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
Estelle Ceulemans
Burnout has an important societal cost as well. These mental health problems have effects on the physical health of the workers as well. And, unfortunately, a lot of these costs are taken on board by the Social Security system or the workers themselves. So looking at this aspect of prevention, there are a number of proposals. I hope they're fairly tangible ones.
We want to see a specific directive to have minimum binding standards in terms of prevention and risk, managing these psychosocial risks. First challenge, and we heard about this this morning as well, there is some national legislation on psychosocial risks. But even in the national legislations, there can be issues with getting the definitions. So there's a first proposal through this draft report, which is to better define what we mean by psychosocial risks. So the disease is linked to these psychosocial risks.
And to recognize those as being linked to work and jobs so that they can better help workers. The proposal is also to reverse the risk, the burden of proof when it comes to mental health problems at work. The text proposes to strengthen workers' rights, which is very much at the heart of the text, increased protection against reprisals as well, because, unfortunately, that is a reality. When some workers choose to speak out about these problems, these psychosocial risks at work, they can face reprisals or even being fired. Employees, of course, have a key role to play here.
So more than just having access to training for the employers and the employees, we think it's also important to have an annual evaluation, a compulsory one that would look at these psychosocial risks. This evaluation would go along with an action plan and reduction of the burden of work or stress, the right to disconnection. This evaluation of the psychosocial risks, and I think that's what's highlighted this morning, will really take into account the specific reality in each company and each job and each sector of activity. This evaluation will look at measures being taken in different companies and also to have an awareness of these risks. Sometimes that's the first step, just being aware of these problems, which isn't always the case with management.
So this file also talks about an assessment of the psychosocial risks before a restructuring of a company or more digital work. The workers' representatives have to be systematically involved in the evaluation and prevention of these risks. I don't really want to go on much longer. We're at the beginning of this work. I think it's something which is really very important when it comes to health and safety at work.
But even going beyond that, these are people who are particularly vulnerable, who are affected by these risks and, particularly, women. We have to think about the specific characteristics that women do face at work, and also the difficulty of young people having access to the labor market. Apologies. I'm on eight minutes there, so I will conclude. And as I said, we're just at the start of this work, and I'm very, I look forward to working with the shadow rapporteurs.
Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And then to the shadow rapporteurs, starting with Miss Smeletti from the EPP.
Eleonora Meleti
Thank you, chair. We'll speak Greek. Dear.
Colleagues, I'd like to, first of all, thank our rapporteur for this draft report. And we have to be sincere because we all know someone around us who is falling apart because of a bad work environment, who is struggling with depression and anxiety because of the work environment and also because of the insecurity for the future, because their job is being pushed back because they've had a child. And all of us know someone or have actually had a head of unit who was a bully, a colleague who insulted us, someone who wasn't good to us at work. One out of three workers in Europe is living in a toxic work environment and has to leave their job because they cannot put up with it any longer, because these people are not protected. And they keep being told that they need to put up with it.
They need to be stronger, that they shouldn't complain if they want to be successful, and that they shouldn't have children if they want to have a career. So through this report, we want to send a very clear message. We need to change the way work is organized. We can't ask people who work to put up and adapt. The environment has to change through prevention, through a work and private life balance, through substantial politics, which will protect those who work and their jobs from any threat from wherever it comes.
Speaker 9
This is what we want to achieve, and I'm sure that we will all try our best to achieve this in the file. Thank you.
Thank.
Speaker 12
Thank you very much, madam chair, and thank you to the reporter and the shadows. The saying goes that you can see the glass half full or half empty. And I think that is what is at stake when we talk about this issue of psychosocial health at work. For those who understand, or who look at their jobs, with a negative way or have a negative attitude, you think of their jobs as a form of abuse that you have to be vigilant and correct. And I think that this reform follows this logic of mistrust.
Speaker 10
I think, first of all, it's problematic, the focus of the text. It really embodies the left's position that is so negative about workers. They seem to think that working is not positive for workers, and this leads to more bureaucratic burden and interventionism. Nobody denies that there are certain situations that need to be corrected or prevented, but preventing abuse is different than thinking that every job is at risk of causing some kind of illness at work. We talk about reversing the burden of proof.
Speaker 11
We're talking about new administrative measures or interventions from Brussels or new legislation, we will table amendments to try and put forward a more constructive, positive vision where we say that professional working life is part of our lives. It's a source of developing. It's part of our vocation, a way to contribute to society. It is also necessary to provide for our families. It can also be a source of mental health.
And, if you're unemployed, that can lead to mental health problems as well. We are concerned about overregulation. Now we all agree on tackling risks at work. We have legislation in each of the member states to deal with this, so we would see a duplification or even a triplification of the legislation where there are already tools at a national and European level. I think one of the objectives of this mandate was more simplification.
Speaker 10
I think such legislation would lead to a lot of legal uncertainty and would lead to people hiring less in an EU that is already suffering from a crisis of competitiveness. Thirdly, there is a tendency to think that everything that goes on in our lives is some kind of illness, and not every problem at work needs a new piece of legislation. I think we can improve the atmosphere and have better relations at work. Work is not just there to make money. It's a place where we spend a lot of our lives.
We can achieve professional fulfillment, and contribute to society. Sometimes it can be tough. You need to make sacrifices, but that's why it has value. Saying that this is just a source of risk or frustration is impoverishing workers' lives. We think it's important, and we will take amendments in this direction.
Thank you.
From the
Thank.
Speaker 13
Thank you very much, Chair, for giving me the floor. And thank you to Mrs. Kollermans, for the excellent work that you've done. Now this is a key moment in the world of work. There are changes in technology and artificial intelligence, which are having an impact on organizations and the experience people have of their working life.
There is a balance to be maintained between human freedom and technological freedom. Of course, human freedoms are more important. And there's also a question of individual responsibility. This affects all forms of different categories of workers: workers, employees, white collar professions, and freelancers. We need to put people at the center of all of this, promoting dignified work.
Work is an important part of our lives, but it's not the only part. There are psychosocial risks out there, such as stress in the workplace, but these are often multifactorial issues and multidimensional. So we need to take a holistic approach without seeing employers as the sole cause. We need to build upon what the rapporteur has proposed, making sure that employers are not singled out as being the only parties responsible. We need to remember that 90% of jobs are in small and medium-sized companies.
So there are red lines as we are concerned in this regard. We don't think it is necessary to have a new directive. We feel it would be better to reinforce the implementation of the frameworks that already exist, with full respect for the specificities of national systems, avoiding duplication of laws and taking into account different social and economic circumstances. So I'd like to look forward to good work together with the staff and the other members. Thank you.
Irena Joveva
I'm speaking on behalf of Miss Yorova, who can't be here. Her apologies. I thank the rapporteur for the draft on psychosocial risks in the workplace. She's looking forward to working with you all. Productivity gains are expected in workplaces.
And due to that, there are more psychosocial risks and exhaustion. These used to be marginal issues, but now they are commonplace. We know that these risks affect depression, cardiovascular disease, and many people suffer from them. Unlike other risks, psychosocial risks are cumulative, invisible, and difficult to measure. That means they are underdeclared and not treated enough.
As a result, there is pressure on the health care system, and it means that our economy is less productive and competitive. We have to protect the health of our citizens. This draft resolution goes in that direction. In the directive, there are various minimum standards put forward for workers, and the aim is to tackle these issues at source. Even though this is a good basis, we will be putting forward some amendments so that we have a baseline in Europe, while protecting the most vulnerable.
We welcome baselines for companies, but we think that some of these provisions will be difficult for SMEs to implement. So Irena will be submitting some amendments, and she will also be putting forward amendments on the digital side of things and on data collection, so that we can check whether the directive is actually effective. Thank you very much.
Maria Ohisalo
Thank you, chair, dear operator, dear colleagues. Given that 80% of European workplaces have some sort of work-related psychosocial risks, I believe it is justified to call for the commission to address the issue with a legislative proposal. While we already have a framework directive on health and safety, and member states such as Belgium, Sweden, and Denmark have exemplary legislation, many member states have room for improvement. So the Greens very much welcome this report. I would like to thank the rapporteur for her excellent draft.
It is important, the rapport attempts to address key definitions, risk factors, burden of proof, and emphasizes a preventative approach. We found some gaps in the proposed articles, and hope our amendments will help to close those. But our amendments will not be numerous. We will also propose some small additions, for example, on AI, gender, climate, and third-party violence. It is worth noting that the employer side will not be receiving this report positively, quite the contrary.
This is the message I've received. But nevertheless, I hope this report will indeed convince the Commission to put forward a proposal, which will then open up a process in which all relevant stakeholders feel that they have a possibility to make sure that balanced, effective and proportionate legislation is developed. And I'm looking forward to the negotiations with my colleagues in the coming months.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And I am speaking on behalf of the left as Shadow. And I also want to start by thanking Estelle for the draft report, which I think forms a very good basis for our work. And referring back to what we heard this morning, just once again to emphasize the importance of this report and of this work. Nearly half of all European workers reported suffering from time pressure or overload of work, a third from lack of rewards and bad communication, overall fatigue, stress, depression, and anxiety.
And in addition to this, comes the changes that the technological transformation will also mean for work and for workers, with new types of psychosocial risks that are related to algorithm management and AI at work, such as, which was mentioned, constant monitoring, reduced autonomy and job control, isolation, feeling of loneliness. New technologies has also brought increased and severe gendered psychosocial risks related, for example, to cyberbullying, gender based violence, for example, through notification applications, and we hope that these will also be reflected in the final report. I also think it was interesting that William Cockburn, in the end, in his end remark, referred to the disparities between member states when it comes to workers that were covered by different preventive measures with regard to psychosocial risks. So I think that also really stresses the need for action on the EU level. So as we see, mitigating psychosocial risks and their effects is not solved through individual well-being plans or actions, but these are structural questions that need to be solved at the level of organization, design, and management of the workplace, meaning a three-pronged approach: rights for workers to ensure European-wide standards, risk-based assessment for identification and anticipation at the workplace level, worker involvement from the beginning at all different stages of assessment and design.
And I sincerely hope I look forward to working with colleagues on this INL, and I sincerely hope that this also will be an effective way for us to influence upcoming legislation from the commission in connection to the Quality Jobs Act. And then I put back the chair hat and ask if there are other members who wish to take the floor. Yes, Mrs. Reigner.
Speaker 18
Thank you. The best prevention for psychosocial risks is to give people a break, let people go home on time, and shut their computer. So quite concrete measures and deal with each other decently in the workplace. That doesn't come from nowhere. We've got digital, AI, and monitoring.
and all.
Speaker 20
That has an impact on people. I really want to support the rapporteur in what she said in her report. The commission needs to show a human face. People in Europe have something to offer, and it's about the way that people interact with each other. So we need to build communities, stop bullying, deal with loneliness, and all of that won't come from nowhere.
Speaker 19
Because there are some people who are showing a lot of responsibility, often working women, they take on the mental load of the household as well. They're doing that too, and they do a great deal as employees as well. So we need a legal act on this.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. Are there any other members who wish to take the floor? No. I will then, sorry. Yes, miss Wind.
Speaker 17
you. This report is so important. We saw how corona changed the European labour market. Our psychosocial problems in the labor market are now something we actually discuss. It costs thousands of days of sickness in Europe every day because of this.
It's really expensive. There's so much to be gained. I hope we can all support this really important work. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And then next, we will hear what the commission's plans are in this area. As was referred to in the morning, we heard from EVP Mensato last month that the first stage consultation with social partners on the Quality Jobs Act has been concluded, and it included questions around psychosocial risks as part of the occupational safety and health framework. So I will now give the floor to the commission representative, Mr. Arthur Fortado, for the next three minutes.
Arthur Furtado
Thank you, Madam Chair. Indeed, we would like to start by mentioning that this is an important topic, as several of the speakers have highlighted. We would just underline the fact that even before the pandemic, already 1 in 6 Europeans suffered from mental health issues at the cost of 4% of the EU GDP. So this is an enormous number in terms of human suffering and in terms of costs. In response, in 2023, the commission launched the comprehensive approach to mental health, and this communication consisted of 20 flagship initiatives and identified €1,300,000,000 in financial opportunities.
Speaker 26
Importantly, it recognized that psychosocial risks and stress are challenges in occupational health and safety. It also included a review of national approaches that, in 2024, highlighted that there is no unique model to address these problems. The commission president's priorities for 2024-29 include the topic, and we have been actively working to find the best solutions to help the member states. The second point that we would like to make is that we start from a good foundation. The 1989 framework directive on occupational safety and health covers all occupational risks and includes key principles of prevention and protection, including all sectors and all workers.
Speaker 22
But in addition, as part of the Quality Jobs Act, the commission is considering the revision of the workplace and display screens directives. Extension of the scope, while ensuring proportionality and addressing psychosocial risks, is being considered. At the same time, the advisory committee, the Tripartite Advisory Committee on Health and Safety, has a working party on mental health and psychosocial risks. It's working on definitions in trying to improve their clarity, also on identifying data and evidence, and approaches that work on the ground and possible additional measures that might make sense. As we've heard in the morning, the European Agency on Occupational Health and Safety is about to start a dedicated campaign that will span 2026 to 2028 on this topic.
Speaker 21
And finally, it's also important to mention in this overview that the senior label inspectors committee is currently updating the guidelines that support inspectors in the area of risk assessment of psychosocial risks. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And now I'll give the floor back to the rapporteur for her closing statement.
Estelle Ceulemans
I won't say much. I'm looking forward to beginning work. Thank you to all the shadows for their different contributions. We can see that you're really committed. There are a few sentences that will remain with me.
Should the workers adapt to their environment, or should it be vice versa? We don't ask the same questions when we talk about musculoskeletal disorders. So why don't we apply the same principle to mental matters? In any case, I'm looking forward to working with you on this matter, which I consider essential.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And as you heard, the deadline for amendments is Monday, April 22 at noon. So it has been pushed forward a bit. We then move on to the next point on the agenda, the ample opinion on establishing a budget expenditure tracking and performance framework, and other horizontal rules for the union programs and activities. This opinion is of major importance as it will shape how the union measures, steers, and ultimately delivers on its policy priorities under the next multi-annual financial framework.
The ample rapporteur for opinion is Estelle Kuelemans. We also warmly welcome Badge and Kont co-rapporteurs, Jean Marc Germain and Nicolas Herbst. I will start by giving the floor to Estelle Kelemans to present her draft opinion for the next 5 minutes. Thank.
Estelle Ceulemans
You, chair. When this issue of tracking and performance comes up, you may think that this is a technical matter, but actually, in reality, it's truly political. The commission wants to simplify the way that it tracks the spending of the budget with standardized indicators, and there would be a single gateway. It seems good. Less fragmentation, less bureaucracy, and more comparability.
We're all in agreement with that. On paper, it's something we can all sign up for. But simplification must never mean impoverishment or worsening, and that's what we're worried about. The social dimension would be weakened here, and the focus seems to be on quantitative indicators, the number of beneficiaries, the number of projects. But the real impact on citizens' lives would fall by the wayside, but that counts for us.
We don't necessarily need to measure how many people are involved in a project, but instead how their life and their living conditions improved. So I am trying to rebalance things in my document. So I want to look at the social issues. Some things were classified as social, but really they fall under Erasmus, the CAP, or other instruments. Then we are putting forward a clearer structure with two pillars, and strengthening the social side of things, and a new fund for social investment to deal with new housing needs at €100,000,000,000.
But it's not just about the numbers. I want to look at the tracking approach. I want to have indicators which really measure the quality of employment. That's what we're working on. I also want to be able to measure territorial cohesion and poverty rates.
We need to look at impact indicators rather than simple output indicators, and we must also fully recognize the social dimension linked to the climate. I have tabled amendments on democratic governance. At the moment, the commission would be able to use delegated acts to establish the indicators. For us, that is an accountability issue. We, as the parliament, must be involved in the design of these indicators.
I want to have key indicators in the regulation itself. I want the parliament to have a stronger role to play in all of this, and I want to involve civil society and social partners so that we have a truly legitimate system. And then I also want to raise the profile of the social dimension by having an annual report on the social performance. Then we would be able to have a true democratic debate on the results of the European budget. Amendments must be tabled by April 21.
Speaker 25
I'm really looking forward to working with my colleagues on this particular matter. Thank you very much.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much for this insight into the draft opinion, and I will now give the floor to budget and co-rapporteurs. I think Mr. German is not here. So I will give the floor to Mr. Herbst, Kont, co-rapporteur.
Please, the floor is yours.
Niclas Herbst
Thank you, Gérard. First of all, I have to say that we are for Batch Encon still in the stage where we are consulting the specialist committees and also other relevant stakeholders before we start drafting the report. So it's safe to say that the performance regulation is probably the most horizontal file after the MFF file itself, and this is because of the overarching implications that the file could have on all financing programs. This is why we need to get it right. And we need to get it right in order to ensure that the EU's financing priorities are adequately tracked in the next MFF, which is obviously very important for the Con Committee, but also in terms of spending.
Speaker 28
But it's also in order to ensure that the objective of ensuring that we simplify procedures for the final beneficiaries, not for commission, but final beneficiaries, is achieved because only this will create jobs and welfare for all of us. So this will help sustain our model of social market economy as well. The performance regulation is a very complex file, which involves many committees in the EP. In fact, only the NRPP file itself involves more committees. This is why we are here to listen to you, because on many issues, we will rely heavily on the opinion of the specialized committees.
Niclas Herbst
But I also have to say that in order for us to give the adequate importance to the opinion of the specialized committees, it is very important that you stick to the issues falling under your competencies. This is for all committees. So because, for example, if one of the committees will start amending issues related to issues which have nothing to do with the main remit, then it would be difficult for us to give the adequate importance to the issue, which actually fall into the remit of that committee. This is why I would encourage all committees to focus on the topic which falls in their merit remits, and this goes for all committees. So for example, we will rely a lot on the ample opinion to provide some guidance on the so-called social conditionality, of course, or on the relevant indicators from Annex one.
On the other hand, issues related to the do no significant harm principle, I would, of course, expect the relevant committees to provide guidance. But as we have seen in the past, the end result of the budget negotiation would need to be an adequate balance between the opinions of different committees, and it's logical that Ample will be more ambitious on social matters, that ENRI, for example, will be more ambitious on environmental and climate matters, and so on. But in the end, we will need to strike a balance to ensure that such ambitions will be in line with the overarching objectives of the EU to achieve more competitiveness, more jobs, and more strategic autonomy. So personally, and of course, Mr. Germain will speak for himself and might have a slightly different perspective, but I'm concerned that the proposal does not maintain competitiveness.
Without increasing the competitiveness of our economies, we will not be able to create more quality jobs and be more competitive in the end. So it's also important to remember that this is a horizontal regulation, and the provision should apply to a similar extent to all financing programs. So I welcome the inclusion of some general principles related to the charter of fundamental rights in the ample opinion. I strongly agree with this. Nevertheless, I wonder if such additions actually belong in the ample opinion, and we would have to coordinate with Liebe at least.
So equally, I would have a similar remark on the amendments to the do no significant harm principle, as I already mentioned. I would argue that the reference to the social target in the NRPPs would not belong in the performance regulation, but rather in the NRPPs. So on the references in the draft opinion to the support of workers, I strongly believe that the EU budget should contribute to helping our citizens and workers gain the adequate skills to face the challenges ahead. No doubt about that. But referring generally that EU programs with no differentiation should facilitate income support, I believe, goes a bit beyond what our EU budget should do or can do, and I'm a supporter of an investment budget.
So on the other hand, I strongly support the idea of involving all relevant stakeholders in contributing to the definition of all indicators relevant to tracking the budget expenditure. Involvement of regional and local authorities is key to ensure that the budget is implemented as close as possible to the citizens to deliver for them. So together with my co-rapporteur, we have serious questions on this proposal, maybe from different points of view, but the concerns remain. We are concerned that very important issues, such as the guidance on the do no significant harm principle, will be defined solely by the commission. We are concerned that the specific climate targets will be defined by delegated act.
And I'm concerned about incoherence in the legislative drafting. In this MFF, the climate targets were included in the sectoral regulations, while now the sectoral funds will have to abide by some targets which are defined elsewhere. And so, that is another issue that we need to take a look at. We look forward to your input, but I would also like to reiterate my previous plea. Please focus on issues falling within the remit of your committee in order to give adequate importance to the opinion that we will adopt.
It is a very important issue. Again, I have to mention that there are a lot of opinions. We want to take them very seriously, all of them.
Speaker 30
I want to congratulate the rapporteur for this report, where I see a lot of my priorities reflected. Perhaps the most important thing is performance, but also the NRRPs. And, of course, important is the amount of money that's available for social. And we just adopted a report in Budget suggesting that there'd be a separate social fund. We also suggest that there'd be greater funding available, €280000000000.
All of this is related to what our rapporteur has been talking about, the 14% spending on social. Know, if you've got a dedicated fund with dedicated goals, you know, this 14% was a bit problematic because it was linked to performance with percentages for each action area. So that was problematic. But we can look at this differently. Should we maintain this 14% or not, if there's a separate fund?
And then if we do maintain that percentage, then things change. Do we include social infrastructure under the performance tracking? So that puts things in a new light. A second element, a second concern is the link between the performance indicators, the performance tracking, and NRPPs and the targets. These targets can trigger an EU payment to the member states under the national plans.
These targets are established in annex 1 of the performance regulation. I must say I have quite a lot of doubts about a EU European decision making about how the end beneficiaries will spend the money, support for children, social support for children, for example. So the aim is to provide support to the child, and it would be a flat rate. But you know that if you have a child, they may have different difficulties, different problems. So you don't necessarily need to give them the same amount of funding.
Otherwise, you wouldn't have these inequalities. So this is all slightly problematic because you might have a table that's been drawn up to measure performance in a statistical manner. Then how do you use that to establish a criterion? A criterion on which European subsidies are based or which uses a basis to suspend a payment. This is therefore something that we're going to have to look at in the future.
Otherwise, we agree with many of the priorities in this report. We think that we need to strengthen the use of the European budget. The social Europe pillar should be guaranteed. And then here, we do not exactly see eye to eye with the co-rapporteur, but we want social mainstreaming to be included under performance. Now coming to an end, we're also having a debate on all of the different measures which relate to social spending.
This is laid down in Annex one, what level of granularity should we have? Great granularity. That's an interesting proposal. But we don't want to trigger anything unwanted with these indicators, inadvertently suspending funds, for example. Now those are my comments.
Thank you for this report. I, together with Nicolas Herbs, wanted to have a top bottom-up approach, and that's why we are publishing our work quite late because we wanted to let the work of the different committees feed into our work, including this committee. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. I will now give the floor to the shadow reporters for two minutes each, starting with Mrs. Lekalenik from the EVP. Thank.
Isabelle Le Callennec
thank you very much. The performance regulation, which is linked to our financial regulations, moves in the right direction. It's greater simplification and more flexibility. But there are indeed a number of points that are worrying. The link between simplification and protection of European funding simplification should not be a contradiction to the financial interest of the union or state aid rules, and it should not open the door to double financing.
There is still uncertainty out there as to the capacity to verify the results without control of expenditure, that there will still be a need for evidence. And it's not me saying that, it's the Court of Auditors. Now, so far, the commission was proposing 14% for social purposes. But the perimeter is a question. A number of activities currently classified as social are not actually social, as the rapporteur said.
And performance indicators could send money to projects that are less useful but easier to measure. Some projects cannot be captured by traditional performance measures, such as social engineering and support for children, for example. When it comes to personal data and how that goes into IT systems and supporting the project managers, well, these are major challenges. I would call for preserving ESF Plus, and I would take into account the management authorities' recommendations on the rules for implementing this. We also need to ensure that small structures are not at a disadvantage.
Now there are indicators or horizontal practices in Annex one, and we need to reassert the role of the parliament, which, unless proven otherwise, is the representative of our citizens. Thank you.
Speaker 34
Thank you very much, madam chair, colleagues. Proper budgetary management is based on three principles: effectiveness, accessibility, and transparency. And in that regard, we support the principles of this text. When it comes to the effectiveness of clearer indicators, then that's good. It should give us a better overview of expenditure.
And I'm sure the results will be surprising when we have genuine effectiveness in public expenditure. Now reducing the number of indicators from 5,700 is positive in terms of administrative simplification. When it comes to accessibility, the simplification measures go in the right direction. I'm particularly thinking about small and medium-sized companies, which will win from the reductions in bureaucracy, that should open new opportunities for them. And then, when it comes to transparency, setting up a single portal is positive.
So you can put all of the expenditure into a single tool. I think that should also help decision makers' responsibility because it lifts the veil over how expenses are actually made. However, there are elements that go against, that go in the wrong direction. There are subjective indicators, such as indicators on gender. I don't think our fellow citizens were thinking of that kind of mechanism when thinking of better management of the money.
When it comes to environmental damage, I think the indicators are rather contestable. And I'm concerned that some information could be manipulated and that could cause problems for necessary infrastructure. I'm concerned that there is a need for further simplification. So that's what's in the text itself, and the vision that we are working with. Rather than basing ourselves on partial subjective criteria, we would like notions such as job creation and European preference to be introduced.
Speaker 35
That would be a simple, positive way to improve the management of our expenditure, spending taxpayers' money more fairly and defending their interests should be our priority.
Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And next, Mrs. Suvaldini will speak on behalf of Mrs. Cemma from Lucerne.
Speaker 13
Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. I'm intervening on behalf of Chiari Ciemmer. Now the Commission's proposal is in the right direction. However, there are three key principles: effectiveness, proportionality, and respect for the competences of the member states.
Our amendments reinforce a performance-based approach where European expenditure is not evaluated only on the basis of output, but also in terms of concrete impact, particularly when it comes to jobs, skills and social inclusion. At the same time, we want to be clear about one thing. The monitoring framework should not transform itself into yet another layer of administrative burden. Reporting systems end up being too heavy and can reduce the effectiveness of funding for small and medium-sized companies and local authorities. For that reason, we would like precise guarantees on proportionality and simplification.
We need to avoid any kind of duplication of the national systems. In this context, we are rather concerned about some of the excessive centralization in the proposal, that the reporting requirements have to remain proportional. That's how we can support competitiveness and ensure the effective use of taxpayers' money. We do not need unnecessary bureaucratic layers. There's another issue, which is the indicators.
They need to be pertinent. They need to be limited in numbers, and they need to be adapted to the specific nature of the programs. As one size fits all uniform approach would actually make things worse, rather than reinforcing the quality of our expenditure. At the same time, we need to respect subsidiarity. The performance framework cannot be an indirect way to impose standardized requirements at the expense of the member states' prerogative, particularly when it comes to the labor market and social policies.
We would also like to focus on competitiveness and the creation of jobs and social inclusion, including for people with disabilities, ensuring that European funds provide concrete, measurable results for them. So in summary, we would like the EU budget to be more effective, more transparent, and less bureaucratic. We would like to ensure that there is flexibility in the hands of the member states. Thank you very much.
Hristo Petrov
Thank you, madam chair. Dear Estelle, dear colleagues, this file is a key element of the EU's new multi-annual budget, and it's indeed by analyzing the performance of the EU budget that we can adjust our priorities and ensure that funding is directed where it is most needed and where it can make a difference for our citizens. In this regard, it is encouraging to see that, for the first time, a social expenditure tracking system has been incorporated into our budget. I believe that our work on this text should be guided by a simple principle. European funds should finance European priorities.
The text takes a step in that direction with the horizontal principles, but it seems somewhat too limited, especially when compared to the current rules. Respect for working and employment conditions is the bare minimum we can ask for, but it cannot be all there is. We need a framework that ensures compliance with the principle of nondiscrimination, our obligations towards persons with disabilities, in short, our social model. The draft report goes in this direction, which is a positive step toward improving the text. I also note other positive aspects of this report, such as the increased granularity of the tracking coefficients and the intention to move toward an impact assessment of your funding.
There will also be issues to discuss regarding social conditionality and allocation of funds, which I believe fall more under the ESF or NRPP regulations. The challenge will be to strike a balance and ensure consistency among these various files. So I look forward to beginning negotiations on this proposal and strengthening its social dimension to ensure an effective oversight of the EU budget. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And Missus Orisalo will speak on behalf of Sara Mathieu from The Greens.
Maria Ohisalo
Thank you very much, Chair and colleagues. Sara Matteo, she apologizes that she could not be here today due to a clash with activities from another committee, but I will speak on her behalf, and of course, on behalf of our green group. This budgetary tracking framework aims to align EU spending to achieve climate, environmental, and social objectives. The proposal emphasizes streamlining and simplification by a reduction of indicators. However, there is a risk that this framework remains predominantly output-oriented.
We have tried to curb this by amending the relevant articles on social policies and gender equality to make sure they will deliver for people. In the Annex one, we witness a risk of greenwashing and social washing. As EMPOL, we believe we should thoroughly reassess the qualifications given by the 0%, 40-100% coefficient system. Certain intervention fields may remain eligible for EU funding, but should not be classified as contributing to social objectives, such as certain social reforms, like pension reforms or tourism. Those should have a zero social coefficient.
We will also need a solution for infrastructure investments, even if we talk about buildings for social purposes, such as schools or hospitals. Those are important investments, but we doubt whether they truly classify as contributors to social inclusion. We also intend to introduce a new article on the partnership principle, with the aim of ensuring it applies across the whole MFF. Last but not least, we want to thank Robert Ture for her interesting draft report, in which we specifically welcome the proposal to introduce social conditionalities as a horizontal principle to the entire long-term budget of the EU.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And as a shadow rapporteur, I will be speaking on behalf of the left. And I also want to start by thanking the rapporteur for her hard work and for a good draft report. And I agree that rather than seeing this as a very technical monitoring tool, we should aim at transforming it into a more policy-driven instrument to make sure that it is a tool through which we deliver social objectives. So that also means then shifting focus more to qualitative indicators to impact, and also assessing what qualifies under the 0.4 and so on frameworks for social expenditure that was also mentioned by previous speakers.
This also emphasizes the European pillar of social rights, making sure that social outcomes such as quality employment, poverty reduction, and social inclusion priorities of the EU budget remain strong alongside climate and digital objectives. As we know, the proposal also introduces a set of horizontal principles that will apply to all EU programs, including gender equality, non-discrimination, social inclusion, labor market relevance, and the do no significant harm principle. And I think it also, in this regard, would be important to consider linking the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as a horizontal principle, as this is one of the points that have been pointed out from the UNCRPD Committee in their reports on the EU, that the European Union needs to make sure that all financial means and budget means that are used are in line with the obligations that also the European Union as an institution has under the UNCRPD. So, if it would be linked as a horizontal principle, it would mean an obligation to cut across all policies, legislation, or funding programs, rather than linking it to only disability-specific policies. So I think this also should be considered in our work on this regulation, but looking forward to the cooperation.
And then I ask if there are other members who wish to take the floor at this point. No. Then I will give the floor to the Commission representatives. I have Lourdes Aceira Montoya, Head of Unit Chief Economist and Coordination at DG Budget, and Federico Lussidi, who is Head of Unit Impact Assessment Evaluation, Monitoring of Funds at DG Empel. Please, you have the floors for two or three minutes each.
Lourdes Montoya
Many thanks for the invitation to be here today to discuss your amendments to the performance regulation. A few words of the framework. The aim of the performance regulation is to propose simplification for beneficiaries through two main vehicles. First, the provision of horizontal principles and clarity on how these horizontal principles would be applied compared to the current system where the situation is fragmented across different programs and a common system of tracking. Second, key objective, transparency, so that there is clarity for everyone, for you, for the general public, of how the money, the EU budget money, is used, and transparency also for applicants through the single gateway.
Speaker 38
It is not a legislation that defines eligibility. It is not a legislation that defines the architecture of individual funds or budget allocations. With that in mind, I'm looking specifically at the social policies. We believe that the integration of the ESF objectives with other coalition policy funds and also the CEP allows for a comprehensive strategy that can deliver on social objectives in an efficient manner. Also, the delivery model that looks into outputs on the ground through a system of milestones and targets also brings efficiencies in the delivery system again on the ground.
The measures are defined by member states and regions. The performance regulation allows to classify those measures in intervention fields, and, of course, the output indicators are very much linked to those measures that are defined by the regions and by the member states. The 14% social target is expected to trigger about 100000000000 of social impact spending only for the NRPPs. But with this performance regulation, we would be able to measure for the first time, through common indicators, the social impact across the MFF. A few words on the indicators and the definitions therein.
So we have a tracking which has attributes a 100% impact on those intervention fields that have social policies as the main objectives. Those are level two policy areas like employment, labor market, education, skills, food, material support, and social inclusion. Those are 100% core ESF plus activities. Others that have a strong link with the ESF, with the European pillar of social rights, also have a 100% coefficient, like actions related to health and youth. 40% is attributed to those that have an indirect or partial contribution, like social infrastructure, research, culture, and civil rights.
Again, there are some details, and we need to be mindful of how the tracking is defined with this general objective of simplification for beneficiaries and what would be the implications of bringing in additional indicators. We do look at output and result indicators, as also those that can be more measurable, and also having in mind this horizontal view that is provided by this regulation and aggregability across the board. Our objective is to have continuous monitoring for you and reporting, so that there is a clear view of how the EU budget is delivering.
Federico Lussidi
Thank you. And I will complement what Lourdes has just said with a perspective related to indicators and continuity with what we currently have on ESF Plus. So I would like to mention that the core output and results indicators that pertain to the social dimension have been proposed in full continuity with what we have currently under ESF Plus, and this will also allow to monitor continuously the output and results compared to what we have now. There were some comments about the absence of impact indicators. And I would like to mention that this has been done on purpose, because we believe it is difficult to measure impact with indicators.
First of all, because the impacts arrive after some time, some time lag, also because it is difficult to disentangle, when we look at impact with indicators, what is the impact of the measure, and what are the confounding factors like the general cycle in the economic cycle overall? So we believe that this can be done with evaluations. And, actually, the performance regulations also include some specific provisions on evaluation that have to be run by the member states. They will have to present an evaluation road map under their NRPPs. And there is an important provision which indicates that quantitative methods and, in particular, counterfactual impact evaluations should be used where appropriate.
Speaker 39
And this is where we believe we will be able to actually measure impacts. And this is in line with the better regulation guidelines that the Commission applies. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And I will now give the floor back to the operator, Mrs. Kellemans, for her final remarks.
Estelle Ceulemans
Well, I don't have a great deal to add. I'd just like to thank all of the different speakers we've heard from. I'd also like to thank the other committees for having waited for our opinion before then moving forward to prepare their own report. So we have done our best in EMPO to try to get the best text possible. Thank you very much.
Li Andersson
All right. Thank you to all the reporters, shadows, and all speakers. The deadline for amendments is April 21 at noon. Then we return to the subject of the youth guarantee. The next item on the agenda is the draft implementation report on the youth guarantee.
A substantial amount of work has already been carried out in this regard, including the EPRS study, the rapporteur's fact-finding mission that we heard the reports back from earlier today, as well as an exchange of views with a wide range of stakeholders. We now look forward to discussing the draft report and its main findings. I will give the floor to the rapporteur to present it. Mr. Petrov, the floor is yours for the next 5 minutes.
Hristo Petrov
Thank you, Madam Chair. Dear colleagues, this implementation report has a clear ambition to make active support for youth employment a political priority at the heart of the EU agenda. The old guarantee is not merely an instrument, but a promise made to every young person to receive within four months of losing a job or leaving education, a quality offer of employment, continued education, apprenticeship, or a traineeship. This commitment directly engages the credibility of the EU towards its youth. The results are tangible.
Over the past decade, youth unemployment has declined significantly, and more than 60,000,000 young people have benefited from VAT guarantee schemes. This momentum has also supported structural reforms in several member states, and inspired initiatives beyond the union. However, these achievements should not overshadow the persistent challenges. Youth unemployment remains nearly three times higher than that of the overall population, and the downward trend has stalled in recent years. The urgency, therefore, remains.
Even more concerning is the number of needs, which remains high in several member states. This group is heterogeneous and often marked by specific vulnerabilities: women, young people with disabilities, Roma, or those growing up in institutional care. And this reality clearly shows that a one size fits all approach does not work. The yield guarantee must be targeted, territorially adapted, and genuinely inclusive. Beyond the social imperative, this is also an economic issue in the context of skills shortages.
To act effectively, we must better understand these groups. The lack of detailed data on needs is a major obstacle, and it is therefore essential to improve data collection, sharing, and analysis, while also involving young people in the design of the policies that concern them. The evaluation of implementation shows strong national ownership, but also clear limitations. The diversity of models is an asset, but it cannot justify significant performance gaps. Today, too many young people do not receive an offer within four months, and too few achieve sustainable integration.
More concerning, a significant proportion of the young people furthest from the labor market remain outside the youth guarantee schemes, and this led to an unacceptable situation where those who need support the most are often those who benefit from it the least. The visibility of the Yod guarantee must also be improved. Too many young people are still unaware that they are eligible, which limits its impact. Prevention must become a central pillar. Tackling early school leaving and preventing repeated returns to inactivity are essential for sustainable inclusion.
For the most disadvantaged young people, the preparatory phase is crucial, including personalized support, psychological assistance, and the strengthening of basic skills. It's also vital to better recognize skills acquired outside formal pathways. Many young people possess valuable, yet unrecognized competencies, and validating these skills can facilitate access to employment. A rebalancing of the offers provided is also needed, as immediate employment does not always ensure lasting integration. Volunteering may also provide a useful complementary pathway, provided it is properly supported and funded.
The quality of offers must remain central. We need to strengthen the exchange of best practices and further align standards at the European level to ensure meaningful results. The success of the Yacht Guarantee also depends on strong partnerships between public employment services, education systems, social partners, youth organizations, and local authorities. Such cooperation is essential to build coherent support and restore trust among young people. Synergies must also be strengthened with other European initiatives such as the child guarantee and the EU Roma strategic framework in order to ensure continuity of support and prevent vulnerabilities from an early stage.
Finally, no political ambition can be realized without adequate financial resources. The role of ESF Plus has been crucial, but absorption challenges and uncertainties regarding the future financial frameworks pose a real risk to the sustainability of this instrument. In the face of still uneven results, our renewed political commitment is needed. Where disparities are too important, the commission must be able to require clear improvement plans from the member states. This is not about sanctioning, but about ensuring equal treatment for all young people across the union.
In conclusion, this report seeks to help restore momentum to the Youth Guarantee so that it can fully become what it is meant to be, a credible promise of inclusion, autonomy, and dignity for our youth. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. We then move on to the shadow repertoires. Two minutes each, starting mister Goykking from the APP.
Speaker 42
Colleagues, first of all, I'd like to thank the rapporteur, Mr. Petrov, for his report, which underscores the importance of making active support for youth employment a political priority at the heart of the EU agenda and national policies. The draft report highlights both the successes of the reinforced youth guarantee and the areas where significant challenges remain, particularly concerning women, disadvantaged young people, especially in rural areas, the quality of office, data availability, frequently missed four-month target, and the need for targeted implementation. It also puts forward concrete and valuable proposals to address these challenges, including strengthening administrative and human resources, and fostering strong partnerships. All of this goes in the right direction.
The draft report also makes it clear that the issue is not the creation of new instruments, but the more effective, coherent, and targeted implementation of existed ones with prevention as a central pillar. The youth guarantee cannot operate as an isolated policy at the end of the chain. From my perspective, this is that the youth guarantee depends on policies in other areas. This includes housing, childcare, and broader social infrastructure. Now the member states need to follow their words with actions.
There are limited public resources, so synergies with the European Child Guarantee and the European Family Contact must be strengthened. We need to ensure that there are not higher costs for parents, so that we do not have far higher costs in the long term. We need to ensure that there is more transparency to ensure that everyone is effectively reached when they are threatened with exclusion from the employment market. This should be the central pillar of European social policy, and I'm looking forward to the debate. I'm thanking, I'd like to thank Mister Petrov and the other shadow rapporteurs for constructive work together.
Thank you very much.
Aodhán Ó Ríordáin
Thank you, and thanks to MEP Petrof as rapporteur for your great work on the draft report. Surely, it's the first time in the history of the European Union that we have a rapporteur simultaneously. It's a strong starting point, and I look forward to a positive cooperation over the coming months as we offer solutions that genuinely support young people across Europe to find quality education, training, or employment. In my constituency of Dublin, many young people are doing everything right, but still struggling to find stable, fairly-paid work. The reality is that entering the labour market today is more difficult than ever.
Precarious work is rising, the cost of living is soaring, and AI is replacing entry level jobs. And one in four young people in Europe are at risk of poverty or social exclusion. The YouGuarantee is exactly the kind of tool that the EU has to respond to this, but it's not working as it should. That's why the s and d amendments to the report ultimately focus on one key priority, to ensure that the Youth Guarantee actually reaches and helps vulnerable young people. We need to target the most marginalized, including early school leavers, young migrants, young people leaving care, young women and single mothers, and young people with disabilities.
Public employment services must be properly resourced to not only reach these young people, but to provide them with the personalized and long term support they need to attain stable long term employment. Quality cannot come at the expense of quantity. That's why we're calling for clear quality standards, fair wages, decent working conditions, real opportunities for progression, developed with social partners. And these standards must be binding through funding conditionality. If a job is not decent, it should not be funded by the EU budget.
And speaking of funding, we need to put our money where our mouth is if we're serious about delivering real change. That means ring-fencing the current ESF plus funding in the next MFF and turning the new guarantee into a permanent instrument. I look forward to working with colleagues over the next period of time to deliver for the young people of Europe.
Marie-Luce BRAS-PY
Thank you very much. We are looking at a report today that focuses on the youth guarantee. This is presented as something that's really going to help with youth unemployment. Ambition is certainly here, rapidly finding a job. I mean, that's what it promises, but the reality is very different.
You're told you can get a job or training within 4 months, but more than one in two young people are waiting much longer than that. You've said this yourself. So it's just one more promise that won't be kept. And then you don't really deal with those young people who need it the most, young people in rural areas who lack transport and infrastructure or access to digital services. So these young people are completely forgotten.
You talk about accessibility and young people with disabilities, but they're often precarious contracts, short-term contracts, not well paid. You need to be tackling these types of precarious jobs. The system doesn't work at the moment, and it's not just a simple adjustment that would change things. The problem is simple. You want to manage everything from Brussels without bearing in mind the local reality.
You simply cannot decree the employment of young people from Brussels. It's something that's built on the ground. In the meantime, European funds are held up, blocked in bureaucracy, and it's our money, European money, French taxpayers' money that's given back very slowly with lots of conditions. So how can we really help our young people, allow them to live, work, and start a family? So no taxes on income up to 30 years old.
No reducing corporation tax on those companies that wish to hire more young people. What we need is a lack of bureaucracy, and results. Thank you.
Li Andersson
I have no one from the ECR present. So Mister Bosanac from the Green City next.
Gordan Bosanac
Thank you, and thanks to the rapporteur for the report, which serves as a good basis for our future work. And I would like to point out several main messages that we would like to see in the report. First, we welcome the commitment made by member states to young people under the age of 30 to offer them good quality employment, continued education, apprenticeships, or a traineeship opportunity. At the same time, we believe there is a need for an integrated support system that encompasses housing, health care, and social protection to create a conducive environment for employment. We understand that it is difficult to establish the direct causal link between the implementation of the YG and the observed results in terms of reduction in the NET rate and youth employment.
However, early interventions are crucial for young people newly entering NEET status, and a more personalized, holistic approach is essential for those with longer-term challenges. Evidentially, outreach remains one of the main obstacles to the implementation of the RYG, and this is why we should call member states and the commission to invest dedicated efforts in branding and marketing the youth guarantee to ensure comprehensive awareness among young people, particularly targeted vulnerable and marginalized groups. Also, we should advocate for quality trainership and apprenticeship that adhere to established quality criteria, eliminate unpaid opportunities, and young people should not fall victims of poorly paid, insecure or unprotected precarious work. And just let me put one more idea on the table, which is maybe out of the box around the yield guarantee. In the times when we have seen a lot of work that we are transferring money to the defense, maybe we should also think, and when we are also seeing that there is more and more compulsory military service happening across Europe, how we can maybe support with the youth guarantee conscientious objectors across Europe?
Because we are also seeing that some member states are introducing paid military service, but also paid civil service for conscientious objectors, which is less paid than the military service. So to avoid this kind of discrimination, and this is kind of job opportunity, although it's forced job opportunity, maybe we can also suggest and open the yield guarantee to the member states to subsidize the civil service in the member states. Thank you.
Speaker 48
I'm Girmaga Kahirlak. Like others, I also want to thank MEP Petrov for this report and also the team that work with them for their really good work on this and their collaborative approach. You're very welcome. I think also the timing of a report on the youth guarantee has never been more crucial. We live in a time where we know we see a lot more attempts by the commission towards deregulation and militarization, and this undoubtedly will have a very serious impact on quality jobs and rights in the workplace, particularly for our young people who are entering the workforce presently and in the coming years.
Speaker 49
I do worry that if we continue down this path where young people today will have weaker safeguards and weaker guarantees than previous generations, we will obviously end up in an extremely negative place, and we need to avoid this as best we can. For us, this report is crucial for setting out a positive vision that we will be a beacon to young people and the future generations. The youth guarantee and well-designed youth policies are not budget costs, but investments in people. And I think we need to start looking at it in that way, that it's an actual investment in the next generation. So we do need to see a fully funded and a stand-alone ESF plus in the next seven-year budget.
Speaker 47
We believe also that there's a need to recognize the rights of workers and of trainees and interns to be entitled to fair wages and fair pay. Far too often, entry-level staff and trainees are taken advantage of. They're underpaid. They're overworked. And I think this is something that really needs to be looked at and taken on board because, unfortunately, it happens all too often and probably sometimes in this institution as well.
Also, my view is that this report should propose an EU directive on psychosocial risks at work. I hope this is something that we can achieve cross-group support on. Generally speaking, we need to nurture stronger links between the youth guarantee and other policies such as health, mental health, issues around housing, family, transport, regional developments, and the rights of marginalized groups, particularly the Sami, Roma, and travelers. We need to look at language rights, and other areas in this category too. So I'm very confident we can achieve this.
I look forward to working with everyone. And again, particularly, thank the reporter for his interest and his work in this area, Garmagov.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And the COLT Committee is preparing an opinion on this report. So I will now give the floor for two minutes to Mr. Petrov, who is also the reporter of the COLT Committee.
Hristo Petrov
Yes. It's a good example of simplifying. You know? Well, thank you. Thank you, chair.
Dear colleagues, the committee's premise is very clear. Education, culture, youth, and we have focused our work on these aspects of the reinforced youth guarantee scheme. We see that in some cases, there are imbalances between the different types of offers, with heavy emphasis towards employment even when education or training may offer a more sustainable pathway to the labor market. That's why the opinion focuses on strengthening the educational, preventive, and inclusive dimensions of the youth guarantee. We also focus on improving career guidance in schools and by training teachers and educators to better help young people navigate choices for their future, whether that is VET, apprenticeships, further education, traineeships, or work.
Prevention of early school leaving is another element that should be strengthened with good cooperation between schools, social services, and employment services so that young people don't leave school due to socioeconomic reasons such as lack of transport or living in poverty. Finally, we need to broaden our understanding of what the youth guarantee should encompass so that it better takes into account the soft skills and experiences that young people gain through culture, sport, youth work, volunteering, and community engagement. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. Are there other members who wish to take the floor at this point? If not, I will give the floor to the commission representative, Miss Ciara Riendino, who is head of unit future of work and youth employment at DG EMPL. Please, the floor is yours for three minutes.
Ciara Riendino
Thank you very much, chair. Thank you very much to the aperture, mister Petrov, and to all the honorable members who have taken the floor and, of course, to the EMPO committee for your interest in youth employment, which is at the heart of many of our policies, and some of them have also been mentioned like vocational education and training, skills education, and others. The youth guarantee has really proven fundamental in supporting young people, gaining work experience, and developing the right skills for a changing world of work. It is very important to recognize, like many of you have done already now, that youth unemployment is a phenomenon that has multiple phases, and it is also very different in the different member states. This is why the youth guarantee has helped, because it's flexible, because it can be adapted to the local realities, to the regional realities, to the needs of the people that are targeted by this instrument.
And its strength is also that it is focused. The goal is to reach out to young people who are outside of the labor market, outside of education and training, and lead them, help them towards a sustainable path to employment. This is the goal of the Youth Guarantee, and it is a great European success. Since its start in 2013, it has helped almost 57,000,000 young people in Europe. It works.
Since its launch, and even more after its reinforcement in 2020, both the rates of need and of youth unemployment have dropped significantly. In the reinforcement in 2020, we have broadened the target group in terms of age. We are targeting now 19 years old, up to 29 years old, whereas before we were targeting up to 24. And we have strengthened exactly what was mentioned before, the outreach to the most vulnerable, to the most difficult young people to reach out to, which, of course, has created further problems. Because in terms of offering a quality job offer or a quality offer of education and training, traineeship
Ciara Riendino
Apprenticeships, the more we target difficult young people, the more it is challenging for member states, for regions to reach the target of the four months. And you may remember that back in 2020 when we were negotiating, there were calls from many parts to extend the duration, to move it to six months, but we have all stayed strong on the ambition. And this is why we are calling out to you as well to help us strengthen the implementation. This is what we need to do. The Youth Guarantee is a comprehensive framework.
It works. It needs to be fully implemented on the ground. We look forward to working with you on this file, and we wish you a good continuation of your work on the report. Thank you very much.
Li Andersson
Thank you so much. And I will now give the floor back to Mr. Petrov for his final remarks. The floor is yours.
Hristo Petrov
Thank you, Chair. Dear colleagues, thank you for this productive and constructive discussion. What clearly stands out from these contributions is a shared view. The yacht guarantees the key tool for supporting young people, but it must now operate in a more effective and equitable manner. I have taken note of the comments and concerns raised by the various political groups.
These are not abstract issues. They affect millions of young people whose trust in our institutions depends on our ability to take action and improve their situation. I think that we agree on the main priorities: improving data and monitoring, strengthening administrative capacity, enhancing the quality of schemes, and ensuring that no young person is excluded, particularly those who are furthest from the labor market. So I look forward to beginning work on these reports soon so that together, we can turn this consensus into concrete action for our young Europeans everywhere across Europe. Thank you very much.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. Thank you to the rapporteur, the shadows, and to all speakers. The deadline for tabling amendments is April 23 at noon. And the final voting committee is scheduled for July. We then move on to the final points, on our agenda or almost final point, the ample opinion to the cult implementation report on the EU youth strategy.
This file is of particular relevance to our committee, notably in the areas of employment, social affairs, and the integration of young people into the labor markets. We will start by giving the floor to the rapporteur for the opinion, Mrs. Abadia Hover. I was informed Mr. Goyking will speak on her behalf.
So, Mr. Goyking, you have the floor for 5 minutes.
Speaker 41
Yes, thanks. I speak in German again, so please use your headphones. Vielanden for Forest.
Speaker 42
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I would like to say that, unfortunately, Mrs. Averio Hover had a parallel commitment, so wasn't able to make it, and she does apologize for her absence. Let me just mention some of the important points of her opinion. I think there is a clear commitment to contribute from the AMPO committee.
We think it's important and relevant. When we talk about youth employment, cohesion, opportunities, what we want to achieve is a tangible result-orientated opinion. It's important that we give real meaning to the EU strategy, not just declarations. We need something that is actively implemented into national strategies and integrated. We want measurable results and better coordination between the institutions and the member states.
We need to have youth employment at the heart of this structure, of this opinion. We need to be more ambitious in dealing with youth unemployment. We need a structural solution. It's not just about the number of programs on offer, but on the quality and the long term perspectives they offer. Not every offer is sufficient or offers really long term chances.
We need to strengthen monitoring of how these are implemented as well. In addition to this, the ESF Plus needs to be implemented in a results-orientated way as well, to speed up the effectiveness of this and proper integration into the MFF. There's a gap between training and the labor market. It's not that there's a lack of talent, but there's a mismatch between the supply and the demand of qualifications. And there is a lack of opportunities for young people that match their qualifications.
So there needs to be closer cooperation between the education institutes and business. We need more involvement, particularly to help young women. We need to offer real quality education to get into the labour market, to have mutual recognition of qualifications across the single market. That will only help improve it. We need to have a stronger competitiveness dimension through entrepreneurs, and we want to see young people in a dynamic, entrepreneurial environment.
So we need better access to financing and less bureaucracy, so jobs can be more easily created. We need a long term perspective. Youth policies cannot be tackled in isolation. This is not just an issue of fairness, but this is key for the sustainability of our European social model. The psychological well-being of world people is very important, and their inclusion as well.
This opinion is a very important contribution, I think, from the MPOW committee to help create this perspective. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And we then move on to the shadow repertoires, starting with mister Ariardan from S and
Aodhán Ó Ríordáin
Gurmagga, thanks to the repertoire for the constructive approach in preparing this opinion. And as I've already stated in our shadows meeting earlier today, we feel there is considerable common ground among all groups from which we can build a strong and valuable opinion. I want to thank Cult Repertoire for their initial draft, which we feel is already a very strong and positive starting point. Across Europe, young people are facing a job market that is more insecure and more unequal than ever. Too many are trapped in precarious low-paid work while also dealing with rising level costs and a worsening housing crisis, which they are at the sharp end of.
If this strategy is to be meaningful, it must respond directly to that reality. So first and foremost for S and D, we want to see the report deliver on quality jobs and working conditions for young people. This means fair wages, strong protections, and collective bargaining, not insecurity. We must respond to the changing labour market. AI and platform work are already reshaping entry-level jobs.
We must prevent a race to the bottom and ensure technological change improves, not undermines, job quality. We need stronger investment in vocational education alongside action on literacy and numeracy, because the impact on literacy on a child is lifelong. Young people are at the sharp end of the housing crisis, as I've said. They are primarily renters, and the crisis across the EU has led to rents that are out of control, which must be addressed. Millions of young European people are living in poverty or at risk of poverty.
We need a minimum income directive to provide a real safety net alongside a reinforced child guarantee with funding of at least €20,000,000,000. We must also strengthen inclusion, particularly for young people with disabilities and those leaving care who face a sudden care cliff at 18. And we must address gender inequality, which continues to shape access to work, pay, and opportunities. Finally, participation must be meaningful. Young people must be properly involved in social dialogue with proper support for youth organizations. So we look forward to working with all groups to deliver a constructive opinion, one that can genuinely improve employment opportunities and social conditions for young people across Europe.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And next speaker is Mr. Siqueiros from the bridges.
Pál Szekeres
We,
Also think it's important to have a positive perspective when discussing this topic. We want to be constructive. We have worked with the colleagues on this. We think it's very important when we talk about investing in the future of young people. We're talking about build training, vocational education, creating jobs so that these young people can really be self-sufficient in their life and their work.
It's not just about training and creating jobs. There are also more incentives that are needed, more support for young people 25. It is important that these young people can start a family. We need to support young families. We are facing a demographic crisis, so that should be a priority.
It is also important in this proposal that we take into account the fact that education is a member state competence, so we need to be ideologically neutral. We need to be very transparent in terms of the finances. It is about the free choice of national governments. I would like to say I very much appreciate that the disabled young people have been taken into account here as well. Thank you.
I'll speak in French.
Irena Joveva
Dear colleagues, on behalf of Renew Europe, I welcome this rule. Of course, young people are the future and the driving force in Europe. There are three priorities that I put forward through my amendments. We live in a very unstable context, so it's important for our own people to be prepared and resilient. I think that's important through educational competencies, volunteer work, Erasmus, plus the European Solidarity Corps.
It is our responsibility to give young people the tools to face crises and adapt. Secondly, it is urgent to help young people enter onto the labor market. A number of people have already mentioned this. They often are blocked at this stage, so two of my amendments are going in that direction, having more personalized advice. It's important to attract these young people, keep these young people in Europe, strengthen our competitiveness.
So we need to have a clear principle of better access to mobility programs, financing, and opportunities for all. And, finally, I mentioned this. I am pleased that volunteer work has been emphasized in this report. I come from a context where young people represent 80% of the volunteer work being done in the Winter Olympics. For example, we have young people as volunteers who are often absolutely key to the success of these events.
So we should continue to promote that model that helps develop those skills. This is very valuable for the workplace as well. Thank you.
Speaker 49
Thanks, Chair. Also, again, thanks to the repertoire and the staff for their collaborative approach to this opinion. As has been mentioned already, we had a very productive shadow meeting earlier today, and I hope that we can now deliver a text that reflects the priorities of our committee in terms of a youth strategy that meets the key issues for our young people. As expressed in our meeting today, the slowdown of graduate jobs and the phenomenon of younger workers being overqualified for the roles they are in is an issue we believe needs to be addressed in this opinion. The slowdown of young people progressing up the career ladder compared to previous generations of workers can negatively impact long term earning potential and clearly would have a knock on effect for pensions.
Speaker 47
It also reduces chances of getting on the property ladder even though we know there's many aspects to the housing crisis at the moment. And then there's all the kind of negative outworkings of all that for our young people. And I'm sure that we will all agree that we really need to address this situation. The text also needs to ensure there is a stand-alone and sufficiently funded ESF Plus. We want to ensure funding, and we have submitted an amendment calling for a stand alone, sufficiently funded European social fund.
It is the main tool for investing in people, and it's crucial for assisting young people and persons with disabilities to attain employment. The commission and member states must ensure it's fully funded. I think this is absolutely key because we can all talk a good talk in here and in committees and shadow meetings, but we actually need to put the funding behind all of these measures to ensure that they can be enacted. And again, I look forward to working with the repertoire and with the other shadowers on this. Thank you, chair.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And I will now give the floor to the commission representative, Mrs. Ingrid Belander Torino, who is Head of Youth and Volunteer Solidarity in the DGAAC. So the floor is yours for the next three minutes, please.
Ingrid Bellander Todino
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank the rapporteur, Badia Hover, and the Employment Committee for your thoughtful and very pertinent feedback on the current EU Youth strategy, which is in its last stretch of implementation. I think we have here a good basis for forward-looking preparations based also on the EU Youth Report that was published in 2023 and the report on the interim evaluation of the EU Youth Strategy and the communication on the European Year of Youth from 2022, which were both published in 2024. The CALT implementation report is very timely as the Commission is preparing a communication that will set out the Commission's proposals for the post-2027 EU Youth Strategy. This communication is planned to be presented in the first quarter of next year. Emerging from the amendments we have seen today and the draft report and all the other key documents, including from the European Parliament, we see that there is a consistent call for enhancing inclusive youth participation, effective youth mainstreaming into EU policies, and also at the national level and also aligning support systems.
I can mention there the youth check that has been set up to ensure that the youth dimension is properly and effectively reflected in the Commission's policymaking. Overall, this committee's amendments send a clear signal. The commission and member states must turn youth commitments into concrete results and impact, taking into account the needs and challenges of young people today. That will be the center of the work that we are bringing forward in the next months. We will continue engaging young people and stakeholders in consultations, dialogues, and discussions.
We will, for instance, engage with young people next week at the European Youth Week that will start, kicking off on April 24. We will soon convene the EU Youth Stakeholders Group in June. There will be ongoing EU Youth Dialogue meetings,
Ingrid Bellander Todino
The process there is continuing. And soon, we will launch the public consultation for the next EU youth strategy. And also, we are running a Eurobarometer survey on youth and democracy. So these are just examples on the work that we are now setting forward to work to follow up on the current youth strategy. Thank you very much for your support and engagement.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. Is Mr. Gorkhin speaking in the end on behalf? No. Okay.
Then I will say thanks to the shadow rapporteurs, to all speakers, also to Mr. Gorkhin speaking on behalf of the rapporteur. The vote on the final opinion is scheduled for June. And now we have reached the end of the agenda. There is no other business, and the date of the next meetings is April 27 in Strasbourg and May in Brussels to be confirmed.
Thank you.
Finish. Your emails. You have to send that.
Dear.
Speaker 55
Colleagues, good to see you. I mean, I asked, didn't you have a bigger room for it? But we make, we are very sustainable. We make use of the book Droom. And in this way, we can manage.
So thanks a lot to everyone joining us here. To this shadow meeting. Because we want to discuss step by step, as always, where we stand here and on the move forward. I have to say I'm getting a bit
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.