Committee on Employment and Social Affairs 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
EMPL European Parliament
Follow its sittings
Li Andersson
As you know, voted during our last meeting regarding the interim report, EMPL strongly supported maintaining a separate stand-alone European social fund with a dedicated budget of €198,000,000,000, and has also called for maintaining funding for the European child guarantee as a key social policy priority. As we know, we would have wanted to place a joint committee at the negotiating table regarding this file, and we regret that that did not happen. But we will rely on the work of the rapporteur and the shadows to fight for a strong ample position and for influencing the NRPP negotiations in the lead committees. Unfortunately, the EPP rapporteur, Mister Humberto, could not attend the meeting today, but Mister Paulo Cunha will speak on his behalf. So, mister Cunha, the floor is yours, please.
Paulo Cunha
Thank you, sir. Alumni, me pleased to speak in Portuguese. Madam chair, colleagues,
on the fund, up to 2024, which affects areas such as cohesion, fisheries, etcetera. This is a challenge on this file. I can be very clear. This committee must not allow any sort of dilution of these funds. We cannot leave anyone by the wayside.
We need to make sure that we are economically effective, of course, and that we leave no one behind. There are four fundamental pillars here. Firstly, preserving the heritage of the European fund of the ESF Plus. We must not compromise the visibility and the efficiency that this fund has demonstrated. We must not allow simplification to have an adverse effect on other funds, which must not be neglected.
Secondly, tackling inequality. The fund for young people entering the labor market, which is a policy for young people who are not in education or employment and are not undertaking training either, for NEETs, also reduces child poverty and reduces inequalities for vulnerable groups. These must all remain absolute priorities. Thirdly, we have to have a strategic focus on our priority areas. We've introduced a number of amendments aimed at greater reskilling or upskilling.
Here, we're talking about tools that we consider to be essential for all workers regarding digital priorities in particular. And then, fourthly, support for the real economy. Member states must guarantee simplification and techniques that will allow SMEs and other socioeconomic groups to access this funding effectively. It is these entities that will allow us to see real development and for these priorities to become a reality. And finally, we must absolutely respect territorial specificities, especially overseas regions, outermost regions.
These need to have their specific areas of vulnerability taken into account. Colleagues, the success of this fund will be measured by our capacity to generate high-quality jobs and social cohesion. I remain available for a more in-depth discussion. We must not run the risk of neglecting this social dimension. Thank you very much.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And then I give the floor to the shadow rapporteur, starting with Missus Maei from the S and D.
Marit Maij
Yes. Thank you, chair. Thank you, dear rapporteur, or at least on behalf of the rapporteur and dear colleagues. I think from the moment the commission proposed the plans for the national and regional plans, this house has been very critical, especially this committee has been very critical, and I think we still are. Within the NRPPs lay the danger that specific objectives of the European Union, and as was mentioned before, not in the last place, social objectives, will be diluted into a big pile of plans from member states that they can propose.
And that is exactly what we see happening now. If we look at the numbers that we have calculated, member states such as Italy and Spain will lose almost half of their funding that they now spend under the ESF in the next MFF proposal. This is something that we should not let happen. Of course, we understand that certain things should be simpler and that we were in the current than they were in the current MFF. However, this should not lead to less priority on Europe's social agenda.
That is why we cannot have the next MFF without a European social fund, which has its own dedicated budget and which is separate. And its own thematic concentrations, some of them were mentioned on behalf of the rapporteur, and its own earmarkings. The main objectives from the ESF can, therefore, in this way, not be part of the NRPP, and our amendments will go in that direction. Thank you very much, and I look forward to collaborating with you all.
Mélanie Disdier
Yes. Thank you, colleagues. Well, the simplification of red tape is a priority. However, we can't have it at any price. We do have to be vigilant that these important measures are implemented.
It's also important to know the proportions, the volumes, because the commission wants ever more power. And we're talking about tens of millions of euros, and this will have consequences for all of the EU in the future. What are these consequences? Well, the same as usual. Simplification, the EU Commission wants to oblige the member states to spend their money in a particular way.
Although the budgets of the European Union is financed by the taxpayers of the member states. So we have a very much an obligation and indeed being held to ransom here. With this mechanism, the commission can enhance its restrictions and impose rules on the member states. The most worrying point is for the agricultural fund, the CAP, where we have a dilution of the measures to be allocated to agriculture. And for French agriculture, this means fewer guarantees and more dependence on Brussels.
Our farmers don't need these new constraints and ideological ties. What we need is practicality and our sovereignty in agriculture. And as always, the European Commission is trying to make us swallow the European pill by force. And we've got to look at the areas here involved, the domains and the competencies which are relevant, and not use these unlawful constraints. So we will be against this text while it restricts the liberty of the member states.
Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you. I have no one from the ECR. And from renew, not present, which means we move to Missus Oysala from the Greens.
Maria Ohisalo
Thank you very much, chair, operator, and dear colleagues. For starters, I would like to remind you of the fact that our ample opinion on the NRP cannot take place in a vacuum. We have several other opinions and one report in this committee, and it is of utmost importance that they all go in the same direction, creating a coherent position for us. Taking the opinion to the MFF interim report as its standing starting point, we are now tasked to push for a self-standing ESF instrument with a dedicated financial envelope. That must mean in practice that we also have to address the 14% minimum requirement for social spending in NRPPs in this opinion. I hope we will find an agreement on how to go about it.
Overall, the social dimension of the commission proposal is weaker than in the current framework, and less connected to the pillar of social rights. We would like to reintroduce horizontal and thematic enabling conditions to NRPPs to ensure accountability, as well as including social impact into the design and implementation of NRPPs. There are issues that need addressing, such as gender, which is missing from the commission proposal and the Robert's amendments. We will be tabling amendments to address that gap. We will also have amendments on the partnership principle with an objective to strengthen its implementation, as well as something on country-specific recommendations.
And homelessness is also one of our Greens' priorities. I regret it was not integrated in the nexus in our ample MFF interim report opinion. So I will be pushing for that again this time around. And, colleagues, I look forward to working together with you on this file. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And I would now give the floor to myself as the shadow rapporteur from my group. So colleagues, I also want to start by thanking the rapporteur. Mr. Kunya speaking for the rapporteur here, for the work that you have been doing.
And I guess it's unnecessary in this room to state the importance of this file strategically for the work that we are doing, as DSF Plus currently is the only EU fund primarily focused on social policies. And I do think looking at the proposed architecture from the commission that it does run a risk of delusion, as the rapporteur mentioned, when it comes to the social policy goals. So in my opinion, a good starting point for the work that we are doing on our opinion should be already previously with a strong majority adopted positions of the committee, especially the positions that we adopted in the interim report in our opinion to the MFF, where this committee made a strong statement saying that the next ESF must be insured and reinforced with a dedicated financial envelope, so a standalone ESF instrument, also repeating our strong calls regarding the European child guarantee and the money for this. So in my or the amendments that we will be proposing will be based on the idea of ESF remaining as a standalone program separated from the national and regional plans, and of course, also securing a sufficient budget. And I also want to emphasize that looking at negotiations going on in this house at the moment, we are seeing other institutions fighting for, for example, the agriculture funds or fighting for the regional funds to be separated from the NRPPs.
And I really do think that also the Employment and Social Affairs Committee has a responsibility to send a strong message to all EU decision makers that social policies are also at the core of European integration, and also act as a driver for the EU economy. And that's why we also need to make sure that we have strong instruments such as the ESF and that we have adequate funding to work for these goals. Thank you very much. So we now have time to catch the eye if there are other members that wish to take the floor at this point. If not, I will invite the representative of the commission, Mrs.
Ruth Passerman, Director for Funds, to take the floor for the next three minutes. Sorry, we have Christoph Vernejrich here instead. So please, the floor is yours.
Speaker 11
Thank you very much, Chair, and apologies that Ruth couldn't be with us today. She had an urgent urgency this morning. So thank you very much, Chair. Thank you, rapporteur. Thank you, shadow rapporteur, for the draft opinion and the words that you have said.
We very much welcome the commitment that this committee shows towards the ESF. Just remember, the ESF is the oldest of the cohesion funds. It was established already in 1957, with the signing of the Treaty of Rome. It was and has been an integral part of the European vision from the very beginning to establish jobs, improve job opportunities, promote employment, social inclusion in all of Europe. We believe that its relevance hasn't changed beyond the green and digital transitions, including AI, with ever changing needs for skill sets, rescaling, upscaling, social inclusion, societal developments have also changed, and we believe that the European Social Fund needs to continue tackling these issues, notably also demographic changes.
We believe that through the NRPPs, through the national and regional partnership plans, the ESF will continue to contribute to effectively addressing these societal challenges. It will finance common EU policies for employment, quality jobs, road map, youth guarantee, child guarantee, education, skills, the union of skills, social inclusion policies, the anti-poverty strategy, for example, with a view to improving the union's competitiveness and making it a better place to invest, create jobs, and foster social cohesion. A minimum of 14% of each of the plans and the envelope of the NRPP together will need to be dedicated to social objectives. We expect, actually, because this is a minimum, that member states will program much more. So why is that so?
Because the European semester will be one of the key, let's say, reference frameworks to determine on which to program. And as you know very well, the European semester is something where employment and social policies are well represented. This is why we believe actually that the 14% minimum will be largely exceeded. We take note also of the comments made in the draft opinion and the comments made by the shadow rapporteurs. Allow me just to respond perhaps to one or two.
So as regards the thematic enabling conditions and the horizontal enabling conditions, we felt that the need to simplify was very important in order to get the money flowing more quickly to the beneficiaries. That's why we have taken those out, compared to the current period. And then also as regards to metric concentration requirements, I think it's important to recall that the NRPP regulation in its Annex six still requires member states to concentrate resources on important European policies, notably social inclusion, youth unemployment, tackling child and poverty in general. And these remain, however, with no fixed percentage attached to it. So the amount that will need to be dedicated to each of these thematic concentration requirements will need to be negotiated on the basis of the semester information.
Again, let me thank the shadow rapporteurs, the rapporteurs, very much for their welcome opinion, and we're looking forward to working with you on this piece of legislation. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And I will now give the floor back to mister Puna for some final comments on behalf of the rapporteur. Please, the floor is yours.
Paulo Cunha
Thank you, sir. Again, in Portuguese, please. Thank.
Thank you very much. We are all concerned, and this initiative can't be a Trojan horse for a lack of investment in social affairs. This would be the driver for Europe just in as far as 2034 fund responds effectively to the challenges facing SMEs, to the emergency in The EU and for young people, I am open to working with you. Going forward, our common goal is to ensure that this instrument focuses on the priorities and that it maintains social justice and cohesion for all European citizens. And I count on your support to strengthen this social element of the dossier.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And please note that the deadline for amendments has been set for Tuesday, March 24. We then proceed to the consideration of the draft opinion and amendments to the regulation establishing the European Competitiveness Fund, including the specific program for defense research and innovation activities. I will first give the floor to Missus Jana Tumb on behalf of the rapporteur, Mister Alione, for five minutes. So please, the floor is yours.
Jana Toom
Thank you very much, Chair. I'm speaking on behalf of Gregory, rapporteur of an ample opinion of a European Competitiveness Fund, who apologized he cannot be here today. He would like to highlight a few points from the draft opinion today, and to thank the shadow rapporteur for the amendments received. In his draft opinion, he has strengthened in a horizontal and essential manner the provisions relating to the AMPL committee, namely skills development and the role of the social partners in the governance of the fund. Firstly, regarding skills developments, the draft provides that each work program of the fund includes a specific section dedicated to skills development in order to achieve the fund's objectives and ensure consistency with the skills union.
A bit slower piece. That an appropriate proportion of the financial allocations dedicated to each of the four strands of action be allocated to measures aimed at supporting skills development. It has left the exact amounts per financial envelope undefined to maintain sufficient flexibility with our priorities, but takes note of the amendments received specifying a precise percentage. Under Article 28 on support for businesses, that a new point be added on advice and support for businesses regarding skills development, in particular for SMEs. That article 30 on skills development be made more specific with regard to upskilling and de-skilling our citizens, as well as partnerships with businesses to better identify the skills needs in different sectors.
For the social partners, Gregory has tabled amendments aimed at strengthening their role and stakeholders to be consulted and included in the Competitiveness Fund Strategic Stakeholders Committee. He and his team are currently drafting compromise amendments to ensure their balanced and combined competitiveness, prosperity, and the security of our workers. Thank you for your attention.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And I then move on to the shadow rapporteur. Mister Falke from the EPP, please.
Gheorghe Falcă
Thank you. I speak Romanian. College in Primoron, Das Doris, Mulsomes rapporteur.
Colleagues, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur for this draft opinion. It's a good starting point for the discussions that we will have and for the negotiations getting underway. I hope that they will be constructive, and that we will work towards well-balanced solutions. From the EPP's point of view, the competitiveness fund must be a powerful instrument to consolidate the European economy. It must serve innovation and the development of strategic sectors.
But competitiveness is not synonymous with investment in technology and industry. No. It's a synonym for investment in people and skills. In Europe, we have a severe shortage of skills in a large number of domains. We have to invest in development of human capital, upskilling, reskilling, and to invest in the future labor force.
We also have to pay particular attention to the problems we have with brain drain and the lack of talent. Europe has been investing in education, but often, it loses talented people who decide to move to other countries, other regions that they perceive as being more competitive outside of the European Union. This is why the EPP's amendments are aimed at strengthening that link between competitiveness and skills. We underline the importance of lifelong learning and vocational training. We also support the idea of having partnerships with enterprises, business centers, and training centers.
We believe that this fund could contribute towards reducing inequalities between regions, as far as competitiveness is concerned. All regions, all countries must be part of Europe's industrial transformation. Europe's competitiveness doesn't depend, it depends on technology, but it also depends a great deal on humans. Thank you.
Idoia Mendia
Thank you, sir. I will speak in Spanish. First, I would.
I would like to thank the rapporteur. Excellent work. And this would be a good starting point to find a landing ground. It's very important for S and D that the Competitors Fund is oriented towards the European social model, which is what makes us different. And yesterday, at the hearing of the different agencies relating to employment, it became very clear there that we're more competitive if we have quality jobs and a good social protection net.
So we may have to measure quality not just in investment and so on, which we don't question, but it also has to be translated into social progress and better life and jobs. The in that sense that our amendments lie, we want to position ourselves as a center if somebody wants to improve its strategic advantage. It has to also look at the upscaling of its workers. And secondly, we have to ensure that this transition is fair. We have to anticipate change, protect people, and protect those who are most affected or who can be more affected, and particularly through social dialogue.
And thirdly, we need to look, we've been to broaden the perspective about making Europe stronger and opening a new window for social investment and housing investment because affordable housing, health, and social protection are not secondary issues. They're necessary conditions for the economy to be much more resilient, productive, and fair. So ultimately, and to conclude, we want a fund that generates competitiveness and social Europe because we're convinced that this is the only competitiveness that can make us more sustainable, more credible, and more European because it's what differentiates us. And this is what makes us stand out in the world. Thank you.
Margarita de la Pisa Carrión
You, madam chair. Thank you very much to the rapporteur and my colleagues. We see that this proposal recognizes that the EU is suffering from a competitiveness gap when compared to other parts of the world. We see that it's a positive that we're focusing on 14, we're bringing together 14 different instruments into one single fund. And, of course, this will lead to administrative simplification.
However, and this is something where my group does not agree, with the role of decarbonization. When we speak about competitiveness, it doesn't make any sense to say that China and the United States are competitive and that decarbonization will help us to be competitive because we're losing out on competitiveness precisely because we've brought in these types of rules that the European Commission continues to impose upon us. We think that the legal basis also seems slightly confusing. There are about 8 11 articles in total. And from there are six priorities that this fund includes: clean technology, defense, health, etcetera.
We see that this green technology as well, clean technology, circular economies, and the energy transition. This is what is precisely what is causing us to lose out in competitiveness. We see this in industry as well as the primary sectors as well. This car decarbonization has been a real issue in these sectors. So we don't want to focus on these measures that are not helping us be competitive.
This is a paradox here. We're actually subsidizing this loss of competitiveness, and that's what's going to cause us to lose a great many jobs. And instead of helping competitiveness, we need to think about helping people to move into areas that have not yet been developed. We think it would be smarter to refocus these priorities away from decarbonization. And when we speak about security and defense, we're talking about over 50% of the funds there.
Decarbonization is not taken into account there. So, is it that important? Yes or no? Or does it depend on the sector in question? So this is why we think there's a lack of consistency in the overall proposal.
We understand that we want to boost companies based in partner countries, etc., or international organizations as well when it comes to offering support to businesses that are established within countries of the EU. But the commission should not be appointing strategic members in this way if they have nothing to say on this subject. So we also see that support for SMEs only takes up about four articles, when from an employment perspective, we think that this is one of the focal areas where we could really start to generate prosperity and employment. Therefore, we think that there should be a higher percentage of the fund earmarked for SMEs, and that's what our amendments are aimed at addressing. Thank you.
Georgiana Teodorescu
Thank you, chair. Thank you, colleagues. I will speak in Romanian. College Colleagues,
As regards this ECF fund that we are negotiating, I think we've got to be very clear the competitiveness of the EU is a question of investing in technology, and that is why we have to be sure that each project is strategically valid, and there has to be an obligatory component which has been provided for in the budget as regards training or, for example, reconversion training, vocational training. And a considerable portion has to be dedicated exclusively to this, to the development of skills. And there has to be risk capital involved in order to promote that. And that is why we are going to be tabling amendments in that direction, because we have to really boost our industrial sector. There are barriers which prevent workers from moving freely.
And therefore, we have to emphasize this aspect of skills, which has to be adapted to new technologies. We have to respect the competence of the member states, of course. But we want this fund not simply to be for innovation, but also training and upskilling to the new technologies. This is the future of our European workers that we're talking about here. And during the negotiations, we will be bringing this up, and the question of the labor market.
Thank you.
Sara Matthieu
Thanks a lot, rapporteur. Thanks a lot, colleagues. I've taken note already of quite some of the different positions here, and I do see that we share some of our social priorities. So I'm quite confident we can reach an agreement on how to make the competitiveness fund more social and fair for workers and citizens. So we all know that this is going to support the industries of the future.
That is really crucial for our European competitiveness, but it's really up to us as an ample committee to make sure that also the citizens and workers really reap the benefits of it. And that's why the financial support can't just be a blank check to the industry. I think European taxpayers' money shouldn't end up in Chinese pockets or be used to maintain poor working conditions. Public money should be used for the public good. So with that in mind, I do think that we can strengthen the commission's proposal.
I see three priorities there. We need to strengthen the skills dimension. Providing real skilling opportunities is part of quality job creation, and we need to ensure that there's enough funding going to skills. So I'm glad that some colleagues also want to make the skills budget more enforceable, because that's also my goal. We also want to boost our labor markets, create new jobs, and, of course, need to make sure that these are quality jobs.
So that means stable employment, adequate wages, good working conditions, and, of course, coverage by collective bargaining. So I've seen, also here some related amendments. I've tabled some of my own, and I do hope that we will be able to enshrine that in our opinion. And the last priority is just the transition. We won't just create new jobs.
There are many existing jobs that would actually change through the transition. So without mandatory just transition frameworks at the national, regional, company level, we do risk leaving workers behind. So they need targeted support for job-to-job transitions. This fund can deliver that, and I'm glad to see that there's also an alignment with the different groups when it comes to that. So in short, really looking forward to working together with all of the colleagues on this, and making this a more social fund.
Rudi Kennes
Thank you, chairman, and thanks to the rapporteur. However, I think this policy is going in the wrong direction. It's all about focusing on investment in defense and away from social policy. Our economy is not sustainable in the long term. Do we want to become like the US, spending all their budget on defense and having thousands of people sleeping in the streets?
Is this the economy we look at as a model? Not only does war economy not guarantee economical security, but it also forces our economy to be based on violence and instability. Also, it was bad to put together EU funds that had a specific purpose, just like the European Social Fund. What is instead a good direction is that we finally are investing in greening the industry and bringing back industrial jobs to Europe. It was a bad decision to deindustrialize and delocalize in the eighties, but at least we fix our errors now.
These industrial jobs have to be secure, permanent, and well paid. We cannot have a strong economy with workers jumping from one job to another every 3 months. Competitive competitiveness also comes from ensuring that workers get proper training, paid and during working hours. It also comes from workers' participation and democracy at work. The EU institutions have chosen to focus on threats they consider most concerning.
However, European people have another idea of an emergency. They have low wages, insecure jobs, poor housing, homelessness, or they're facing evictions, skyrocketing energy bills, high cost of childcare, and elder care. These are the things that worry European people every day, not to mention wildfires and floods. This is the kind of security that we should guarantee to our people. Another point I want to make, public funding is for public benefit, not to subsidize businesses.
If businesses contribute to strengthen our economy, create quality jobs, invest in innovation, and in a green and digital tradition, then it is fair to provide funding. Then it is an investment in our economy, but public funding must have conditionalities on working conditions and environmental standards. The ECF, as it currently stands, seems more of a big subsidy drive for the defense industry. The commission was going in the right direction with a clean industrial deal, but then the defense lobby steered the direction of our economic policy. My amendments go in the direction of putting back social policy at the heart of the EU investment.
We cannot be competitive if we do not invest in our economy, in our infrastructure, and create quality jobs. Also, a strong economy cannot function without strong public services to support the workers. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And are there other members who would wish to take the floor? If not, I will invite the representative of the commission, Miss Tatiana Lopez Carido, who is the deputy head of unit in DG Crow, to take the floor for the next three minutes, please.
Speaker 27
Thank you very much. Thank you, chair. I would like to start by thanking the employment committee, the rapporteur, and the shadow rapporteur for the draft opinions on the European competitiveness front. The first thing that I would like to open with is that we do acknowledge the employment committee's efforts to strengthen the human dimension of this fund. The commission fully agrees that competitiveness is inseparable from a skilled workforce and social stability.
And that indeed, skills is already a cornerstone objective or was already a cornerstone objective in the commission's proposal. The ACM aims to support the development of a skilled workforce through lifelong learning, education, training projects, and apprenticeships, and focuses on critical skill shortages in strategic sectors. The ECF toolbox offers greater flexibility in using financial instruments to mobilize private investment in education and in skills. As you know, skills are one of the horizontal enablers of Europe's competitiveness, and this is why article 3.18 introduces skills development for competitiveness as one of the ECF objectives. The whole.
Speaker 27
Having a skills development in article three provides the basis for the implementation of all skills actions and the radical change that is needed. Skills development is also introduced in the thematic windows, bringing several advantages. First, it allows to highlight the specific sector of skills dimensions and to address sector-specific skills needs in a targeted way. Second, it provides examples of how skills can be supported by the ECF, building on existing initiatives and data for better efficiency. For example, there are references to the Net Zero academies, and there are also mentions of advanced digital and cybersecurity skills.
Third, it gives more prominence and visibility to the crucial role of skills for competitiveness across different sectors. Furthermore, article 30 of the ACF, that is called support for skills development under chapter three, indicates that the ACF will finance activities in support of skills development, in particular in the strategic sectors, building strong links between higher education, vocational education, and training providers, applied research, and businesses. And this will also include the support for a European skills guarantee. This warranty scheme has been announced in the unions of skills communication in March 2024, and there is a new scheme for upskilling and reskilling. It will aim to ensure that workers in sectors undergoing restructuring or at risk of unemployment can re and upskill to transition into growing sectors and or companies.
Finally, among the activities CCF will carry out to strengthen the competitiveness of SMEs, there is the acquisition of entrepreneurial and business skills as specific measures aiming at promoting entrepreneurship. So to conclude, the commission's proposal recognizes that new growth requires a highly skilled labor workforce, and for this reason, includes a dedicated skills objective within its core framework. It further acknowledged that European competitiveness depends on a workforce capable of mastering green and digital technologies, and we genuinely look forward to continuing the constructive dialogue with you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And I will now give the floor back to Mrs. Tom, on behalf of the rapporteur, for the final concluding remarks.
Jana Toom
Thank you very much. Unfortunately, Gregory was not able to draft concluding remarks because he didn't listen to this discussion. But I thank you all for your constructive remarks. We made notes, and definitely, I believe that Gregory will continue this fruitful cooperation. Thank you very much.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And we then move on to the next file, which is the Erasmus Plus program that is a key instrument for building the union of skills and developing the European education area. It is traditionally based on articles 165 regarding education and 166 regarding vocational education training of the treaty of the function of European Union. And for the future programming period, its scope has been extended to include article 214.5, to provide support to solidarity activities addressing societal challenges and humanitarian aid operations in third countries. The proposal has a significant budget of $40,800,000,000 compared to $26,200,000,000 in the last MFF.
And according to the proposal, this would be complemented with a budget from the EU's Global Europe Funding Program. Without further ado, I will start by giving the floor to the rapporteur of the ample opinion, Mrs. Nelaville, for her introduction.
Nela Riehl
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you also to all of the shadow rapporteurs for the very well-drafted and also very constructive amendments. I'm very glad to see that in quite many points, we are actually very much aligned here. That will make the negotiations much easier, of course. Speaking of Erasmus, of course, we all know this is a flagship program. After a year, it's the most visible one, and also the most successful EU program.
In my draft report, I tried to focus on three key points, which are, of course, firstly, the size of the budget. We cannot realistically talk about Erasmus for all with a small budget. So the commission proposes €40,800,000,000. And at first, of course, that looks like an increase, and it looks very good, but let us look at, in reality, the scope of the program has expanded. So the skills agenda integration, also the solidarity core, now do fall under Erasmus. Then inflation and the cost of living have also increased significantly, and mobility itself has become more expensive for students and trainees.
At the same time, we aim to make Erasmus more inclusive. Even a Draghi report pointed out that we need a five times bigger increase or five times bigger budget for Erasmus if we really want to achieve all our goals. So our proposal with €60,000,000,000 is therefore not excessive, is really the bare minimum, so to speak. Then the second point is the predictability in spending. So that means how the money is actually allocated.
The commission wants more flexibility. And, of course, I do understand where that comes from. I spoke to the commission. I do understand their point. At the same time, I spoke to lots of stakeholders, and they need predictability for their work.
So universities, organizations, and participants need to know how funding will be distributed, so they can actually plan ahead. The idea in the report is, therefore, to reintroduce some level of earmarking while still keeping enough flexibility. In other words, finding the right balance between predictability and responsiveness. So clear numbers on how much will be spent on articulation on the one hand and youth on the other hand is what will preserve the spirit of Erasmus. And thirdly, the third point: accessibility.
Erasmus should be particularly accessible to those who would not be able to afford it otherwise, right? That means adequate support for participants with fewer opportunities. And it also means keeping some important safeguards. For example, voluntary activities should never replace paid work. And I think we in the AMPL Committee all agree on that.
Volunteering must remain a learning and solidarity experience, and not a substitute for jobs. And maybe let me add one last point, that is the broader discussion on also competitiveness. So Erasmus obviously contributes to the labour market. That's for sure. But the value of Erasmus is a more holistic education, and I also say that as a teacher, as a former one.
Languages, adaptability, intercultural skills, the ability to work in diverse environments. This is what Erasmus should be about. And these are exactly the skills that are becoming more important in a world shaped by AI and digitalization. So Erasmus does support competitiveness, yes, but precisely because it is not designed only around the labor market needs. So I'm very much looking forward to hearing all the shadow rapporteurs and to keep up the good work.
Thank you very much.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And then for the shadow rapporteurs, starting with Mr. Arment from the app.
Thank.
Pascal Arimont
you. First, I'd like to thank colleague Will for the work, and I hope that in the upcoming negotiations, we'll come up with a good text. Think Erasmus Plus is the most interesting, best known program of the EU. We need to strengthen it so that the added value that flows from it is huge. And we have received the commission document.
There are some things that I think we need to improve. I've focused on the fact that not only students or teachers should benefit from the program, but also people who are in training, are working in the industry, and that they should also have the opportunity of learning through the Erasmus program. Another thing the colleague mentioned, the repertoire, is that these programs need to create a certain legal certainty. You need to know what line of the program, what money can be used for what you need. The earmarking of certain parts of the program for me is very important.
So I think we should have separate budget lines for training, youth, and sports. And finally, another important point, the agencies that have managed this have done excellent work, or else we wouldn't be told by the success of this program. And I think that it's important that if we retain the structure that within a member state, you can have several agencies operating, that would strengthen credibility and the legal certainty of those who are running the program already. Thank you very much.
Nora Mebarek
Merci you very much, madam chair. Colleagues, Erasmus Plus, as everyone has said, is one of the most beautiful accomplishments of the European Union. It's the most popular program and has been acknowledged as a success across the Union and by citizens across all four corners of the continent. Whereas the political context at the moment has been damaged by devastating ideologies, sexist, racist, or homophobic, all the way through to the European parliament. This debate today is an opportunity to uphold Erasmus Plus as a success story against these sad ideologies, and it shows the hope for our European democracy.
The commission must share this feeling because it suggested to increase the budget for Erasmus Plus by over 50%. That's very good, but we can do even better. I just want to remind you here that we had doubled the budget during the last revision process. We see that there is greater margin if we want to be up to the ambitions of our predecessors. I just want to make a couple of comments.
The first has to do with the very philosophy of the program. The commission's proposal has nine mentions of economic competitiveness and only two mentions of social cohesion. Perhaps we need to focus on that point because Erasmus Plus must not be reduced to that instrument simply for developing skills for students from an employability point of view on the labor market. Erasmus plus is a European citizenship. It is a tool that opens up perspectives to develop the curiosity of our young people and commitments in both large cities and countryside areas.
There are a number of values that it contains that cannot.
Asking for a bit of a slower pace.
Nora Mebarek
Plus is a set of values that cannot be measured by the GDP. We need to be extremely cautious here because the European Commission has been quite worrying in what is said here. This brings me on to my second point. Erasmus Plus also has real potential for social cohesion, but that potential is not tapped into nearly enough. The program still is suffering from an elitist image, which is reserved for university students who are already rich in social and economic potential.
In reality, we all know that Euro Erasmus plus is aimed at all students, apprentices, vocational students, and university students. Professors need to offer support to all young people. Also, the principles of volunteering and solidarity are important, too. But we need to work on accessibility to the program. Often, there are logistic challenges, and we need to organize these opportunities.
I've made a number of proposals for amendments to ensure that people can fully enjoy this program, and that there are far too few people involved in it. I welcome the proposals from our rapporteur on this programme. And there are a number of compromise proposals that were circulating last week. I see areas of convergence as well that my group is prepared to support, and I welcome the work that we will do in the future. Thank you.
Pál Szekeres
Thank you, madam chair. I would like to speak Hungarian. I wait for you to put on your headphones. Out of 32, 35 amendments were tabled by the Patriots. I'd like to highlight five topics.
First of all, anti-discrimination and equal access. Access to EU programs should be secured without political conditions, and we need to pay special attention to people with disabilities. Second is about political neutrality and professionalism. I'd like to ask for keeping the program independent of political debates. This should be purely professional and without bias.
Third, national identity and traditions. We consider that national traditions, cultural diversity, and their respect are important throughout the implementation of the program. My fourth point would be brain drain and the fight against this phenomenon. We need guarantees in order to retain talent. And my last point would be decentralization and subsidiarity.
I recommend that 75% of the funds be utilized in a decentralized manner. We don't support the reduction of the number of national coordination offices, and we would like to call for the respect of national competencies. And I'd like to ask for the revision of the procedures against member states. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you. And I have no one from the ECR, from Renew. No. And then Mr. Arvanites from the left.
Konstantinos Arvanitis
Very much, and good morning, everyone. Madam Chair, thank you very much. I would, first of all, like to thank the rapporteur. I think this is an excellent piece of work, and it's very concise and helpful. Thank you very much.
Training, education, practical training, practical education in my view is not good to be traded but is a right. It's something which has to be treated as such, and that is the rationale that we have to follow, and we will be tabling some amendments in that direction. Erasmus must simply not simply be treated as a tool but rather as a right, a way of giving people rights, ways of knowing other communities, other cultures. That is something that will also promote a European vision for the vision that we have of Europe, where there's friendship and inclusion, love of one's fellow man. And I think it should be an expression of basic human rights, and should be, as I said before, a way of widening our horizons.
We do need skills on the market, but we also have to have citizens who are aware and who participate in democracy. In particular, in this period where we've got very high unemployment, in particular in my country at least, Erasmus can be a tool, can be a solution. For all those reasons, therefore, we on the left believe that we have to increase the financing of it so that there can be real access to real learning and training. Because if we don't have that rationale, then we will be creating a lump in the proletariat, and this will create problems in the future for our democracy. That is why we need cohesion, and we have to involve everyone.
We have to cover health and all the different aspects of the program. And there has to be cooperation. If we only speak about an Erasmus plus which is inclusive, that's the only way forward. If it's inclusive, people have to be happy, young people have to have chances, have to be able to realize their dreams. That's what we want.
Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. Are there other members that wish to take the floor and catch the eye? If not, then I will give the floor to the representative of the commission, Mrs. Jana Jablonska, who is Director for Youth Education and Erasmus Plus, please, the floor is yours.
Speaker 38
Thank you very much for giving me the floor. Distinguished members of the European Parliament, rapporteur, shadow rapporteur, thank you very much for all these comments. Thank you very much for this extremely informative report. I think we all here fully agree that Europe's future depends on its people and, of course, all citizens of the EU from the very early stage in life throughout lifelong learning. They need knowledge, skills, competencies to succeed in life, but also in learning, and, of course, in professional development.
And, therefore, we are proposing the Erasmus plus regulation with, indeed, as mentioned before, increased budget because we, like it was mentioned here on many occasions, we very much believe as well that this is a program that helps us to deliver on these objectives. It also helps us to deliver on the policy frame, including union of skills and the European education area, which seeks, of course, to strengthen high quality education throughout the life. And the proposal, even one of the distinguished members mentioned that competitiveness has been mentioned 9 times. It's, in my view, very much balanced and shows very much that it's built, so to say, on a very strong pillar of supporting young people and also adults, vet learners, and all the teaching profession through the mobility to indeed strengthen the social cohesion through mobility from through learning from each other. And we already have a lot of, of course, data that shows that Erasmus strengthens very much the critical thinking, the feeling of belonging, the feeling of being a global citizen and an EU citizen.
So this is definitely a very strong pillar. I don't think the number of mentioning is the only indicator here. I think the whole regulation with the focus right now very much as well on all the sectors, including schools, including educators, also show that this is the way to go, that this is an extremely continuous objective of Erasmus plus to strengthen the civic dimension of our beneficiaries. And in addition, of course, it is also important that competitiveness is mentioned and that we, of course, think at the future of every person that is benefiting from Erasmus plus and also for the future of those that want to go to the labor market, that look at the ending of the education periods and would like to continue in professional life. So, therefore, the competitiveness is an interesting part of the regulation.
It shows that it is important. In the end, we all have in hard social cohesion, and good employment is also part of the social cohesion. But having said that, I would like to stress again that the core objective of Erasmus plus is to allow for transnational mobility, for learning from each other, for learning each other's cultures, for developing the soft skills, let's say, and the citizens' key skills are extremely important. There were many voices also that mentioned inclusion. I think the proposal, of course, not everything can be put in the regulation, but we are building very strongly on what we have achieved with the program right now.
As you know, we are following very strong strategies, and we are working with national agencies to include inclusion. I think that the focus in the regulation on inclusion, including on educators, on teachers, on also all the sectors, including schools, and that also shows that we are going into this direction. We are also working on guides. We are also working with national agencies and also with the EU agency, ESR, to strengthen the support to beneficiaries, to strengthen the promotion, awareness, and also give priority to projects that are very important from the inclusion point of view. So this is all which cannot be elaborated in the regulation as such, but, of course, it's very important, and the regulation already shows this direction.
Last but not least, there was also mention of earmarking. First of all, the two budget lines created are there, two budget lines, one budget line which is for education and training, and the other one for youth sport and culture. So these two budget lines are already indicating the funding that will be constructing the Erasmus plus. The regulation has all proposal in the MFF are very streamlined and extremely lean, and this is because we need flexibility. We don't know what is happening in the coming years, and we are talking about almost a decade ahead of us.
So the last global developments show us that we need flexibility, and this is not only for Erasmus but for the whole MFF. And that's why this streamlined structure. Yet, I would like to stress that, of course, the objective of the Erasmus show that all the sectors have to be adequately covered, that we have to support implementation of all the sectors. In addition, I think we also have a strong track record of doing this. We would definitely not have successful programs if all the sectors would not feel that we are responding to the needs.
The increased budget should hopefully allow us to do that in a better manner. But, and in addition, last but not least, there are other instruments that regulation itself to ensure predictability. For example, of course, work programs, which can also include a forecast forward. So having said that, I would just like to explain that indeed we need the flexibility to respond to the needs of all the beneficiaries and the groups that we want to target in the circumstance that we might not be able to predict right now. Thank you very much for this.
much.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And I will now give the floor back to our upterm, Missus Nella Deal, for the closing remarks.
Nela Riehl
Thank you very much. I think that this debate, again, confirms that at least very progressive forces here in the EU parliament are very aligned on what Erasmus actually should be. So that's good to hear. What the EPP said, I agree that Erasmus, of course, should go beyond universities and also be accessible for, for example, vet students. And, also, I agree that the role of the national agencies are crucial, and many thanks to the EPP for pointing that out again.
To SND, I totally also agree that Erasmus is about social cohesion and European citizenship, and I do think that we together will fight this elitist image of Erasmus that it has right now by making it then actually very much accessible for all young people. And also, that includes fighting the logistics challenges that we face. And with the left, I agree that the train training and mobility, of course, are right, and I'll very much make sure to reflect the opinion in the text. And it was also very well said by the left that Erasmus is an instrument for citizenship and social cohesion. I heard it saying the commission that as well, right now, so thank you also for that.
I'm very much looking forward to the negotiations. Thank you very much.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And we will now close the debate on this file. And we will continue at eleven when we have Commissioner Jorgensen here as our guest. So please be here at 11 sharp. I just want to say we will have a really tight schedule for the next session.
So I would really encourage you to try to get your colleagues here on time. Thank you. Okay, colleagues. We will start right away since we have quite a tight schedule. Dear commissioner, madam chair, mister Aperture, colleagues, I'm very pleased to start this exchange of views on the commission's affordable housing plan, and to welcome commissioner Jorgensen here today.
And I would also like to only welcome the chair of the house committee, Miss Raina Tinagli, and the House Committee's rapporteur on this file, Mister Borja Gimenez Lavas. The affordable housing plan was presented in the House Committee in December, and today's discussion gives us an opportunity to focus specifically on its social dimension. Over the past year, our committee has held several debates on the housing crisis. And throughout these discussions, one message consistently stood out: the right to affordable housing is part of the fundamental set of human rights. Housing is not merely a market commodity.
It is a basic condition for dignity, stability, and equal participation in society. And I am therefore very glad to see that the commission's affordable housing plan recognizes the current situation not only in economic terms, but as a systemic social crisis that threatens the very fabric of European cohesion and human dignity. And it is equally important that the plan acknowledges the right to adequate housing as an element of fundamental human rights. This recognition is indeed paramount. We will move on, and start by remarks by Missus Tinagi, the house chair, for two minutes.
But I will warn you all that we have time only until twelve, which means that I will be very strict with time. So everybody has to stick to the time limits starting now. So Mrs. Tenagli, the floor is yours for the next two minutes.
Irene Tinagli
Thank you all very much. Thank you for this invitation. I'm very pleased that a ample committee has dedicated a full exchange to the affordable housing plan, and I'm, you know, grateful to address you alongside our rapporteur Borja Jimenez. Throughout this whole process, we engage closely with the commission as well. So our work, I think, has been very useful in showing how complex this crisis is.
It's driven by a set of factors, not just one cause, one problem. It's many factors that are interrelated with each other, which range from issues regarding the supply and the investments, particularly the lack of public investment that has been declining, but also bottlenecks there, energy poverty, the problem of a financialization of the residential market, the problem of short term rentals, which has affected also the dynamics between supply and demand. I mean, all these drivers do not operate in isolation. They interact with each other, cannot be addressed in silos. And this is why our committee has consistently called for a sophisticated, coordinated European approach, one that respects national competencies, but at the same time recognizes that the scale and the interconnected nature of this crisis demand action at the European level.
So in the last plenary, as you said, chair, the European Parliament adopted its report on the housing crisis, and I think this sent a very strong political signal across many elements. There is broad support, particularly for the initiatives that have been announced by the commission in its plan. We are especially looking forward to those proposals where parliament will act as co-legislator, notably the forthcoming affordable housing act and the legislative proposal on construction, and it would be very useful to better understand the direction in which the preparation of the affordable housing act is evolving, as well as the type of measures and instruments that could be envisaged within this framework. So we are really here to understand how we can all cooperate and also how to involve all the possible, putting the attention to all the private sector and the public sector, but also the social cooperative, nonprofit, limited profit models that we have explored in our work. I think we really need a huge alliance for housings. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And I will give the floor to the house operator for 4 minutes. Mister Borja Gimenez Lares, please.
Borja Giménez Larraz
Thank you. Thank you, chair. Thank you very much for the invitation to this committee. For me, it is a pleasure. So as you know, last week, this report was approved.
It was approved by a broad majority in the plenary. And in this, with this report, the parliament acknowledged that besides a social problem, we also have an economic problem and a problem with competitiveness, because Europe where people cannot live is a Europe that cannot grow. Because when permits take years to obtain, where regulations are constantly changing, when uncertainty dominates the market, investment disappears and supply shrinks. And when supply shrinks, prices rise. This is a reality we see across Europe.
This house sent a clear message with this report. So yes to a housing simplification package, yes to increasing supply, yes to building more homes faster and to renovate more, yes to more legal certainty, yes to investing in apprenticeships and traineeships in the construction sector, yes to tax reduction for construction and renovation, yes to supporting low and middle income households to buy or rent a home. So there is a clear also social perspective and approach in this report, and, yes, to issue permits in not more than 60 days to accelerate these processes. The European Union does not build homes, but it can create the conditions for them to be built, public and private homes. It can remove barriers.
It can mobilize investment. It can support local and regional authorities, and that must be our role, to be a catalyst. The commission has already heard the voice of the Parliament, and it must deliver for our citizens. You, commissioner, the European Commission, presented in December the affordable housing plan, which is the CCI for Europeans. We like some parts of it, and thank you for drawing inspiration from some of our ideas, boosting cutting red tape to accelerate housing supply, strengthening the productivity and innovation in construction, mobilizing additional public and private investment for housing for young people.
But please, and as we move forward, we ask you to leave interventionist measures aside, because we have seen that they don't solve the problem. I want to focus on two initiatives that were presented under the commission's work program. The Construction Service Act for 4 this year and the initiative on short term rentals for 2 this year. On this regard, this parliament has asked you to just set common objectives. We're leaving member states and regions and local authorities the flexibility to adopt necessary, adequate and proportionate measures. My questions are the following.
Do you already have a concrete date for the presentation? Please tell us more about the content. And how can this parliament move them forward? And one final question. The mandate of the commission ends in July 2026.
So how can we, the European Parliament, continue to help after that? This is something very important for us. And dear commissioner, dear colleagues, let me conclude with a thought. Housing is one of our greatest challenges, but it is also an opportunity to build more, to invest better, and to restore hope to millions of Europeans. There are no magic formulas, but now the European Parliament has a clear guidance, guidance that stems from mutual understanding and is full of ideas and proposals.
Thank you very much.
Borja Giménez Larraz
Thank you. And now the commissioner, the floor is yours for the next 10 minutes.
Dan Jørgensen
Thank you. Let me start by wishing those of you from Ireland a happy Saint Patrick's Day, if we have any in the room, I don't know. I don't only do it because I'm a polite man. I also do it because I want to start my intervention today with a story about a man from Dublin. A man called Antelm.
A few years ago, Antelm lost his job. Then he lost his father, and his mother had to move into a nursing home. After all of this, he was left without a home. Speaking about that time, he said, my will to live was very low. Dear friends, this is a feeling shared by too many of our citizens.
We have roughly 1,000,000 people in Europe with no place to call home. And even those with a home are being hit hard by this crisis. In 2024, over 1 in 8 people in Europe lived in homes with a leaking roof, with damp walls, or with rot in the window frames or floors. In the same year, one in every 4 young people lived in overcrowded conditions. These numbers are simply not acceptable.
And that is stepping up to help our member states, cities, and local governments deliver more quality, sustainable, and affordable housing for our people. I'm pleased to see the mobilization of the European Parliament on this matter. I welcome the recently adopted resolution on the housing crisis, based on the report of the Housing Committee. And I welcome the attention given by this committee to housing priorities in the resolution on the Commission's anti-poverty strategy. These strong convictions are fully in line with the ambitious ambitions of the European affordable housing plan.
I presented the commission's plan last year. And this year, we must work together to put it into action. The people most impacted by Europe's housing crisis are at the center of our plan. The housing difficulties faced by low and medium-income workers, students, and young people hold back professional mobility and educational opportunities. This, in turn, has negative impacts on our economy.
Therefore, we propose specific actions to support these people. By opening up state aid rules and by introducing the pan-European investment platform, we can help governments to build more student housing and more affordable housing for workers. We will also explore options to reduce and eliminate the need for a deposit when students rent on private markets. Among the people affected by the housing crisis, the homeless deserve special attention. We must also focus on tenants who face insecure rental situations.
I'm working closely with Executive Vice President Minsato on a proposal for a council recommendation on housing exclusion. This will be presented as part of the upcoming antipoverty strategy. As members of this committee will know, the importance of the construction sector for European jobs cannot be exaggerated. We have over 27,000,000 workers in the sector, from carpenters and bricklayers to engineers and electricians. However, there is a lack of cross-border mobility and a shortage of key skills, making it difficult to mobilize the right workers where they are needed the most.
Through the large-scale skills partnership, we are promoting the upskilling and reskilling of the workforce with a target of 3,000,000 people trained annually within the EU construction sector by 2030. And we will work to ensure that construction professionals can provide services across borders, of course, without lowering labor and social standards. Finally, we are not only focused on increasing the quality of homes. We are also working to improve the quality. For example, 75% of buildings in the EU have poor energy performance, impacting low- and middle-income households most acutely.
The commission will therefore continue to support the implementation of renovation measures in the member states. Let me also mention our new initiative, the Citizens' Energy Package. This package focuses on lowering energy bills, protecting the vulnerable, and empowering citizens to bring down their energy bills. It will help consumers to reap the benefits of flexible electricity contracts and smart devices, while also boosting the capacity of domestic energy production and energy communities. All of these actions will help to bring down the cost of living for our citizens.
For example, consumers with flexible retail contracts can reduce their electricity bills by up to 40% if they shift their heating demand to times when prices are at their lowest. Dear friends, the challenge we face is big and the work ahead will not be easy. But there's no doubt that we must take it on. And there's no doubt why we must take it on. Let's return to Dublin and Antrim.
Thanks to the intervention of a homeless charity and with government support for social housing, he was able to move into a new apartment. And he said, to get this apartment has changed me. I feel human again. I feel like I have a future. I have hope.
This is what housing means for our people. So let's do everything we can to give help, hope, and homes to all of our citizens. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much, commissioner. We now proceed to the discussion, and we will start with the group coordinators or group representatives. Question and answer format, with two minutes for the question and two minutes for the answer. And Mr. Radke from the EPP will start.
Please, the floor is yours.
Dennis Radtke
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Commissioner. I'm going to speak in German.
Stops the clock.
Yeah. Thank.
Dennis Radtke
Thank you very much for visiting us here and for giving us the opportunity to have an exchange. My question is, does the commission not think itself a little bit remote from the current developments with oil and gas markets? Don't you think you've been overtaken a little by these events? And how can we react to that? With what we're going through at the moment, not at the filling stations and oil and gas prices, that's gonna have an impact down the line on rents and commuters and groceries.
So what the commission wants to push is being overtaken by this current event. So what can we do about that? And then secondly, looking at what's coming down the road inside this house, we're always discussing ETS too. Now, the ETS will actually drive up the prices of housing. And I would be very interested in you and the commission's perspective on this.
And the commissioner.
Dan Jørgensen
So thank you so much for that. Well, on one hand, you're right. We did not predict the situation. I doubt very much that many people did. On the other hand, it would be wrong to say that we have not been preparing for something like this to happen, because since February 22, we have actually transformed our energy policy in Europe, and we have a completely different energy system in Europe now than we had in '22.
This is why we're also better situated to deal with the crisis that we have now than we were back then. Few things. One, we have far more renewables in our system that's bringing down the prices. The things that we have done, the policies that we've implemented since 2022 mean that we are using 100 BCM gas less. So we would have used 100 BCM gas more today had we not done these things.
Obviously, that would have put a lot more pressure on our consumers. Not only because the direct use of gas is expensive, but also because gas, some hours of the day, sets the price of electricity. And that's the second point. 22, many hours of the day, 70%, if I'm not remembering wrong, were set on average. 70% of the time, the price was set by gas.
Today, that's closer to 30%. So this means that, yes, gas is still, to some extent, setting the price, but way fewer hours than before. Now, what does this tell us? It tells us we've come with our awareness. It is that we are indeed better situated to dealing with the crisis than we were before, and it would have been much bigger had we not done these things.
But it also shows us that we're still dependent on fossil fuels. And the difference from now till then is also that oil is a bigger part of the problem now. And it's also clear that we are not so dependent on one source. So when the problem was Russia, then of course, that was a very vulnerable situation for us to be in. Today, we don't get the reason why we have a problem is not that we get a lot of oil or gas from The Middle East.
It's because of the effect on the world market prices. So the disease is very clear, that we need to cure. We need to, and I can maybe elaborate a little bit more if anybody else wants to hear more. But the disease is our dependency on fossils that we need to move away from. Thank you.
Estelle Ceulemans
I will be speaking in French. Commissioner, the European Parliament has just voted on the special committee's report on the housing crisis. Recently, you too put forward your own plan for affordable housing, and that is something that we welcome, of course, that both the Commission and the Parliament are truly recognizing the fact that the housing crisis is an emergency across Europe. I also welcome the fact that there seems to be a real willingness to take action against Airbnbs and short-term rentals, etcetera. But I'm quite worried about the situation that many Belgians and Europeans are experiencing at the moment, and nothing seems to be happening, especially when it comes to support with rents.
And rents are literally exploding. And if we look at households, they're having to spend over 40% of their income today in the larger cities, in order to be able to have a roof over their heads. So you are also the commissioner for energy, and this point has just been made. Do you not think that it's also important to provide a proper response for citizens, especially those in the most precarious situation given the current geopolitical situation that we are, which is between the devil and the deep blue sea on both sides of the Atlantic? And finally, I do understand that you also want to mobilize on the public and the private side, but nothing is very clear about the role played by the public authorities.
Should we perhaps move away from the calculations that have been made regarding affordable housing as the commission has been authorizing for defense? Should we perhaps put an end to these procedures, which force the public owners to sell to the private sector projects once they are economically viable? And finally, perhaps we should extend the duration during which public authorities remain owners of social housing when they were built at the beginning of the European budget. I'd be very happy if you could shed some light on those various points for me.
And the commissioner?
Dan Jørgensen
Yes. So I very much share the analysis that the prices of houses have gone up, and that is one of the main reasons why we have this crisis. You mentioned many things, but I probably won't have time to go to all of them. But let's start with short-term rentals. It's very clear that they have put pressure on prices in many cities in Europe.
Sometimes they crowd out the normal people. So the owners of the buildings and houses make more money just transforming it into short-term rentals, basically. Also, indirectly, it affects the prices of the whole area. So this, we need to do something about, and we are preparing legislation on that to give cities, regions, and member states the tools to deal with this. On the energy prices, last week, we put forward a new package that will indeed help consumers, especially the most vulnerable ones, in several ways.
One is the internal market for energy. Certainly, I'll be the first to say it's not perfect, and I want it to be working better. But it does actually provide consumers with a lot of possibilities of choosing who to deliver their energy to. And the potential to do this is huge. Unfortunately, the information is not there.
It's too difficult for the consumers. Just as the rollout of smart meters has not happened as we would have hoped, if all of these things were implemented and these tools were given to our consumers, there's huge money to be saved, sometimes up to 40% on your heat bill if you do this the right way. On affordable housing and social housing, it's very clear that this is one of the areas where we have to tread carefully as a commission because a lot of the social legislation is, of course, national. On the other hand, we also want to recognize and address that this is exactly the type of housing that helps our most vulnerable citizens. So the first step that we have taken is to change the state aid rules.
And again, I just want to underline, like you probably already know, but maybe some haven't noticed that we have actually now changed these rules. It's not something that we will propose, and it will happen. It's been done. So now, indeed, member states have better possibilities of supporting affordable housing. Thank you.
Pál Szekeres
Thank you very much. Commissioner, madam chair, your colleagues, I think we all agree that a strong European economy with high employment and cheap energy prices will help people access affordable housing for everyone. I have two questions on that point. Don't you think, commissioner, that a widespread rental help to people could distort the housing market and lead to an increase in property prices? The other thing, the other question is what kind of measures do you have in mind so that young couples, pensioners, or people with a disability have priority over illegal migrants?
And commissioner.
Dan Jørgensen
Yeah. So just to make sure we the commission has not proposed a rent cap, or anything of that sort. We also they're moving into areas that are national competence and where member states are well equipped to deal with those different allocations of public funding and policies to address inequality. So that's what I'll say on that. I'm not sure I quite understood the last question, but you spoke about illegal immigration, if I understood it correct.
If it's illegal, it's illegal. And then the authorities should deal with that, of course. And then on the accessibility for housing for people with disabilities or other special needs. This is something we address also, of course, in our plan that we need to be especially careful not to undermine the rights of these groups since we know that sometimes it can be, some will argue, that it can be a driver of costs to take these rights into consideration. But what we have to stand firm that is not an argument for not doing it because it's actually a right that these groups, of course, have, and we stand by that right.
Thank you. From the ECR, Mrs. Malone.
Marlena Maląg
Thank you very much, madam chair. Mister commissioner, I would like to ask you about the degree to which the commission interferes with the national housing policy. On top of legislative initiatives like affordable housing, there is a plan to increase cooperation and monitoring. What would that increase mean? Does it mean that would be, for example, national housing plans that would be established or as some proposed would issues of housing be included in the European semester?
And does the commission plan a possibility to maybe have a special financial instrument for housing in the future, like SAFE right now. And I'd like to know whether and how deep the commission intends to interfere in the national housing policy under the topic of coordination and monitoring of national housing policy. That would be a complex of questions. The second issue that is of interest to me is the problem of supply. We do know that the current housing crisis was at least partially caused by factors that are on the demand side.
Low interest rates that have been maintained for years caused an increased demand in real estate that was mainly treated as investments, and then a rapid increase in interest rates after the pandemic has brought the secondary market to a stop, and brought about an increase in prices. So what do you think about the role of macroeconomic factors in the housing crisis? Is the trend towards treating real estate as an investment, do you think it will be maintained? And if yes, do you think that increasing the supply will fulfill all the expectations?
Dan Jørgensen
On which recommendations and monitoring will we be doing? First of all, I think it's important to say that we are quite mindful not to overstep national competencies. On the other hand, we also need to acknowledge that the housing crisis is one that if you don't approach it in a holistic way, you really risk not being able to solve the problems. This will mean that quite often we will have to propose, as we've done in the affordable housing plan, actions on different levels and of different character. So sometimes, we will clearly state this is a European legislation.
We will propose European legislation on it. Other times, we'll say, okay. But we have to acknowledge that if nothing happens in this area, then we cannot solve the problem, but it is not our table. It is the competency of the nation state. But as it has been the case in the European semester before, it's not something new actually.
The European semester has also dealt with housing questions before. This will also be the case in the future, and I expect it to be even more so. And I guess it goes the causality goes both ways, that yes, of course, the overall macroeconomics and economic policies of a country affects the housing sector, but the housing sector also affects the economic state of the country. A lot of this has to do with things where we would say, okay, here, the limited possibility of the union also, of course, makes it challenging for us to propose the solutions. But nonetheless, we can put forward the recommendations.
Jana Toom
Thank you. Thank you very much, chair. Thank you, commissioner, for being here. We very much welcome the affordable housing plan, and of course this is a big opportunity for the construction sector. But my question is what we all would like to contribute to not only creating new jobs but to creating quality jobs.
So has there been a coordination in the commission between the affordable housing plan and the quality jobs roadmap? And my second question is in fact inspired by Mr. Ratke who asked about ETS 2. I just have to say in the beginning that I very much share green ambitions of the European Union, and I understand that this is absolutely necessary. But I'm unfortunately not coming from La La Land, I'm coming from Estonia.
And I have to bring that personal example, I'm not complaining. I have a house, I heat 136 meters, and when I'm away, I put it on standby. I come only on weekends. And my electricity bill for January, I'm not heating by electricity, was €1,008. And I think that I'm maybe the only person in my village who paid this bill in time, because I'm the only member of the European Parliament with a high salary there.
So I mean, this is a problem. Why is this so? In Estonia, you know that better than me, we are part of the North Pole power market, and the price for CO2 emission was extremely high. It was in December, €92 per ton, which is huge. We did not have solar energy, obviously it was winter, we didn't have much wind.
The rivers in Finland were frozen, we didn't have hydro energy, which left us with fossil energy, which is the most expensive on the market. So people are not able to pay. And this also has a political problem here. Because if we see where this euro skepticism comes from, different places of Europe, everybody speaks about Green Deal. This is bad.
So my question is, you didn't answer the question of Mr. Ratke about ETS2. Do you see any possibility to postpone it? And do you consider the necessity to put a price cap on CO2 emissions? Thank you.
Thank you. Commissioner.
Dan Jørgensen
So I think, certainly, we are looking at a very difficult situation right now that might become even worse in the months to come. And I think we need to look at all four elements of the energy bill. So the price of the energy, the taxes and levies, the network charges, and the price of emissions. And this will also be on the table for our leaders this Thursday. And president von der Leyen yesterday sent a letter to the leaders to prepare them for this discussion.
I think it's extremely important that dealing with a very present problem that I certainly do not neglect, that we nonetheless don't risk changing some of the fundamentals of the transition that we need. Because, as you say yourself, what is expensive is the fossils. What is expensive is to have too many fossils in your system and not be energy efficient enough. The more energy efficient we are, the more deployment of renewables we have. And by the way, the better connected our member states are in grids, the lower the prices will be.
So my proposal will be that if we are to deploy emergency policies, that they are targeted and that they are temporary. So I don't see any arguments for actually it would lead to the opposite effect for changing fundamentally our legislation, price setting mechanisms, the ETS system, because that would wash out the baby with the bathwater. Thank you.
Maria Ohisalo
Thank you very much, Chair, Commissioner Jorgensen. Thank you very much for joining us today in the AMPO committee. The parliament's report on housing that was just adopted last week really did fail on some of the major questions in the European housing crisis, such as the impact of short term rentals and housing speculation, which have a huge impact on people and their everyday lives all across Europe. Whether it's Finnish Lapland or it's Southern Spain, people are really pushed away to the borders of the cities. Regular people, police, teachers, nurses, they can't afford to live in the city centers anymore.
And we cannot only look at this from the tourism point of view, and that is why the is failing on this part. And that's why I'm asking you, what are your commitments towards these people when you're preparing for the legislation? And, also, what are you ready to and willing to do in order for us to really tackle the speculation on the housing market? It's not about people owning three or even more apartments or whatever, but it's about big companies coming to housing markets and really buying a lot from the share and then pushing up the prices. And then also one question was asked before.
I didn't yet hear the answer to the Affordable Housing Act. So if you could maybe shed a light on it a bit, and tell us a bit more what's coming up. Thank you very much.
Thank you. And the commissioner?
Dan Jørgensen
So no, I'm not ready to share with you yet the time plan or the content of the Affordable Housing Act. But it is, of course, well, I said I'm not ready to share anything, and then I am actually going to share anything. So because including this will also be short-term rental, and what we will do there. So I cannot give you the details there yet. But our plan is, as you, I'm sure you know, to make sure we have a structure for defining stressed housing areas.
So we need to identify criteria for that. And then when an area is indeed eligible, you can use different tools. And we then guarantee that you're not in any conflict with the EU internal market legislation. So we give, so to speak, cities and regions and member states a toolbox to deal with the problem. On the speculation, it's a little bit more complex because also in this house, I don't think I'm offending anybody by saying there's been a bit of a discussion.
Maybe some would even say a conflict on whether or not speculation is a big problem in the housing crisis. I've heard both extremes of the argument. Some saying that’s not a problem at all. It's just the markets. Others are saying it's a huge problem.
It's only the speculators that drive up the prices. I think most of us are probably somewhere in between on that spectrum. First step is to have an analysis of the problem, collect the data, so that we know what we're actually talking about. I personally suspect, and I know that some might disagree with me, but I would be very surprised if that analysis does not show us that indeed we do have a problem with speculation and it is driving up the prices. But also that probably there's a lot of nuances to it, it would be different from member state to member state.
When we have this analysis, we will be wise, and we'll be more able to act.
Leila Chaibi
Thank you very much, madam chair. I'm going to speak in French. I'm really delighted that we're able to have this exchange in the Employment Committee on Housing. As you know, I've got two hats. I'm also in the Housing Committee.
And I'm really happy that the rapporteur is present today to hear the concerns of our committee and the concerns about the fact that renters are in desperation, rents are too high. Then, of course, we've got the homeless. We've got poverty. I think of, well, I know you're really focused on the lobbies from the construction and bank sectors. So we should look at the social dimension of the question of housing.
I thank you, Mr. Commissioner, for having talked about the anti-poverty campaign, and that's something that we voted on in the European Parliament last month. The question of financing is very important. I am sorry that in your action plan, the question of homelessness is in pillar four. It's present.
Yes. We received in our committee on housing the representative of the European Investment Bank. And he said that they're ready to finance housing for the homeless, but that there isn't any demand from the member states. Therefore, given the pan-European platform for investment in housing, do you foresee dealing with homelessness as well to combat that problem? And also, in your action plan, I haven't really understood about financing from charity organizations, philanthropic organizations.
I'd like your opinion on that. And on EPOC, the European homelessness anti-homelessness program, which has existed since 2021, many people think of it as an empty shell. And then given the 2030 deadline, do you what do you foresee happening with the platform? Yes.
Dan Jørgensen
So on the Pan European investment platform, it's one that we are working very closely with the EIB on developing. And it's already there, but we're not yet reached a state where it delivers the output and the real change that we hope for. But we're quite optimistic that that will happen. There's a lot of interest, and there's potentially quite substantial amounts to be found. It is important, of course, to acknowledge that no matter how much public money we find, whether it's EU or national money, the investment needs are so huge that we cannot do this without private money.
So a platform like that should basically help where the market cannot deliver. And there are different tools of making that happen, of course. Then on the homelessness question, it is one where some have told us, listen. This is clearly national competency because it's mostly social policy. But I'm glad that in this house, there seems to be, like, a big support for what is my own opinion, which is that, yes, it's true that a lot of the things that you can do and should do is national competence, but that doesn't mean that we cannot, first of all, share best practices, help each other, shed light to this terrible problem.
Some instances maybe even find funding that can help provide some of the houses that is needed to get these people out of this the problems. And in this connection, I will just mention again, as I've done a few times in this parliament, the housing first principle from Finland, which is one that we really want to champion and wants to see if we can spread to as many countries as possible as a good way of dealing with this challenge.
Petar Volgin
Thank you, madam chair. I'll speak in Bulgarian. The
The war that the United States and Israel have started against Iran has led to a spike in energy prices. As commission president von der Leyen has said, and I'm quoting, since the beginning of the conflict, gas prices have risen by 50%, oil prices by 27%. So naturally, the US temporarily lifted the embargo on Russian oil. Now states can buy it without US sanctions. The EU, however, is not just unwilling to lift sanctions against Russia.
It is determined to stop buying Russian oil and gas altogether. Here we come to the classic question. Who has an interest, a vested interest in this? Certainly, European countries are not profiting from the Brussels sanctions. They're losing a lot.
First, because they give up cheap Russian energy resources, on the use of which the economic strength of most of them rested. Secondly, because they're now buying and will continue to buy energy sources at much higher prices. This means that electricity and heating bills of citizens will be increasingly unbearable. So what happens in the end? European economies collapse, prices, bills rise, but someone must be winning.
Right? It is the US. The US that managed to get EU leaders and most governments to give up cheap Russian gas and oil, and start buying expensive American gas and oil. The EU's dependence on US energy has increased fourfold from around 4% in 2018 to 22% today. It turns out that Europe is led by people who do not care about European interests.
They just serve American ones. The worst is that even when the US is doing meaningful things, the leaders of the union do not want to follow them. So my questions are as follows, Mr. Jorgensen. When will the leaders of the EU, you as one of them as a commissioner, forget about ideology and start on the path of common sense and reason? What have you done so far is the second question, to reduce energy prices for households and businesses?
Thanks. Sure.
Dan Jørgensen
Since the war began on February 22, the European Union has bought energy from Russia that equals the price of 2,400 completely new fighter jets. In my opinion, that is totally unacceptable. In my opinion, we only have done that because we brought ourselves into a terrible dependency of another country. That other country even turned out to be our enemy, killing people in a brutal war on our continent. At the same time, Putin has weaponized energy against us, blackmailed member states.
So with all due respect, sir, it is very much in our interest to get out of that pressure, to get out of that dependency. And that has been at the focus of our policy from day one, and it will continue to be so.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. Now we will try and do five one-minute questions after each other, and then the commissioner uses the time you have left for answers, and then you leave when you have to leave. Right? Starting with Mrs. Martloj Cipalczyk, EPP.
Jagna Marczułajtis-Walczak
Thank you very much, madam Chair, distinguished Commissioner, colleagues. I'm very happy at the meeting. Thank you for allowing me to ask my question. You said housing first. Housing first.
Housing comes as a priority. Invoking the real life history that you mentioned about the Irishman whose mother was put in social housing or in a shelter. This is really very much connected to our report and the delivery of article 19 of the UN Convention on People with Disabilities. And this is very important to take care of housing for persons with disabilities. I thank you, Mister Rapporter, Jimenez, and all of your colleagues for your contributions to the report.
We invoke the convention, and there is a chapter dedicated to persons with disabilities. Would you please treat this as a priority?
Gabriele Bischoff
Yeah. Dan, good to have you here in the committee that has the responsibility for fighting homelessness. We took this seriously over the years. And my question is also, I'm very worried when I look at the European Social Fund and the proposals we have from the commission with one third less money on housing. First, affects what other resources can be mobilized here and how we can improve it. And the second one is we care a lot here that people have more in their pockets.
But we know that with more and more, they have to pay for housing and for energy, it will be less. So the cost of living crisis is central. We are now in a poll position with your report, with ours to come on legislative proposal on short term rentals, but also on speculation as emphasized, because we will be not judged by the reports but by the measures we delivered as soon as possible. So, what is the timeline here? Because we are ready here to work with you to do this.
Gordan Bosanac
Thank you. Welcome, commissioner. I will be very short. You mentioned that commission, not you, but the commission still needs more evidence on financialization and speculation. So if one day there will be, like, evidence, and I'm fully convinced and ask Greens, we don't need evidence, and ask any mayor of any city across Europe, do they need evidence for that?
Once this will be proven, are there plans to protect European money which will start to flow into the housing sector from speculation and financialization? So which measure have to be integrated in the next MFF that we are not making things worse again?
Thank you. And Mr. Olivera.
Thank.
João Oliveira
thank you very much. Thank you, chair. Indeed, this is a member state competence, but the European Union needs to be supporting the member states. I have two questions for you on the proposals. So firstly, having specific financing, €35,000,000,000, that would be part of the new MFF for the member states.
This would be allocated towards efforts to tackle poverty and guarantee access for families who are finding it difficult to rent a housing? And then the second question has to do with calculations of debt. There are two proposals that, together, I think, will offer a more robust response to the housing crisis because this is a social need. Housing cannot be considered just a commodity like any other, because that is the whole root of the crisis that we're currently going through. Thank you.
Johan Danielsson
Thank you, Commissioner, I have a concrete question concerning the updated rules for state aid. As you know, I come from a country that does not use income to determine access to public housing. Instead, we have a public housing model that is open to all people regardless of income. And this, of course, means that the exemption for social housing, important for many member states, has been of no practical use for us. And this has also created some problems with state investment in affordable housing for ordinary people.
So with the revised stated rules and the introducing of a new category of affordable housing, that is allowing member states to support housing for households who cannot access adequate housing at an affordable cost, due to market outcome or market failure. Will this question, according to you, also include the housing model as the Swedish without means tested or incomes criteria for excess, of public housing? Thank you.
And commissioner, please.
Dan Jørgensen
So for the last question, I will have to refer to, but confer with my colleague, Theresa Rivera, and I'll be happy to get back to you, so that I don't give you any wrong information. It's a very fair point. On funding, so when I assumed this office and got this housing as a part of my portfolio, as the first commissioner ever, one of the things that I was met with often was, well, this is just an empty shell because there's no money. But then we started looking at what we're actually already spending of the EU funding on housing. And when you add it all up from the different funding possibilities that are there, actually in this present MFF, we're already investing 43,000,000,000 in housing related investments.
That's not a small amount. This makes a real difference. Now how the next MFF will look like, it's also up to you to form. We've put forward a proposal. And as you I'm sure you all noticed, president von der Leyen said in her presentation that there's also better opportunities for housing.
She mentioned it as one of the priorities. Now you probably will not have any problems with the housing commission. If you argue that you want even more money for housing, that's probably okay with me, but it is also a negotiation. And I think also in this house, you will have some tough struggles there. Same goes for the discussion on financing.
I even though I am of the firm belief that there is too much speculation going on, I still also need this analysis and we're making it now. Because I can also see that you're right to say that there's no mayor that doesn't see the problem. But it's also worth noting that the problems look very different. So we need to have more data and better analysis. And when we have that, we can then propose more concrete measures.
On the housing first and the more vulnerable citizens, I very much agree. I think we have a responsibility for all citizens in Europe to make sure that they have a roof over their head, but I think that responsibility is extra strong towards our more vulnerable citizens. So this is definitely on top of our agenda. So I hope this is not the last time I'll have the chance to discuss with this committee these important issues. Thank you so much for all of the input and the good questions.
Yeah. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much, and we, of course, are happy to invite you again in the future. So thanks for being here.
Thank you.
Li Andersson
And also, for the members, we are continuing right away with the presentation of the Eora report on labor shortages and surpluses 2025. Alright, everyone. As I said, the next point on our agenda is the presentation of the Eores report. Please, if you are not attending the meeting, then discussions are outside. On labor shortages and surpluses in 2025, and it is my pleasure to welcome once again, Mr.
Cosmin Vuerndio, ELA Executive Director, to our committee meeting. And we are very pleased to have you with us again today to present the latest findings on developments in European labour markets. Today's presentation concerns the latest report on labor shortages and surpluses prepared within the EORAS network, and this publication provides valuable insights into labor market trends across Europe, highlighting where shortages persist and where surpluses exist across occupations and sectors. The 2025 addition points in particular to continued shortages in the health and care sector, growing demand in occupations linked to the green transition, and the significant potential of intra-EU labor mobility to help address labor market mismatches. These findings are highly relevant for the work of our committee, as they help us better understand current labor market challenges and the role that labor mobility can play in addressing them.
So, dear Executive Director, thank you for joining us today. You will have eight minutes for your presentation, after which we will open the floor for question and answer session with the members. So without further ado, please, the floor is yours.
Speaker 66
Thank you very much, dear chair, and also to members, distinguished members, for the invitation to be here today to present ELA US shortages and surpluses report. The ERA, US regulation mandates that each US country collects and examines gender-disaggregated data on labor market imbalances, specifically shortages and surpluses at both national and sectoral levels. Particular attention is given to vulnerable groups, in this regard, and the goal is to inform job seekers and employers as well as EURES staff about opportunities and bottlenecks on the labor market. The report supports and facilitates intra-EU mobility through identifying potential matches for job seekers and assisting national coordination offices of EURES in their work program planning and mobility cooperation projects. The primary source of this data for this report comes from US national coordination offices, basically from public employment services of each country, and is supported by statistical analysis of vulnerable groups and characteristics of shortage occupations.
Speaker 67
And we tried to expand this over the year to include other data sources, and now we're using also EuroStat's labor force survey, the European working conditions survey from Eurofound, or the set of open cooperation with set of open skills forecasts and other data also that we're using. The data in the report suggests that almost all occupations are identified as a shortage in at least one US country. And in practice, that means 97% of the 436 detailed occupations are in shortage in at least one US county. But the concentration of these occupational shortages is in a small number of countries, particularly Italy, the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Belgium, and Romania. In total, 2,617 instances of shortages were reported across US counties.
Speaker 66
On the other hand, Malta, Croatia, Ireland, Latvia, and France have the lowest number of shortage occupations, together amounting to merely 5% of all shortages. Surpluses highly concentrate in a few countries: Austria, Finland, Latvia, Czechia, and Greece, together accounting for 55% of all reported surpluses. Now, you have a figure on your screen. This shows the most common shortage occupations by broad occupation group. The shortages most frequently observed are among the craft and related trades workers, plant and machine operators, and assemblers, as well as some specific professionals such as health professionals, which I will discuss a bit more in detail later.
Speaker 67
And for shortages, both highly skilled and technical roles are in demand. For example, for craft and related trades workers, a VET occupation is essential for the green transition and therefore requires regular training, especially as the technology evolves. For surpluses, for instance, clerical support workers, occupations with relatively low skill barriers to entry, it was often identified as in surplus and is very likely to be affected by the digital transition. At the detailed occupational level, we observe a structural shortage. Some of the occupations can show structural traits persistent over time, and consistently reported by a large number of countries.
Yeah.
Speaker 66
Now, showing the shortages. And notably, welders and flame cutters have remained high on the list over the recent years. Also, nursing professionals, specialist medical practitioners, plumbers and pipe fitters, and heavy truck and lorry drivers. So these are repeatedly seen over the years. So we can talk about chronic shortages in these fields.
Now, in the report, we examine in line with the US regulation gender disaggregated data on labor shortages, and the report pays particular attention to vulnerable groups, women, workers below 30, age 50 and above, or mobile workers. This figure shows the breakdown of widespread shortage and surplus occupations by gender. And the analysis suggests regarding specific groups that women are relatively less likely to be employed in high demand occupations. They remain underrepresented in shortage occupations and overrepresented in surplus occupations. Constantly, it might be more challenging for them to find a job in high demand and progress in their careers, and they might face a higher risk of unemployment.
In 2024, women accounted for just 26.8% of workers in widespread shortage roles, compared with 70% in surplus occupations. This overrepresentation in surplus occupation renders women more vulnerable to the labor market fluctuations than their male counterparts. About young workers under the age of 30, they are also underrepresented in more shortage occupations, especially in the health and care sectors. This is influenced by the extended periods of education and training required for medical practitioners and nurses. And the scarcity of young workers in shortage occupations is a matter of concern, as it suggests that these shortages are likely to continue unless policies are implemented to incentivize new generations to choose this career path.
Also, the demographic distribution of workers aged 50 and above in shortage occupations should be highlighted. Roles such as bus and tram drivers as well as health care assistants are aged 50 or above, meaning that upcoming retirements will place additional pressure on these sectors. Regarding the surplus occupations, analysis points to demographic vulnerabilities that may aggravate labor market imbalances. Aging workforces and unattractive working conditions are particularly pronounced in roles such as cleaners as well as secretaries and graphic and multimedia designers. Now going to the next slide, and it may be a little bit challenging to see.
We will circulate, of course, the slides and all the information. You also have, of course, the report. But labor mobility and transnational matching is no silver bullet, but it could help mitigate some of the shortages and labor imbalances that we're noticing in the field. And for almost every occupation in shortage, there is at least one country where it is found in surplus. And this suggests that the imbalance can be potentially addressed through labor mobility between the EU countries.
Of the 423 occupations facing shortages in at least one country, 416, so 98%, are in surplus in others. So this clearly suggests the case for labor mobility, for cross-border labor mobility. For instance, shortage in construction labor roles exhibiting at least 10 instances of simultaneous shortages and surpluses across US counties. Ella publishes an interactive dashboard which shows the intra EU matching potential, and I will invite you all to play with this interactive dashboard on our website. And, also, talking about this, the potential remains unutilized, underutilized due to persistent obstacles, including difficulties in recognizing qualifications, insufficient information and awareness, and language-related challenges.
Now, to the next challenge for us, and we've been concentrating on this issue in the past few years. Also, we try to quantify the problems that we evidence in terms of shortages and surpluses in the labor market. And, we see preliminary quantification of labor shortages and surpluses based on the analysis of demand and extended supply of labor by group of occupations in Romania. And, this is, in a way, piloting, but also because the data available allows us to compile such quantification. And we compare the number of vacancies to the number of unemployed persons in certain shortage occupations.
And I mentioned this that the figure focuses only on Romania. However, in the dashboard, we are able to show this for all US countries and all occupations based on more assumptions, which also have limitations from a statistical, but also analysis, point of view. So when you just compare vacancies to the unemployed, you observe shortages. However I need to change the slide.
However,
Speaker 66
When you add the potentially active, those who would like to work and are not actively looking, those who are looking but cannot start immediately, there is a potential to alleviate the labor shortages in certain occupations, such as science and engineering professionals and health professionals. But important shortages remain in ICT professionals, which could be alleviated by retraining some of the teaching professionals, for example. And this is what we call at Ella a parallel mobility between sectors. So that's very important because we have to identify in order to address shortages, we have to identify where mobility can be stimulated from sector to sector. So now to the next slide, to conclude.
This year, Ella focuses on the health and care sector, and this edition of the report highlights a high prevalence of shortages in the related occupation. Four out of 10 occupations reported, the highest number of shortages are health care occupations, specialist and generalist medical practitioners, health care assistants, and nursing professionals. And you have the data. Both Bulgaria and Greece report a very high number of shortages. And then Croatia, Malta, and Hungary are little impacted by health care occupation shortages, so the lowest numbers.
The age structure of health care occupations also reveals that most of them employ high rates of older workers, symptomatic of workforce aging and low rates of young workers. And just to conclude, thank you for your attention and interest. There is limited time for this, but, of course, you have, and we provide just a high-level overview. But I'm happy to answer your questions, and then, of course, you have available the report that is now, can be considered as launched. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. We then move on to the discussion, starting with group coordinators or representatives. And my first speaker on the list is Missus Mendia from the S and D.
Idoia Mendia
Thank you, sir. I will speak in Spanish. Thank you very much.
It's very inspiring. You answered a lot of the questions which we often ask ourselves in this Emperor Committee, but what you said is true, that perhaps if the different countries combined, we would solve some of the problems with jobs. But there are some barriers that prevent it. You mentioned some of them. Recognition of qualifications.
There's also languages, housing, and then having Social Security that's portable across countries. That's something that's on our to do list, but something that you said too about the professions where the shortages were greatest and where women over fifty could be involved. I think that here, participation and transformation of European public services would be fundamental in terms of a proactive approach to, perhaps, contact these people who are looking for a job or who are in a job but are looking for a different job with a special focus on sectors like women who need so that they can move to who often in jobs with very low wages could transfer to more masculine professions. And looking at the US now, do you see a change in trend in terms of the European public service jobs? Do you see more alignment with the European and a more greater proactive approach to directing people towards these public employment services?
Thank you.
And, mister Bojanic.
Speaker 66
Thank you very much. It's very important comment and also very comprehensive because you've mentioned all the directions that we want to take in cooperation with the public employment services and, of course, the commission services, European Commission for the services that they cover. We want to be proactive, as you say, for a sort of architecture of employment that addresses these challenges and also provides solutions because we think that mobility is one of the answers. And when I talk about mobility, we don't talk only about cross-border mobility, which is in ELA's and EURES's mandate. We talk about mobility between sectors.
I mentioned that one, when there is one surplus in sector, you could find in parallel sectors closed that require relatively easy training from one sector to move to another. And then that's sort of this lateral move. Also, in country mobility, that's also very important between regions, and that also should be stimulated and also to address gender imbalances and age imbalances. So for all these, we cannot, but we can, we cannot do it because of our mandate, working together with public employment services, and we can be proactive in this regard. And then we're looking at technology.
We're looking to use technology to actually do things that in the past we couldn't. Because with algorithm, you could address exactly these categories of worker more precisely and direct proactive policies towards them. And we are working on that for EURES to work with each public employment service in a way that we complement their, let's say, activity and their goals, and we serve we are in a continuation of their goals at national level, providing solution at European level for mobility. Thank.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And, next on my list is Missus Ohisalo from The Greens.
Maria Ohisalo
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you, Miss Boyancu. Thank you for your presentation. So some questions I have. How do you see the green transition Europe is facing and have to respond to being reflected in your survey findings? And to what recommendations does it lead?
Secondly, does the impact of AI at work in general come across in your survey in any way? For example, the banking sector has warned that AI is poised to significantly restructure the banking workforce, with projections suggesting a loss of over 200,000 banking jobs or 10% of its workforce in Europe alone by 2030. If this is the expected development in some sector, one would assume it would somehow show itself in your service also. And then you also talked about the gender aspects and sort of division of labor shortages and surpluses. So how would you suggest us together tackling these imbalances?
Thank you.
And Mr. Branch?
Speaker 66
Yes. We're working on this, and, I mentioned, that the report evidence that green jobs, in general, are those in shortage, as shortage occupations. And, we see that the highest, the most frequent shortages are in craft and related trade workers. And these are related to green occupation or green jobs or jobs essential for green transitions and which require also regular training. Regular training, especially as technology evolves.
So this is an issue that has to be, and the same goes for the digital transition with those occupations that both will be impacted in terms of surpluses and in terms of shortages. And then also for gender imbalances, we are working with specific sectors to try to focus on our side of the job, which is limited because it's about cross border mobility, but to stimulate the access of women, young people, of those vulnerable categories that are also evidenced by this report. For example, for transport. For transport, we want to partner with social partners, in this field to stimulate access, for example, for women in this sector, which is always showing underrepresentation of women. So transport sector, we have a large concentration of shortage occupations here, so this could be also accessed by women.
That's just one example, but we want to focus also on sector specifics and partner with social partners with national authorities to stimulate this access of women in high demand occupations and with shortages.
Rudi Kennes
Yes. Thank you, Chairman. I will speak in Dutch.
Thank you, chair. Thank you for your presentation. There you talked about shortages in skills, but many of these shortages are in sectors with low wages and poor working conditions. Many of these shortages are in sectors like agriculture, catering, logistics, where you have a lot of exploitation. The exception is a rule of exception.
You talk about the exploitation of migrants, people in precarious or illegal situations. Mostly, they need to do these jobs just to survive and have no other choice. There's a lot of hypocrisy about how we in the EU deal with immigration. On the one hand, we are on to fortress Europe. We want to close our borders, and people are dying in the Mediterranean Sea.
But as soon as there are shortages, we put them in these dangerous jobs and let them go into our dirty work. And they don't have any access to the services. They've been uncertain legal status, and then it just tossed out them when the work is done. So the question is, on the basis of your data, to what extent are these shortages caused by poor working conditions and low wages rather than a lack of skills? And secondly, do you see any indication that the dependence on working migrants means that that's what's keeping these situations going and creating demand for new immigrants?
And thirdly, does this lead to a downward spiral in the labour market? In your presentation, you clearly showed that in some member states, there are shortages and in others there are surpluses, but nobody wants to work in a different country unless there's a situation there would be better.
And Mr. Brian?
Speaker 66
Yes. Well, first of all, indeed, poor conditions, poor working conditions and wages are key determinants of shortages in many sectors. So, that's also driving mobility and labor migration, differences in wage and wage gaps in general. We also see shortages at both ends of the market. So we see those also in low paid jobs because of what we discussed and you mentioned, poor working conditions and wages, but we also see at the higher end with medical professions and nurses and so on.
So, there are different reasons for each of the shortage, and sometimes it's wage gaps. In other times, it's working conditions. And what we are trying and that's why we are moving towards quantification to know exactly the numbers that the market needs because we need to couple this with what we import from outside. So that's exactly the discussion of the talent pool and further with the workforce that comes from outside of the EU to supplement these shortages and to address these shortages. And that's why we need to know more how many welders we need, how many drivers, lorry drivers we need, so we can have a more evidence based policy of labor migration.
This is not, as I said, our job, but our job is to provide the evidence and to provide the data to support these policies. Yes. And we are working, and that's why we need to integrate with public employment services, with their work, with the commission's work, because we have to have a coordinated approach to these shortages. We experienced, and I mentioned this also in the previous year when we discussed if we have a shortage of, or a surplus of labor, for example, in construction sector in Finland, but a shortage in construction in Belgium, we need to be able to quickly deploy means to stimulate labor mobility between these countries. So that's an instrument that is still to be better utilized at the level of the EU.
As I said, it's not the answer for all questions related to shortages and the surpluses and labor market imbalances, but it is one important answer. And we want to make mobility more mainstream. But for that, we need to also eliminate barriers that were mentioned before that exist both, natural, like language, but most are administrative and in how the market functions.
Estelle Ceulemans
Thank you very much, madam chair. I'll be speaking in French. Of course, the question of shortages and surpluses. Sometimes it's used to support certain trends from a political point of view, pointing the finger in certain directions, etc., and shifting responsibility. So the first thing that we should look at is the definition.
What definition have you attached to this notion of shortage? That's very important. In the construction sector, for example, that's a sector where we hear a lot of complaints that they're lacking workers. But, how do you really quantify those vacancies? Because that's very difficult to find how that is defined in certain sectors.
So I'm interested in that. And, also, perhaps we should have a better definition of this, of these registers that we have of vacancies, etcetera, with the public agencies, as you've mentioned. Identifying the cause, we also know about the mismatch problem that we have, the gap between training and what is being asked on the market. We know that we have to look at the causes. Could you also have an analytical grid as part of your analysis, looking at the different elements that might be the causes?
Because for the same profession, it might be a mismatch issue. It might be the working conditions. And then there are other developments that you point out in your report that suggest that even in jobs where there are shortages, the risk is a worsening of working conditions. So then that would be a vicious circle because if you have the shortage, then the possibility of improving working conditions, etc. Here, it seems to be the other way around.
The final point, apologies for having gone on at length. We have the EURES regulation, which has existed for over ten years. Is it not time to give it a facelift, refresh it somehow? Thank you.
And Mister Boenho.
Speaker 66
Thank you. Well, starting with the definition of shortage, how we define shortage. That was, you know, it has a long history, and each individual employment service defines shortage in a different way. And what we did with Ella was to unify methodology first. So we tried to bring the same type of standards in how we define shortage, and we managed to do so, but we still see discrepancies.
And this is how we also see the reporting of the shortage, and then that's why we see countries that report a large number of occupation in short occupations in shortage and others less. So we still have a lot of work to do to unify methodologies. And then we also see how granular the data provided is from each public employment service. And there are vacancies by occupations only in Hungary and Romania that they provide this data, and that's why we can go more in detail to analyze this. So we need it's a big effort to bring everybody together to work on this data.
And the next will be, this push towards quantification to know exactly the numbers. And that will also respond to the other questions about how this is used for the internal market and how this is, let's say, employed to push for more workforce from outside of the EU. And that's why we need to provide evidence, and we need to provide data, and we are working on that. We want to work with the public employment services. We want to make this, and now this is possible with the algorithms to make this principle of local first because that's a principle that should be applied that you employed on you try to find employment to occupy these vacancies locally than regionally than what you cannot at European level and only after that to bring from outside.
But for that, we need very good coordination between these levels. And, this comes to the other, the last questions. Yes. US needs to be reformed. We are working on that.
We have both a strategy now to improve, EURES, as a whole, the network, but also the portal, exactly based on these lines. Better integration with the PES. Europe has to be a continuation of individual PES at European level, but to serve their interest at national level on the European with the European instruments, then to address vulnerable categories. I mentioned young people, women, people with disabilities, people that don't have access to easy access to modern technologies, and to address so nobody's left behind, and we address all these. And we couple US with also other competencies in terms of control and ensuring fair, not only fair mobility, but also fair recruitment and fair employment.
So, yeah, these are the directions, but we need to work more on that with the European Commission with the future legislative changes and then, also in practice with what we do with public employment services.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. I have no further request for the floor. So if you have some concluding remarks still, there's time.
Speaker 66
No. I basically said now in the concluding remarks that it is work in progress. What I wanted to say is that we need to employ technology, and now we have available new means, like, with AI based technologies that we can employ to address some of the challenges that we mentioned. And the ambition, for example, for URES would be to be transformed into something like I don't want to mention this, but, like, for example, LinkedIn that is doing a very good job on the private side to also do on the public side something similar, but to employ technology to address these things, all imbalances, and to really make mobility one of the effective responses to challenges in the labor market that we already see, but will be maybe more prevalent in the, not so distant future.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. Very insightful. And also, I mean, is a topic that is discussed everywhere, all the time, also in our committees. So it's also very useful for our work. Thank you very much.
And we will take a break now, and we will continue the meeting at 02:30 with the structured dialogue with the Executive Vice President. So, see you then. And 2:30. I don't know if I said it wrong. 02:30.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.