next few years.

2.43

points out that the impact of newcomers, both migrants and asylum seekers, if they have been granted refugee status or similar humanitarian protection, on our society is sometimes spread over several generations — particularly at local level — and therefore considers that it very important in towns to provide for effective integration in the structural, social, economic and cultural sense, with practical guarantees that integrated newcomers can fully take part in European society being an absolute pre-condition. The recent disturbances in the French cities likewise demonstrate the importance of such an approach.

2.44

stresses that attention must be paid in the process of integration to an individual's attachment to the society of which he or she is part, i.e. not ‘non-committal’ integration and recommends that the European Union ensure clear frameworks and pre-conditions for successful integration, but also recognise that integration is in practice chiefly a national matter. Local authorities should be assisted in managing the integration process — with information and funding as well as the development of best practices. A good basis for this was laid at the conference of European ministers responsible for integration, held in Groningen (Netherlands) in November 2004.

2.45

proposes that support be given to city debates, dialogues, language instruction, naturalisation courses, employment schemes, equal opportunity courses and anti-discrimination schemes, etc. and that systematic exchange and monitoring of experience, new approaches, successes and failures be ensured at local level.

2.46

considers that social despair in population groups should be prevented and measures encouraged to contribute to a harmonious balance in the inner city districts, for example measures in the field of housing policy, incomes policy and training.

2.47

welcomes the fact that a new edition of the European Integration Handbook is due out shortly, regrets that the impression exists that the first edition of the handbook did not receive sufficient attention and hopes that the new edition will receive more attention from local and regional authorities.

2.48

strongly supports the idea of organising an annual European Forum on integration and proposes that the local and regional authorities with their experience and expertise be closely involved in this.

2.49

points out that in the second half of the last century, the safeguarding of privacy was strongly directed towards the protection of the public from the government, fuelled by fears of a police state and calls for a new balance, which takes greater account of the protection of the public from malicious criminals.

2.50

supports against this background the goal of giving particular attention to the protection of personal data when implementing this Action Plan and stresses that a choice has increasingly to be made between, on the one hand, the protection of individual interests with regard to privacy and, on the other hand, the protection of collective interests, such as security, given that information plays a vital part in the fight against terrorism.

2.51

calls on the Commission, when implementing the policy, to take account of the fact that — in so far as allowed within the framework of the national legislation — many local and regional authorities have set up networks to exchange information, where data on, for example, addresses, housing, tax, social affairs, health, etc is linked to data from the police and judicial authorities, and considers that such an approach could bear fruit in the fight against, for example, terrorism, serious crime or even urban anti-social behaviour by habitual offenders.

2.52

suggests that a more transparent legal basis be established for the protection of personal data, which is proportionate and provides sufficient room, where necessary, for giving priority to the need for a secure society, and calls for public discussion of this topic, involving local and regional authorities.

2.53

considers that the maintenance of public order and security and the fight against cross-border crime necessitates intensive sharing of information between Member States, and asks that the Member States explicitly state what form the exchange of information with local and regional authorities has taken, considering the crucial role that local and regional authorities perform in implementing and maintaining security policy.

2.54

notes that, in the decision-making process concerning subsidies, contracts, licences etc, local and regional authorities can supply significant added value in fighting (organised) crime and considers that (previous) contraventions of the law should play a part in the decision-making process, so that, for example, a licence might be refused if there were grounds to believe that the applicant would once again ‘get into trouble’.

2.55

proposes that criminal investigation files be ‘screened’ by the police and the courts for information that could be passed on to the local and regional authorities, so that they can be taken into account when granting a licence or subsidy. If, for example, a catering establishment employer is sentenced for smuggling or trafficking in human beings, it is not implausible that the same employer is putting illegal immigrants to work in his own business. As monitoring of compliance with catering establishment licences is the responsibility of local authorities, it is extremely effective in such a situation to share the information and to consider whether there are grounds for revoking the licence of the business concerned.

2.56

suggests that the experiences of local and regional authorities on this matter be registered, described and published at European level to ensure that European law — including European public procurement law — where possible supports such approaches by local and regional authorities.

2.57

supports the development of best practices in the field of information exchange and the linking of databases between, on the one hand, local and regional authority services (such as in the field of tax, housing, social and employment affairs, the granting of licences and administration of personal data files) and, on the other hand, the police and the courts, with a view, for example, to tackling premises causing a public nuisance and tracking down and combating organised crime networks more effectively, insofar as allowed within the framework of the national legislation.

2.58

stresses the need to relieve the police of bureaucratic tasks in connection with legal migration, such as renewing residence permits, in order that they can devote more energy and professional resources to combating organised crime, which seeks to profit from clandestine migration. The CoR believes that these administrative tasks — provided they are adequately supported by the Member States through suitable financial arrangements — can be performed by the local authorities through dedicated offices, as far as is relevant to the system in different member states.

2.59

encourages the further development of an active integrity policy by local and regional authorities, based on a thorough risk assessment of powers and responsibilities.

2.60

welcomes the fact that in the Action Plan special attention will be given to the protection of the rights of children, as well as to combating violence against women and children and that activities in the field of victim support are being extended.

2.61

endorses the establishment of a broad financial framework for policy in the field of prevention and reduction of violence in the framework programme Fundamental Rights and Justice, and supports the strengthening and extension of the Daphne programme in order to enforce the policy of prevention with regard to drug use in which the involvement of NGOs is encouraged.

2.62

also supports the joint initiatives to combat human trafficking, especially of women and children, often associated with organised crime, by better cooperation and exchange of information between the relevant government bodies.

2.63

points out that many local authorities have experience in identifying and tackling domestic violence, given that violence against women and children after all often also occurs within the family and notes that tackling this sort of violence at a local level should make a substantial contribution to raising the awareness of the target groups concerned of the fact that there is absolute social and judicial zero tolerance of violence against women and children.

2.64

therefore proposes that, when implementing the Action Plan, the experiences of local and regional authorities be brought together so that best practices can be developed in this field too and encourages the establishment of local centres for reporting violence.

2.65

points out that local authorities have to deal directly with the problems of asylum seekers and notes that asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected but who do not have to or are unable to leave the country often seek the anonymity of cities. This can be a source of social and law and order problems in the cities.

2.66

therefore considers it of great importance to set up a common asylum area and asylum procedure, as well as uniform status for those who qualify for asylum.

2.67

recommends that the European institutions also endeavour to facilitate the return of asylum seekers to their country of origin and that voluntary return be encouraged by means of facilities to encourage asylum seekers to become self-sufficient. It notes that there are examples of local and regional projects in several Member States that work on this basis, and requests that an exchange of information on the approach and results be encouraged.

2.68

strongly recommends coordinating different national policies to draw up a common migration policy, coupled with a thorough integration policy, in the context of which the local authorities would have the important task of maintaining and promoting social cohesion..

2.69

therefore asks that the local authorities be supported in backing new and innovative local initiatives, which can help prevent radicalisation and extremism.

2.70

considers that the currently unclear situation regarding the legal status and rights of citizens of third countries should be taken into consideration, points out that these people are of concern to local authorities, especially in the field of integration policy and notes that non-EU citizens, for example, receive no rights from the European Union with regard to the labour market, although this is an important precondition for a successful integration policy. The Committee requests that it should nonetheless be borne in mind that highly skilled immigrants from non–EU countries should not be put off.

16.8.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192/34

1.

believes that the agreement reached at the European Council of 15 and 16 December 2005 on the financial perspectives 2007-2013 simply expresses in figures the lowest common denominator of European commitment by Member States' governments. Yet the EU needs a budget and Community programmes that properly convey the idea and potential of Europe to our local and regional authorities, and thus bring the EU closer to the public.

2.

considers that the period of reflection should highlight the progress achieved by the Constitutional Treaty in terms of European governance, simplicity, transparency of the European Union and reinforcement of the local and regional levels, especially as concerns promotion of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles. It should also make it possible to concentrate on:

3.

stresses that any initiative relating to the treaties of the Union should be of the type used for the Convention, in which the CoR would be involved, thus helping to bring greater democratic legitimacy to the European venture.

4.

will continue to promote respect for cultural and linguistic diversity, as one of the underlying principles of the European integration process.

5.

reiterates, in the context of the period of reflection on the future of the European Union initiated by the European Council of June 2005, its call for a decentralised and structured discussion, ensuring an active and dynamic phase of dialogue with its citizens.

6.

advocates increasing the CoR's involvement, at both the earlier and later stages, in the EU decision-making process and in the assessment of the regional impact of major EU policies, particularly through:

7.1

believes that public support for any new accession to the European Union hinges on the coherence of the EU's plan for the future.

7.2

encourages the European Commission, the European Parliament and the EU presidencies, in close cooperation with local and regional authorities and civil society, to promote and support information campaigns on the EU enlargement process at a local and regional level, in both the Member States and candidate countries.

7.3

maintains that local and regional authorities have a key role to play in increasing the involvement of the local and regional bodies represented by the CoR in the integration of the new candidate countries. This role is particularly important given that various forms of decentralisation are being implemented in most of these countries. Moreover, the CoR should continue, particularly through the joint consultative committees, or other alternative modes of cooperation, to provide support to local authorities in candidate countries as they adapt to the acquis communautaire and in the ongoing, open process of membership negotiations.

8.

notes that the compromise reached by the European Council on the financial perspectives for 2007-2013 allows for 0.37 % of the EU's gross revenue to be allocated to structural and cohesion policy. As this is well below the amount that it believes necessary to guarantee the convergence of European regions in the EU-27 (1), the CoR calls upon the budgetary authority to adjust this percentage. Nonetheless, the CoR believes that the swift conclusion of an inter-institutional agreement on the financial perspectives in the first half of 2006 is necessary in order for regional authorities to start planning work for projects co-financed by the EU.

9.

considers that, in the context of enlargement and a new cohesion policy for the period 2007-2013, the creation of an EU legal basis for enhancing territorial cooperation in the EU constitutes a major priority for regional and local authorities as it brings an added value by helping them to overcome the practical difficulties that cooperation faces in this moment in the EU;

underlines the importance of a Regulation creating a European Grouping for Territorial cooperation (EGTC) and supports the proposal of the European Commission and the position of the European Parliament in view of the final phase of the negotiations for the Structural Funds Regulations;

calls on the Council of Ministers to reach an agreement on the EGTC together with the rest of the Regulations of the Structural Funds.

10.

reiterates its support for the Lisbon Strategy as a priority political strategy of the European Union until 2010.

11.

highlights the role of European local and regional authorities in ensuring consistency between the projects financed via the structural funds and the Lisbon Strategy (2) and recalls the need for more decentralised implementation of the Lisbon Strategy, in line with the conclusions of the European Council of Lisbon (3); therefore calls for the strong involvement of local and regional authorities in the process of revising the Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs and in the implementation of national reform programmes by respective Member States, and undertakes to help achieve this objective by organising regional dialogue prior to the spring European Council meetings devoted to the economic and social reform of the EU.

12.

considers that equal attention must be paid to the three pillars of the Lisbon Strategy (economic, social and environmental).

13.

underlines the essential contribution of the Lisbon Strategy to the development of the European venture, through:

14.

considers that the completion of the internal market must be leveraged to increase employment growth and step up competitiveness and innovation in the EU.

15.

urges the European Commission to continue bringing down barriers to citizen mobility, especially as 2006 is the European Year of Mobility for Workers.

16.

recalls the need for a horizontal, multi-sector Community frame of reference in order to define the scope and management conditions for services of general interest; local authorities must be able to decide on the way in which these services are provided in line with the principles of subsidiarity and local self-governance.

17.

reiterates, in the light of the legislative procedure to examine the draft directive on services, its call for the exclusion of all social services of general interest (healthcare, services related to anti-exclusion and integration measures, social housing), often managed by local authorities, from the scope of this draft directive, insofar as these services are not commercial in nature and have no impact on EU trade.

18.

considers that trans-European networks in the transport, telecommunications and energy sectors are essential to ensure supply and to realise the full potential of the European economy, link up the enlarged Europe and improve territorial cohesion.

19.

calls for security and safety of all citizens to be guaranteed, and reaffirms that local and regional authorities are determined to contribute to the eradication of the causes of insecurity and violence in cities and regions across Europe. In this context, suggests:

20.

undertakes to pursue the CoR reforms, protecting its specific role as the EU's political assembly of locally and regionally elected representatives.

21.

undertakes, in terms of inter-institutional cooperation with regard to:

21.1

the European Parliament: to leverage the democratic debates of the European Parliament, to step up contacts between counterpart bodies and cooperate on preparation and follow-up of CoR opinions;

21.2

the Commission: to implement the cooperation protocol signed in November 2005 (4), particularly as regards the CoR's more proactive role during the early stages of Community action, and to step up synergies in the field of communication in order to bring Europe closer to the public, which should lead to an addendum to the cooperation protocol after the Commission's adoption of the White paper on communication. Furthermore, the CoR will aim to set up a ‘question time’ with the European Commission at its plenary sessions in order to further promote the dialogue between the two institutions about core European issues and provide local and regional authorities in Europe with further leverage in the European decision-making process;

21.3

the Council: to ensure more efficient communication channels for any Committee of the Regions members also sitting on the Council, to step up interaction with the presidencies, and to lay the groundwork for more systematic cooperation. In this regard, calls upon the presidencies for 2006-2008 to prepare for 2009 by presenting a strategic multi-annual programme similar to that submitted for 2004-2006 by the six presidencies concerned;

21.4

the European Economic and Social Committee: to develop political cooperation in the areas of EU policy in which the activities of the social players and regional authorities are complementary, and to make more effective use of the synergies generated by the joint administrative services and shared premises.

22.1

calls upon its own elected representatives to use the possibilities provided by the creation of a budget heading for financing political and information activities, in order to better play the role of ‘EU ambassador’ to their fellow citizens, and the role of ‘local and regional ambassador’ to the EU.

22.2

undertakes, with a view to targeting the issues where it has credibility and where its work brings real added value to the community decision- and law-making process, to ensure that its opinions are of more practical use to the institutions, and more readable and accessible to European citizens, particularly by being more concise when presenting key political messages in CoR opinions and the CoR's proposed amendments to the Commission's legislative proposals.

22.3

undertakes to improve the follow-up to opinions so that the CoR can have an influence throughout the Community decision-making process, particularly by stressing more specific points in the context of proposals subject to the co-decision procedure.

23.

instructs its President to submit this resolution to the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council, the presidencies of the European Union in 2006-2008, namely the Austrian, Finnish, German, Portuguese, Slovenian and French presidencies.

16.8.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192/38

—

it should be made absolutely clear, in a formal statement issued by the Commission that, once the EGCC has been established in accordance with the Regulation, regional and local authorities from non-EU states which have incorporated the Regulation into their national law, shall be entitled to participate in the work of such an EGCC;

—

it should be made absolutely clear that, in the context of an EGCC, partners will be able to cooperate at international level in all areas in which they were also able to cooperate within the borders of the respective Member States; it should thereby be made clear that the EGCC instrument supports the principle of non-discrimination;

—

it should be made absolutely clear that the Member States must not curtail the existing substantive fields of competence of the EGCC partners for the purposes of implementing the EGCC Regulation;

—

it should be made absolutely clear that the EGCC may be established by the partners concerned without having to obtain prior authorisation from higher authorities and that legal supervision over an existing EGCC shall be exercised by the Member States or the competent national authorities;