Committee on Culture and Education Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
CULT European Parliament
Follow its sittingsNela Riehl
Thank you very much. Thank you. Before we start with the votes and now speak English, I will read the substitutes. That will be Mrs. Jussi Prinshee; she will be replaced by Mr. Bula. Milan Sverre will be replaced by Virgil Daniel Popescu.
And then, we proceed with the votes. By show of hands, we start with amendment A. Okay. Who is that? Please replace it. One moment, please.
Thank you very much. So, we checked everything is fine, and we start by a show of hands with amendment number one. Who is in favor? 5. Sorry.
Who is in favor? Against? Abstentions ? Rejected. Amendment number 25, in favor?
No. 26.
Nela Riehl
36. Sorry. 26 in favor? Against? Abstentions ?
Rejected. Amendment number 27, in favor? Against? Abstentions ? Adapted, which is identical to amendment number one.
So, do we go to amendment number 28 in favor? Against extensions.
Let me check, please. Amendment No. 21. 28.
28. Sorry. I don't know why the next second. So, we check. I open the vote, I close the vote, and it is adopted.
So, we move on to compromise amendment number one. In favor? Against? Abstentions ? Adapted. We go to amendment number 30. In favor? Against?
Abstentions ? Rejected. We go to amendment number 31. In favor? Against? Abstentions rejected.
We go to amendment number two. In favor, against, abstentions. Rejected, which was adopted. Adopted. I'm sorry. Which was a die ticket with amendment number 32. We go to amendment number 33. In favor, against, abstentions, rejected.
Amendment number 34: in favor, against, abstentions? Rejected? Amendment number 35, in favor? Against? Abstentions are rejected? Amendment number 36, in favor?
Against? Abstentions were rejected? Number 37 in favor? Against? Abstentions were rejected?
Number 38 in favor? Against? Abstentions ? Let me check, please. Again, number 38, I open the vote.
I close the vote.
Nela Riehl
We do have one PFE member too many here right now. So we need one PFE member to leave. Thank you. So, I will open the vote again for amendment No. 38. And I close the vote.
And it is adopted. We go to amendment number 39, in favor. Against and abstentions rejected. Amendment number 40: in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. Number 41 in favor, against, abstentions rejected.
Number 42 in favor? Against. Abstentions are rejected. Number 43 in favor? Against.
Abstentions are rejected. Number 44 in favor? Against. Abstentions are rejected. Number 45 in favor?
Against. Abstentions are rejected. Number 46 in favor? Against. Abstentions.
I need to check again, number 46, please. I open the vote, and I close the vote. And it is adopted. We go to amendment number 47. In favor, against, abstentions: rejected. Amendment number 48 in favor. Against?
Abstentions ? Rejected. Number 49 in favor? Against? Abstentions?
Rejected. Do we go to compromise amendment number 2 in favor? Against and abstentions adopted. And then we go to amendment number 57. In favor, against, abstentions? Rejected. We go to amendment number 58. In favor, against, abstentions. Rejected.
Amendment Number 73: in favor, against, abstentions. Rejected. Amendment number 56: in favor, against, abstentions? Rejected. Amendment number 4 in favor? Against?
Abstentions are adopted. Compromise Amendment number 3 in favor? Against? Abstentions are adopted. Amendment number six, in favor?
Against? Amendment number six. Yeah. Yes. In favor?
Against? Abstentions ? Rejected. It's rejected. So, amendment number 64 in favor?
Against? Abstentions ? Rejected. Amendment number seven and seventy-one are identical. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstentions ? Adopted. So we go to amendment number six, which is identical to amendment number 63. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstentions are adopted. We go to amendment number 67. In favor? Against. Abstentions are rejected.
Compromise amendment number 4 in favor? Adopted against abstentions. Amendment number 73, in favor?
No. 75.
Nela Riehl
75. Sorry. In favor? Against. Abstentions are rejected.
Amendment number 78, in favor? Against and abstentions rejected. Amendment number 79, in favor? Against and abstentions rejected. Amendment 80, in favor?
Against abstentions, rejected. Amendment number 81, in favor, against, abstentions: adopted. Amendment number 82, in favor: against, abstentions: rejected. Compromise amendment number five was adopted in favor, against, and abstentions. Amendment number 84, in favor: against: abstentions: rejected.
Amendment number 85, in favor, against, abstentions: rejected. Amendment number 86, in favor, against, abstentions: rejected. Amendment number 87: in favor, against, abstentions. Let me please check 87. I open the vote.
I close the vote. And it is adopted. Adopted. Right here. So, we go to amendment number 88.
Who is in favor? Against. Abstentions are rejected. Amendment number 89, in favor? No.
10. 89. 89. Yeah. Amendment number 89, in favor?
Against. Abstentions are rejected. Amendment number 10, in favor? Against. Abstentions are adopted.
Compromise Amendment number six was adopted in favor, against abstentions. Amendment number 12 and 91, identical, were adopted in favor, against, abstentions. Amendment number 92, in favor: against, abstentions: rejected. 93 in favor, against, abstentions rejected. Number 13 in favor, against, abstentions adopted.
Amendment number 94, in favor, against, abstentions: rejected. Amendment number 95, in favor, against, abstentions: rejected. Amendment number 97, in favor, against, abstentions: rejected. Number 98 in favor, against, abstentions rejected. Number 100 in favor, against abstentions, rejected.
Amendment number 101, in favor, against, abstentions: rejected. Amendment number 102, in favor, against, abstentions: rejected. Number 103 in favor, against, abstentions rejected. 104 in favor, against, abstentions rejected. 105 in favor, against, abstentions adopted.
107 in favor, against, abstentions rejected. Number 14 and 106 are identical. Who is in favor? Adopted against abstentions. Number 108 in favor?
Adopted against abstentions. We go to Amendment number 15: in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. 16 in favor, against, rejected. 17 in favor, against, abstentions rejected. Amendment number 20, in favor?
Against abstentions, rejected. Amendment number 22, in favor? Against abstentions, rejected. Number 23 in favor? Against abstentions, rejected.
Number 24 is in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. And we go to the final vote as a roll call vote. I open the vote. And I close the vote. And it is adopted.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Sousa Silva. Thank you. And then we come to the next vote, which I will switch to German for again.
The next vote is about the opinion of the court on the budget resolution and the general guidelines for the 2027 budget. This opinion launches the procedure for next year's budget and states the priorities of our committee in this context. Our rapporteur for this file is once again Mr. Susa Silva. In line with the coordinator's decision, the opinion was preferred in the form of a letter, and it was endorsed by the coordinators on February 11. Now, we will have a single roll call vote.
Would the rapporteur like to take the floor very briefly?
Hélder Sousa Silva
Thank you for giving the floor before the vote, and thanks to all the colleagues across political groups for the constructive cooperation on this opinion. Our message today is simple, very simple. In the final year of the current programs, we must avoid weakening what works, and our pro programs really work. Erasmus Plus works. Creative Europe works.
The European Solidarity Corps works, and the service works. All these programs deliver clear European added value and are consistently oversubscribed. Underfunding them in 2027 would mean turning away good projects and undermining impacts during the programming period. We also need to be clear about what should not happen. The costs of repayment to the next generation cannot be paid for by squeezing long-standing programs.
Culture, education, youth, and citizenship should not become the adjustment variables of the budget. Demand already far exceeds supply. Access rates under Creative Europe remain low. Erasmus Plus faces strong pressure as living costs rise. And finally, the Solidarity Corps and Serve continue to support cohesion and democratic engagement with limited resources.
Protecting their 2027 envelopes is therefore not symbolic. It is necessary. Finally, pilot projects and preparatory actions remain one of the Parliament's most effective tools to test solutions and respond quickly to new needs. CALS' track record here shows why these instruments deserve continued support. His opinion is about continuity, credibility, and impact, protecting proven programs in a tight budgetary environment.
Once again, thank you to all the colleagues for the precious support, and I think we are on the right path. Thank you so much.
Nela Riehl
Thank you very much. And we proceed to the vote, which is just one vocal vote, the final vote, and I open the vote. I close the vote. And it is adopted. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Mr. Susserseva, again. And then I switch to German again. The
The next vote is on the draft of the joint declaration "Europe for Culture, Culture for Europe." As you know, the Conference of Presidents mandated the Co-Committee to conduct the negotiations on this inter-institutional declaration on behalf of the Parliament. We have succeeded in further strengthening the text of the draft declaration, showing a very cooperative spirit. For example, by including a reference to media as a key element of the cultural sector and by providing additional commitments related to AI. We also wanted to underline the global dimension and highlight the message of culture as our unique selling point.
As this is not a legislative file, the mandate on international negotiations does not fall under the scope of rule 72. Therefore, the vote for the adoption follows a simple majority. We will vote now, and I open the voting. I close the voting. And it is adopted.
Thank you. And this will then be endorsed by the Conference of Presidents. Thank you for this.
Auf Deutsch.
Nela Riehl
Then, we go to the next part of our agenda. One moment. After the sending of the coordinated decisions on January 27, an objection was received by the PFE Group. They requested to put the coordinated decision on point 3.2, respecting the fact that the European Horizons Plus vocation had to be voted on in the committee.
According.
Nela Riehl
To rule 220, we will now have this vote. This is the voting procedure. If you are in favor of the coordinator's decision, you vote with a plus. If you are against the coordinator's decision, vote with a minus, or you can abstain from voting. We will now vote according to this rule.
I will open the voting. I close the voting. And the draft is carried out. Thank you. We have reached the end of the voting.
Speaker 7
We'll have a break for about one minute, and then we'll continue. Colleagues, please be quick because we are running out of time. We would like to continue. Okay. We will continue.
Now.
We come to the next point of our agenda.
Nela Riehl
So, the next item is the presentation of the EPRS study on the youth strategy.
Nela Riehl
Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to discuss the EPRS study on the youth strategy and how to proceed. So today, we're going to hear from Isabel Ioannidis, who is a political analyst.
Right now, because we've already been some minutes overtime. Thank you very much.
So today, we're going to hear from Isabel Ioannidis, a political analyst who is part of the ex post evaluation of the scientific service of the European Parliament and is one of those involved in this study. We'll also hear from Sladjana Petkovic and Beatriz Liputte, who will present the main findings of the study. Now Beatrice Liputte works as a senior researcher at Visionary Analytics, which is a private research-based consultancy that carries out studies on education and youth policy. Here, she has been the project coordinator. Slajana Petkovich is an independent expert and researcher in youth policy.
She has many years of experience supporting national governments, European institutions, international organizations, and social partners. In this study, she has been involved both as the senior expert and as the national expert for Croatia. So both of you have 15 minutes in total.
Speaker 9
Thank you very much, Chair, honorable members. The study that we are presenting today is a European implementation assessment. The EXPOS evaluation units in EPRS produce these assessments to provide supporting evidence to committees when they are drafting an implementation report, and this study, therefore, aims to inform the ongoing work of the CALD Committee on the implementation report on the EU youth strategy, 2019 to 2027. So, our study takes stock of the implementation of this strategy since 2019, but it also provides options and recommendations for the way forward in view of Parliament's and Commission's work on the post-2027 framework. The study consists of two parts.
Speaker 10
The first part was prepared internally by DG EPRS, and we examined recent developments in the European Commission on the strategy, including also the youth policy dialogues with the European commissioners. We also look at Parliament's oversight of the strategy through its resolutions, and we look at the results of stakeholders' consultations. The second part, which was written by the team at Visionary Analytics, assesses four aspects of the EU youth strategy at the EU level and in six specific member states. It's based on fresh, original data, which was collected through interviews and a survey, and you will hear about that part in a moment. So, what I would like to do here is concentrate on three key findings that emanate from the first part of the study.
The first one relates to young people's concerns. So, the 2025 European Commission barometer, as well as the two European Parliament polls—one conducted in 2021 and the other in 2024—show that some of the young people's concerns are constant. And this refers especially to living standards, unemployment, and climate change. But also echoing challenges that are faced globally. New issues are increasingly becoming a priority for young people, and these are public health after the pandemic, the EU's defense capacity since the war in Ukraine, and also irregular migration and its management.
So, in parallel, these polls show that while young people are attached to active citizenship and voting, many are actually skeptical of the impact that their voice in decision-making can have at the national and EU levels. Parliament has highlighted these issues in the past in its resolutions. It has also been noted that these challenges disproportionately affect marginalized youth, rural youth, and young women. This is also something that stakeholders continue to talk about and have raised in the consultations. A second conclusion from our study relates to the consultation of young people.
At EU level, we have seen that consultation has increased, particularly following the 2022 European Year of Youth. The commission has delivered on the youth policy dialogues, organizing 28 such dialogues with all commissioners during the first 100 days of the Fundering Commission 2. However, not all dialogues were at the same depth, and some of them engaged with a limited number of participants. The commission has also delivered on its commitment to create an online citizens' engagement platform to continue these discussions and has established a youth advisory board of young experts. To improve youth participation, young people ask that, first, the process for consultations be strengthened, and second, that the communication on the strategies, related programs, and initiatives be improved.
My last and third point relates to young people's participation in decision-making, and here, it remains quite problematic. So, although the commission has organized feedback sessions following the youth policy dialogues and has also provided written replies to participants' questions, it's still unclear whether and how much the collected ideas actually feed into EU initiatives. Parliament's resolutions and stakeholders' consultations have also raised the problem of translating consultations into actual participation in decision-making. Stakeholders have asked for their input to be used early in the commission's youth checks and at every stage of policymaking, and they have also urged that the outcomes from this consultation be more transparent and accountable. I will now give the floor to the two experts from Visionary Analytics to present their part of the study.
Thank you.
Speaker 11
Thank you very much. Thank you also for the invitation and the opportunity to present the study. I will start by mentioning that the main aim, overall aim, of the study was indeed to evaluate the implementation of the EU strategy at both levels: at the European level and at the level of six selected member states, including Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Lithuania, Italy, and Portugal. Of course, aligned with better regulatory guidelines, the study was designed and organized around the four evaluation criteria: effectiveness, relevance, efficiency, and coherence. There's been a lot of analysis, not only of the secondary data, but also of the rich primary data that we have collected at the national level and at the EU level through semi-structured interviews, surveys, and many discussions and exchanges with national public policy institutions, individuals, experts within the youth field, and most importantly, with youth organizations, youth networks, and youth associations.
The main objective of the study was translated into four specific objectives. The first one is to assess the coherence of the EU strategy with a focus on the EU youth goals. The second objective was to examine how effectively youth perspectives are mainstreamed across EU and national policies. The third one was to analyze youth participation with a focus on inclusion, equality, and young people with fewer opportunities. And the final objective was to explore the role of the EU strategy in improving access to education and training.
We are going to present the key findings in a nutshell, of course. The study is very rich and comprehensive, and each finding will be organized around the key evaluation criteria. So, let's start with effectiveness. When it comes to effectiveness, we learned overall that the implementation of the European Youth Goals is not even at the member state level, and this is due to various reasons. Some of them are linked to the fact that the overall nature of the youth strategy is non-binding.
This also applies to the youth goals. Then, the countries have different mechanisms through which they select their priorities; for example, for the three presidencies. And then, the regular monitoring mechanisms were not always in place. This means that some EU youth goals are addressed more frequently than others. And in this regard, we were not actually able to identify, let's say, the core goals.
So, it really depends on the context, the country, and the circumstances. When it comes to youth mainstreaming, that was the major breakthrough, obviously, as the legacy of the European Year of Youth 2022. Many new mechanisms have been introduced for the implementation of youth mainstreaming across policy areas, not only at the EU level but also at the level of the member states. Let's check, let's mention the youth check, for example, also the EU youth coordinator, internal and external youth networks, and youth policy dialogue with commissioners. What's also important here is to mention that one of the instruments of the EU strategy identified as really important in terms of providing space for young people for their voice to be heard was the youth dialogue, as already mentioned.
And here, we also learned that the implementation and follow-up face some challenges in selected member states, so this is obviously room for improvement. Also, some policy areas are tackled more than others. Let's mention that education and employment, for example, are more frequently addressed, while public health, as mentioned by Isabelle, and environmental issues are not so frequently addressed. When it comes to youth participation and inclusion, the EU Youth Dialogue is still one of the key instruments providing a space for young people to participate, as well as EU youth programs. What is important to note is that the participation of young people with fewer opportunities increased, which is very good news, but still some groups within the youth population remain underrepresented. This applies to rural youth, for example, also young people with a migrant background, non-organized youth, and so-called NEET youth, meaning young people not in education, training, or employment.
So, this obviously needs to be improved in the future. What's also important is to mention the EU strategy, sorry. Yeah. I will speed up. The EU strategy has supported access to quality education and training.
There are quite a lot of improvements marked to link to the formal education system. But what's important to mention here is that we learned from stakeholders that non-formal education and youth work, particularly, are not really capitalized to the full extent. So, there is great room for improvement as well. When it comes to relevance, which was the second evaluation criterion applied, overall, it's important to say that the dedicated EU youth policy framework still remains very relevant, and it's a key, essential, strategic framework that provides the joint vision and guidelines. On the other hand, we learned that there are new emerging policy priorities that need to be addressed in the future.
This applies to, let's say, defense, safety, security, also the long-term impact of digitalization, mental health, and environmental issues. What we also learned is that the European youth goals only partially address these newly emerged cross-sectoral issues. So, obviously, there is a need for an update, revision, and renewal of the EU goals. When it comes to efficiency, we were actually investigating to what extent the implementation of the EU strategy and some of its instruments creates additional burden to stakeholders, and we learned that at the European level, there are no additional burdens apart from the implementation costs. At the national level, however, the situation is different in terms of unsustainable funding and a lack of human resources, especially when it comes to small youth organizations or newcomers.
So, they are really struggling in terms of efficiency. In the end, the final evaluation criterion was coherence. We were exploring the internal and external coherence and its different aspects. The good news, of course, is that the EU strategy is externally really coherent and aligned with a vast amount of EU policies that are relevant for young people. There is great synergy there.
When it comes to internal coherence, it's important to mention that, for example, the EU programs are well aligned with the EU strategy as the overall framework, in terms of priorities and objectives. But still, in terms of evaluation criteria, there is room for improvement. It was interesting to hear, for example, from some organizations that even though they were implementing Erasmus Plus projects, they were not aware of the fact that, in the end, they were implementing the EU strategy. Right? So, better alignment could be in place there.
And then, what we also learned is that in terms of internal coherence, an important instrument for its implementation was the work plans. They provide clear guidance and, to some extent, the strategic framework for the national authorities, but not many stakeholders were aware of it. So, Beatrice would take over from here.
Speaker 12
Thank you very much. I would like to conclude our presentation with the overarching recommendations that emerged from the collected evidence. In the short term, a hybrid youth coordination framework for the post-2027 period should be considered. It would combine a strong overarching strategic vision rooted in the engage, connect, and empower areas, with clear sectoral accountability. Youth mainstreaming actions should also be embedded in sector-specific plans and supported by dedicated sectoral funding.
Speaker 13
For example, in health or climate policy, priority areas would be identified in close consultation with youth stakeholders. Second, the European Youth Goals should be reviewed and updated to reflect these new realities. According to stakeholders, consultants consulted on peace and security, affordable housing, threats to democracy, and transitions from education and work require greater attention. This process should be participatory and inclusive of youth with fewer opportunities. Thirdly, the role of the EU youth coordinator should be further strengthened to act as a central hub linking youth-related initiatives across EU institutions.
Fourthly, youth participation mechanisms should be reinforced to ensure continuity and real policy impact. The Youth Dialogue and related instruments should make clear how young people's input influences policymaking, while member states should ensure transparent follow-up, adequate resourcing, and continuous, not one-off, consultations. Finally, inclusion and diversity should be further strengthened across the EU, EUTEL, Kerasmos Plus, and the European Solidarity Corps. This means widening participation among underrepresented groups. Lastly, in the medium term, a stronger monitoring and evaluation framework is needed for the post-2027 EU Youth Strategy.
This includes updating the EU youth dashboard, improving policy indicators, and making the work plans more accessible through clear language, modern formats, and targeted outreach. To consolidate the gains of youth mainstreaming, clear institutional roles, capacity building, and systematic evaluation of these new tools mentioned previously are needed, and these instruments should be integrated into the next EU youth strategy. Erasmus Plus and the European Solidarity Corps should become more accessible, particularly for first-time and small organizations, and the administrative burden should be reduced. In addition, member states should continue to strengthen the recognition and professionalization of youth work and of skills gained through non-formal and informal learning. Finally, UU strategies should be better communicated and more visible at national, subnational, and local levels.
Speaker 12
There should be stronger outreach to less involved stakeholders and better sharing of good practices across the EU and within the member states. Thank you for your attention.
Nela Riehl
Thank you very much. I'd like to invite the rapporteur to speak for 3 minutes, and then we'll hear from the shadow rapporteurs for 2 minutes apiece. But let's hear from the rapporteur for the cult committee. Thank you very much for this comprehensive study. I think that this will definitely benefit our work because there were many useful findings.
Sabrina Repp
So, thank you very much for having done all that hard work. Now, we have already seen the draft report, and we referred to your study a lot. So, thank you very much once again. I've got 4 or 5 comments, and I'd like to hear from you what you think. Now, first of all, you said that dialogue within the commission should be dealt with very differently.
So, that means a greater number of participants. Sometimes, there are these digital platforms. Sometimes, there are different models. Perhaps you could explain how these youth dialogues could be set up. What's your model, and what framework is already in place so that we can be more consistent as we organize these events?
Because, obviously, we need.
Sabrina Repp
Have thematic gatherings, but it's useful to draw on existing lessons that have been learned so that we can use best practices. So, perhaps you could say something about that. Secondly, I'd like to know what you have identified in terms of how to improve the connectedness of the youth strategy. Now I know that one finding has been that their implementation varies across the board. Now, could we increase the joined-up thinking in terms of implementation?
Now, you talked about the recommendations on how to proceed. And the youth strategy, I feel as the rapporteur, should really be the basis for any measures that are taken in relation to youth and youth services. So, if we take the Erasmus Plus program, it is currently seen as completely separate from the youth strategy. So, how can we have the youth strategy as the foundation underpinning other activities? And, for example, in their case of Erasmus Plus or voluntary service, how can we make the link back to the youth strategy?
It would be helpful if not only we had a youth strategy, but if people realized that they're part of that strategy; that's more constructive. So, how can we increase that awareness? And then, on the youth goals, you said that these youth goals need to be updated. Now, ultimately, any strategy is for a limited period of time so as to build in flexibility because the world is constantly in flux, and youth strategy and youth goals would obviously need to be updated fairly regularly. How can we increase flexibility while at the same time keeping an eye on those longer-term goals?
How can we achieve the right balance? Perhaps you have some ideas? But thank you very much. And I think that we can go into this in more detail when we discuss the report. Thank you very much.
The shadow rapporteur.
Hélder Sousa Silva
Again, thank you very much for this very important study and for this presentation. The report is very useful for our work, and it shows progress across the three pillars. The first pillar is engagement, the second is connection, and the third is empowerment, but there are also clear limitations, from uneven impacts across member states to weaknesses in the effective participation of young people and in the mainstreaming of the youth perspective across EU policies. I would like to highlight, in particular, three findings of this study. First, the youth policies work best in education and employment but are still weak in the areas that shape young people's daily lives.
Second, youth organizations help young people build skills and engage in society. And third, we still lack clear indicators and proper monitoring to show whether the EU youth strategy is actually making a difference for young people across countries and policies. I have three very brief questions. The first one is the following. In your view, what are the main obstacles that still prevent youth input from translating into real influence across policy areas such as the digital space and media?
The second one is related to the minimum mechanisms. What minimum mechanisms, such as common indicators, clear responsibilities, or reporting requirements, are needed to move beyond declarations and ensure that youth mainstreaming becomes verifiable and measurable in practice? And the last one is related to communication. How can we improve the communication of the youth strategy, and what is failing right now? Thank you so much, and congratulations again.
Tiago Moreira de Sá
Thank you so much, Mr. President. I will take the floor in the next panel, so I'll be very brief now. And if you don't mind, I will speak in Portuguese because I want to talk about the Portuguese youth, well, the youth in general, but most of all, the Portuguese youth.
So, first of all, thank you very much for the report. Thank you to both presenters. This is a very important study. Anyone who has spent time in academia can certainly appreciate the content. But what we're concerned with here is a very serious situation for young people.
It's dramatic for young people in general, but specifically in Portugal, they are struggling. So, let me give you some facts and figures so that you're aware of what's going on in Portugal. Youth unemployment at the moment is above 21%, which is higher than the average. And so, gross income for young people is about €1,500. So it's around €1,000 net, but it costs €3,000 to rent a flat.
Then there are all of the costs, such as the cost of living, subsistence, studies, and so forth. So, life is very expensive. Now, this study, along with others, touches on the realities of young people. So, for young people in Portugal, they are highly qualified. They often have to leave the country.
Speaker 19
People who have plans for their life, who want to rent, buy a house, or start a family are going to really struggle. I'm nearly done here. Hang on. So, I just wanted to express that concern. Now, from the ECR, from the rapporteur, the shadow rapporteur.
Hristo Petrov
First of all, I would like to thank the authors of the study, as well as the colleagues from the Parliament's research service, for their work. This study does a great job of providing us with an overview and evaluation of what is being done at the EU and national levels to implement the strategy. It's very interesting also because it covers my own country, Bulgaria, where the strategy has had a positive impact and, at the same time, has met many challenges in implementation. My question is about early school life and structural inequalities. EU-wide early school leaving is around 10.5%.
However, many groups with fewer opportunities have significantly higher rates. Nearly 70% of Roma youth, for example, are early leavers from education and training, according to a recent Roma survey from the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights. And this is not a marginal gap. It's a systemic divide. The EU's strategy emphasizes inclusion in education, but it's not immediately clear how it contributes to reducing disparities in educational attainment.
In your research, did you identify member states where youth strategy implementation had a measurable impact on reducing early school leaving among disadvantaged groups? Are there examples where youth dialogue or youth check outcomes led to concrete national measures targeting these gaps? And looking ahead, what would need to be strengthened in the next strategy to address structural educational inequality more directly? Thank you.
Nela Riehl
Thank you. That was very well-timed. So, Benedetas Gudeaux from The Greens is not present, so I will very quickly read out her opinion in English.
Apologies for not being present today. She would like to warmly thank the rapporteur, Sabrina Rep, and her team for this true and forward-looking report on the implementation of the EU Youth Strategy 2019 to 2027. The draft report provides a comprehensive assessment of the strategy's impact and clearly recognizes that a dedicated youth policy coordination framework remains essential beyond 2027. It rightly underlines the need to strengthen youth mainstreaming, including through a more consistent application of the youth check and better integration of youth perspectives across all EU policies. The analysis of the European Youth Goals is particularly valuable, especially the call for greater adaptability, improved monitoring, and stronger foresight to address emerging challenges such as climate change, mental health, housing, digitalization, and democratic resilience.
The report also makes important recommendations on reinforcing youth dialogues and ensuring that youth participation is meaningful, inclusive, and genuinely linked to decision-making. By addressing gaps in policy coherence, uneven implementation across member states, and the need for stronger integration of fairness, this tax sets a solid basis for the transition towards the post-2027 framework and goes in the right direction. We now look forward to continuing this work together in a true spirit of collaboration and inclusion across political groups and with young people themselves. Only through open dialogue, co-creation, and mutual trust can we deliver a youth strategy that genuinely reflects young people's realities and aspirations. And then we go to the left to Nicolas.
Good.
Nikos Pappas
Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to thank the rapporteur EUR for taking the initiative of commissioning this study, but I'd also like to thank the researchers for doing a sterling job. Allow me to make some comments and ask you some questions. The study shows that the European Youth Strategy is a framework for cooperation. It is not a mandatory policy.
But that means it is not an obligation to implement it. Each and every member state can interpret it whichever way it wants, and they are not held accountable if it is not implemented. So, we can see that the EU sets goals for young people, but there are no mechanisms to ensure that these goals are being implemented. The study also says it is not very easy to assess the real impact of the strategy. And that's because it includes many different policies.
There are many different players. We don't have a single set of indicators. And it also overlaps with other programs. We keep talking about employment, skills, and mobility. But what about the mental health of young people as a policy priority?
A whole generation is being raised with uncertainty: the cost of living, housing problems, and being connected to the Internet too much. And yet, we only have a piecemeal approach to tackle this. There's coordination, but there isn't any transformation. We're promoting cooperation, but not convergence. And the disparities aren't only across the EU between member states, but also within member states.
It very much depends on where you were born. So, the question is pretty straightforward. How can the European Youth Strategy become a tool for social justice, and not just a way of dealing with inequalities?
Thank you.
Nela Riehl
See anyone here from the ESN? We will now have a catch-the-eye question for the EPP.
Speaker 25
What was the sample on which the research was conducted? What age group was the subject of the research? And how do you suggest strengthening the participation of young people in politics and society? I congratulate you on your work, but we had similar recommendations after the conference on the future of Europe. So, could you please tell us what new things we have gained from your new research?
Nela Riehl
Thank you. That was very brief. And now I'll give the word back to the presenter for three minutes.
Speaker 11
Thank you very much for all the questions. I will start from the last one, if you don't mind. Yes, I mean, I will leave to Beatriz the technical details about the sample age group and other stuff. And I would just like to mention that, of course, we also learned that this study is complementary to the research efforts that have been made, as well as the interim evaluation of the youth strategy and the evaluation of the EU youth programs. Since I have been in the field of youth research for more than two decades, it was exciting for me to work on this project because it was different.
The perspective was totally different. We never analyzed the EU youth goals and their impact in their implementation across policy fields so closely linked to the evaluation of the EU strategy. So, it was new, and it was exciting. Believe me. What's also important to say is how to strengthen participation, which is also linked to some other factors.
Maybe let's finish this one, and then we will continue. Two minutes. Oh, for all. Yes. We have two minutes for all of the answers.
So, let me sorry. Yeah. Let me combine several answers and several questions. What was really important to learn in this context was that the link between the implementation of the EU strategy as the overall strategic framework could be improved in various ways. First of all, the stakeholders suggested that we could improve the evaluation criteria of the EU programs and make a direct link to the strategies.
So, for example, each organization will be informed about the major strategic framework from the application to the reporting phase. So, they will learn that their little project is not really just for itself, but it is also part of the big picture. Let's put it that way. What we also learned is that the EU goals are not easy to implement at the national level, as well as the EU strategy, because there is no one solution fitting all. The EU strategy is broad enough as the strategic framework, and then it's up to the countries.
The commitment of different member states is not always in place, or at least it varies. So this is something that we are also dealing with within the youth sector. What can be done is that we can revise and renew, for example, the EU dashboard. I was directly included in this process previously, so I know how much commitment there has been. And also, believe it or not, the monitoring system for the EU goals was developed, but it hasn't been used.
Like so, yeah, we don't have to reinvent the wheel. That's the message, I would say. And we could always work on increasing commitment, especially at the national level.
Nela Riehl
Sorry. Thank you. And I apologize for being so strict with the time, but at 4 PM, we expect Commissioner McAlev. That's why we need to get very quickly to the next point, which is on the EU youth strategy. The rapporteur from the call committee, Sabrina Repp, will point out the most important parts.
I will address the key teams for young people and other points that are very important in the cold committee. Sabrina, if you have five minutes, maybe you'll be able to manage to do that quicker. Thank you. I will try to be faster on several points. As was already said initially, I would like to talk about the EPRS evaluation because by March 2, the amendments need to be admitted.
Sabrina Repp
Thank you for the good cooperation from the shadow reporters. Thank you for all the good cooperation from the secretariat, from our advisers, and from my assistants. I'd like to thank you all for getting this youth strategy up and running. It's very important that with the youth strategy, we're able to make sure that the report, the youth strategy is the basis of the goals that we have. We need youth mainstreaming where youth and youth policy are reflected in all areas, and it's not just a question of which adults hold which area relevant to youth.
So, that's why we would like to strengthen the perspective of young people. This strategy, which came into effect in 2019, needs to be evaluated, and we need to show that we need to branch out into different areas. And that means we've noticed a key gap. This has to do with the mechanisms of the youth check, the youth goals. These need to be connected.
They need to be connected and harmonized. That is not just dependent on which commission wants to do this youth check, but it needs to be done in a way that it is something people actually want to do. It's important for our future, and it's important for young people in Europe. We also see that there are priorities; the priorities for young people have changed since 2019. When I think back to what was happening in 2019, it was before the coronavirus pandemic.
So, questions about mental health are even more relevant now, dealing with social media, digitalization, mobility, cost of living, and having a fee-stable future. These are all things that we need to take a look at. And that is a question that needs to be brought into the EPRS. We need a strategy that covers a specific period of time. But the world is changing faster than we can keep up.
That means we need more opportunities to use these priorities and to adapt our policy, and that can only be done with young people. And that's why I come to the next keyword: participation. The question is, which young people are going to actually participate at the European level? These are mostly young people who are well organized and have already worked their way through the EU levels, but we need a mix. We need a mix of official representatives and young people who are at local levels in different countries and rural areas because we need them to bring their perspectives to different European levels.
And they need to do this, strengthen the youth dialogues that are being carried out by the commission, and then they could be more sustainably implemented. We spoke about the budget from Mr. Cesar Silva today, and I'm happy that the youth strategy is a basis there. The Residence Plus and voluntary service are important, but this also happens in other areas. It happens in the European Social Fund, in the cultural area. It also happens in scientific areas.
This is why the financial aspect also needs to involve the youth strategy. We can't just focus on the programs of Erasmus Plus and the European Solidarity Corps. That's what I've tried to show in the report. It's very comprehensive, but in all areas, we're limited in opportunities. So, we do have amendments.
So, I'd like to ask you to strengthen this strategy and the implementation report. And if you have questions, I am available to answer them. I think this is an important signal for the good cooperation, and we have to continue this. And with this implementation report, this will be the basis for the future strategies to strengthen these strategies for young people. And I think this is our responsibility, and I'm very positive that we can do this well.
Nela Riehl
Thank you for your cooperation. Thank you for the support in this report. Thank you. So, you have two minutes each. We'll start with the EPP, Mr. Cesar.
Hélder Sousa Silva
Agora em português. This only makes sense when it actually leads to visible changes, whether it's within the country, on the coast, or in rural areas. There needs to be a connection between the visual results. This needs to be simplified. And thirdly, we need an initiative with a stricter and more strategic approach.
Young people today are better qualified, but they are facing a labor market that is changing very quickly. We need creativity, new qualifications, and new skills. These are social priorities, and they will strengthen European competitiveness. We need to involve the European Education Area. We need a European degree.
We would like the EU strategy to be believable after these years. We need three things. We need fewer explanations and more instruments on the ground. Secondly, we need easier access. And thirdly, we need a clear connection between the youth priorities and the political areas of the European Union.
So take the global aspect of European politics, as Sabrina said. You have the financial instruments for Arosness Plus. There needs to be a proper connection there. There needs to be harmonization there. Thank you.
Speaker 27
Congratulations, Sabrina, on this work. And I'm sure that after 2027, you will continue working for the youth in Europe. Thank you.
Tiago Moreira de Sá
You, chair. The youth strategy, from 2027 onwards, is important for the youth. It's all about having inclusion. We need administrative simplification from school to work. We need structural change so that young people from countries such as Portugal can emigrate, but we also need to give a perspective to young people within their country.
And this is why this involves the EU as a whole. Youth policy that involves demographic change. We need NGOs and so on, but what we're missing is competitiveness. If we really want a young Portuguese engineer who maybe lives in the United Kingdom or is in the United States, when they come back to Portugal, they should have an integrated approach. We need a tax policy.
We need a family policy. We also need productivity growth, and we need to be able to engage young people. It's all about creating new strategic sectors, such as expanding family areas. This all has to do with allowing young people to find work and return to their home countries. Extra capital is also an issue.
Intellectual pluralism is also important. We need a free society. We need fewer explanations. We need scientific importance. It's not just about programs.
It's also about growth, about economic growth, and framework conditions so that young people can find their way.
Apologies.
Speaker 29
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'd like to thank the rapporteur for her work on the draft report. This is excellent groundwork for their meetings over the next few weeks. It allows us to look at the choices that will steer the final version of the youth strategy post-2027. Now, the litmus test isn't the lofty statements, but whether we're going to give proper prospects to young people.
Speaker 31
This is a framework for cooperation in Europe, but its efficiency will depend on whether shared principles can translate into tangible results on the ground. It's not about replacing national strategies, but flanking them and basing on subsidiarity and proportionality. There are disparities across the EU, and therefore we couldn't just talk about formal inclusion. We need to guarantee genuine access to opportunities, quality work, and services, even for young people who don't live in big towns and cities. We need local ecosystems that will retain these skills and excellence.
Speaker 30
We have to invest in innovation, training, and education. It is a strategic choice for the competitiveness and the future of Europe. On the participation and inclusion of youth strategies, we have to boost youth involvement. But we need efficient and simple procedures. If we involve young people, then we have to make sure that we don't have multiple levels of procedure.
Speaker 33
If we want to look post-2027, our priority should be to strengthen the impact of current policies, provide support to member states, and deliver concrete results. We think this draft is an excellent starting point, and we will focus on it in order to hone it in the best possible way. Thank you.
Hristo Petrov
Pierre, and thank you, Sabrina, for this balanced draft report. I welcome the focus on young people in rural regions. There has been great progress in improving access for vulnerable youth, but many remain out of reach. Groups like the Roma or youth placed in institutions face social, economic, and educational barriers. They also often lack trust in authorities, making outreach even more difficult.
One of the most powerful tools to engage them is mobility and non-formal learning. Cross-border mobility initiatives, like youth camps and exchange programs, do more than provide experience. They build confidence, European identity, and a sense of belonging. For many young people, these opportunities can be life-changing. I believe the next phase of the youth strategy should strengthen access to such mobility schemes in a more targeted and inclusive way.
And those who work with youth—teachers, youth workers, and volunteers—must be well trained, supported, and their work recognized. Digital literacy is also key. Young people without strong digital skills are on the back foot, and not just in the labor market. Digital literacy today means recognizing disinformation, battling radicalization, and being able to safely navigate the dark patterns online. Democratic participation has also been fully integrated into the digital world.
It's not surprising that the commission has designated citizenship education as a basic skill alongside digital. If the EUT strategy is to be successful, it must embrace civic engagement and education as a key pillar and mainstream them across yacht policies. So, colleagues, yacht policies and investment in Europe's resilience, competitiveness, and future, and I look forward to working on this together. Thank you.
Nela Riehl
Thank you.
Benetz, Nicos Pavos, and Susanna Bovindag are not here. So we will go straight to our members from Empel and Sant. Sant is not here today, but Maravillas Abadia Jover from Empel is here, and I give him the floor for 2 minutes.
Maravillas Abadía Jover
I'm going to speak in Spanish. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I'd like to thank the rapporteur, and I'd like to thank the committee for inviting me to the presentation of this draft report. The European youth strategy cannot be just about good intentions. It has to be turned into a genuine strategic tool to boost European competitiveness. The employment committee would like to look at this from this point of view: connecting young people with real job opportunities.
We have Eurostat data, and we can see that we have structurally high levels of youth unemployment in the member states. And success cannot be measured just by the number of young people who get a job. It's about the quality of the jobs, how stable they are, and what future prospects the jobs offer. So, we have to make sure that we have consistency, avoid duplication and overlaps, and measure the impact. That is why we need an ambitious overhaul of what we have, especially the Youth Initiative and the Youth Guarantee, ESF Plus, and make sure that we look at real and sustainable results and quality jobs for young people.
We have to strengthen the link between education and the labor market by promoting something modern, especially STEM subjects among young people, and making sure that we're talking about genuine opportunities because there is a real lack of skills in Europe. That is why we have to harness the skills available and offered by a whole generation. It's not just about participation, but about forging a future. So, this is the perspective that we are going to have reflected in our proposal and our opinion to your committee.
Nela Riehl
Thank you to the MPO committee. And now I give the floor to Diana Jablanska, the director for youth education and Residence Plus from DGA Act, for two minutes.
Speaker 34
Thank you very much. I will try to be very brief. Thank you very much, Chair, Co-Chair, Rapporteur, honorable members. Thank you very much for the continuous support and constructive feedback. This discussion, the rapporteur, but also the discussion on the study, comes at an extremely timely moment for us as we are indeed reflecting on the new youth strategy, and this is not an easy task.
As the report has underlined, the world has changed enormously. And, of course, the conditions and the challenges that you face as well. Therefore, this discussion recommends the data analysis and reaches what we have found in our own midterm evaluation, as well as what we have put forward in the communication on the European Year of Youth. So, thank you very much for this. We will definitely look at this; we are already looking, and we will study it in more detail.
So, we are also happy to see that some of the findings are already reinforcing what we found in the previous discussions in our own evaluation. We, of course, have already put important initiatives mentioned here today as well: the youth check, the president's youth board, the youth dialogue, and the dialogues with the commissioners. They are, of course, an extremely important initiative, youth stakeholder group, but we need to ensure that they are optimized and that they work even better in synergy for the new youth strategy. We will continue the discussions we have; the next discussion will be in a few weeks. There is a youth conference and a youth DG meeting.
And we, of course, are very much looking forward to the discussion in this house during Youth Week and the discussion on the youth strategy as well, with the kickoff meeting that will happen in this house in April. So we are very much looking forward to continuing the discussion to have a very important new youth strategy.
Nela Riehl
Thank you. And now I give the floor to Sabrina Rapp, the rapporteur for...
Sabrina Repp
Thank you very much for your comments, and thank you for your willingness to strengthen the youth strategy. I think that we're still very much in the conversation phase. Perhaps we could share some ideas with the commissioner directly, but there is still time for compromise amendments to be submitted up to March 2. And then, we will try to strengthen the youth strategy. We're working with the EMPL and SANT committees, but what we want to make sure is that the strategy has a solid basis and can then underpin all future activities.
Nela Riehl
So, thank you very much, everyone, for all of your input. I look forward to seeing how things develop and, hopefully, to concluding these discussions this year. Thank you very much. I need to say that you need to submit your compromise amendments by 2 PM on March 2. We've got the commissioner who is on his way. So, you've got time to grab a quick glass of water before we continue our work.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.