You are on page 1of 1

11. 3.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 76/73

authorities and the Commission, including extensive discussions on potential EAGGF measures. The
Commission now wishes to proceed with approval of this seriously-delayed programme and does not intend to
question further the priorities proposed by the Member States.

(1) OJ C 222, 28.8.1995.

(98/C 76/160) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2078/97

by Mair Morgan (PSE) to the Commission
(19 June 1997)

Subject: Expert groups

As each DG appears to set different rules for providing information on expert and advisory groups, will the
Commission introduce guidelines to enable a coherent, open and transparent policy to be adopted in every DG?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 1997)

The provision of information on expert and advisory groups referred to by the honourable Member is not a matter
for the Commission, being currently governed by the following inter-institutional agreements or undertakings
given by the Commission to Parliament:
− the Plumb-Delors agreement on informing Parliament of draft decisions regarding legislative acts referred,
for an opinion, to committees assisting the Commission in fulfilling its executive responsibilities;
− the Klepsch-Millan agreement, setting up a code of conduct for the Commission's implementation of
structural policy;
− the ‘modus vivendi’ concluded by Parliament, the Council and the Commission on measures implementing
acts adopted under the procedure set out in Article 189b of the EC Treaty;
− the undertaking given by the Commission to Parliament's Committee on Budgets in September 1996
regarding the transparency of work carried out by committees.

These agreements and undertakings apply to all Commission departments.

(98/C 76/161) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2085/97

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission
(19 June 1997)

Subject: The information society

The Commission communications to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee
and the Committee of the Regions on ‘the implications of the information society for European Union policies:
preparing the next steps’ (COM(96)0395 final) and ‘the information society: from Corfu to Dublin − the new
emerging priorities’ (CES 1401/96) give rise to concern over employment trends in the information society. This
fundamental issue will be examined further in the opinion on the Green Paper on ‘living and working in the
information society: people first’. Nonetheless, the analyses currently available do not paint a reassuring picture
of the labour market in the future or of the future shape of labour relations. As things stand, there is no reason to
suppose that work will be fairly distributed in the future.

There is concern that the various initiatives taken by the Union might result in a multi-speed liberalization of the
market, which is likely to generate widespread imbalances, particularly in the social field.