Committee on Employment and Social Affairs Ordinary meeting
Legende
Markierungen im Transkript
- Text Aktuell abgespielter Satz
- Text Suchergebnis
- Text Redebeitrag, auf den der geöffnete Link verweist
Klicken Sie auf einen Satz, um das Video ab dieser Stelle abzuspielen. Markieren Sie Text, um ihn mit Redner, Zeitstempel und Link zu zitieren.
Weitere Optionen
Versatz
Versatz des Transkripts
Exportieren
Aufzeichnung
Versionen dieses Videos
- Aufzeichnung Endgültige Version · 22. Juni 2026Angezeigt
- Live aufgezeichnet Live übertragen am 22. Juni 2026
Die Transkripte können sich von Version zu Version leicht unterscheiden.
EMPL European Parliament
Ihren Sitzungen folgenRosa Estaràs Ferragut
Sí, muchas gracias. Quería intervenir también para dar las gracias a Li, a la presidenta, de verdad, de verdad, de verdad, magnífica presidencia, un magnífico trabajo a toda la organización, tanto a mi compañera Giusy Princi como a Katrin del grupo de los Verdes y también Alex del grupo socialista y al secretariado. La verdad es que volvimos cargados de energía. Todos pudimos participar de manera muy activa y 20 años que vamos a cumplir en diciembre de la Convención de Naciones Unidas para las personas con discapacidad pudimos ver cómo las personas con discapacidad ya no son simplemente beneficiarios de asistencia, sino que son titulares de derechos humanos. Y pudimos hablar de educación inclusiva, de la transición del empleo, de los retos que tenemos para que esta transición sea adecuada, para que el empleo inclusive tenga todos los apoyos, para que el tema de cuidados no solamente tenga cara de mujer, para que podamos hacer cuidados siempre con la conciliación.
Pudimos ver avances en accesibilidad, pero también concluimos todos que después de los 20 años hacen falta, ya tenemos las leyes, ya tenemos los reglamentos, tenemos muchísimas temas legales, pero hemos de pasar a la acción. Y entonces pudimos venir cargados de ideas para poder pasar a la acción y ver que sin accesibilidad no hay participación y necesitamos no perdernos el talento de tantos millones de ciudadanos europeos que pueden participar de manera muy activa. Y especialmente Li, muchas gracias porque pusiste tantas ganas, tanta energía que a todos nos contagiaste este espíritu positivo y fuiste ministra de educación e iluminaste muchos de los trabajos que hicimos. Muchas gracias.
Li Andersson
Thank you so much and also I want to thank all my fantastic colleagues for this delegation and as was mentioned I really think the European Parliament had a strong presence, very active participation. I think we all also came back with a stronger kind of understanding of how important this work is that we also do in the Employment and Social Affairs Committee for strengthening disability rights in Europe because it also has an impact outside of the European Union. So thank you all. We then go to the next point on the agenda and the next two items will be two opinions to legislative files on supplementary pensions with the ECON committee in lead. One is on occupational pensions and one on the pan-European pension product.
And as you know pension systems in the EU fall under the responsibility of member states. So the EU only has a role to play on issues that are related to cross-border mobility, consumer protection and the internal market. In May 2025 the May 2025 European Court of Auditors special report on developing supplementary pensions in the EU found that EU action is not effective in strengthening occupational pensions and establishing a pan-European personal pension product.
At the same time, because of demographic and fiscal challenges, supplementary pensions are becoming increasingly important to ensure adequate retirement income for EU citizens. So the proposal for amending the 2016 directive on strengthening the framework of occupational retirement provision is aiming to address that challenge. It is revising minimum requirements for the operation of institutions for occupational retirement provisions set by the EU. In this context, I would like to invite the rapporteur to present her draft opinion, and I was informed that in the absence of the rapporteur, Mrs. Estelle Ceulemans, Mrs. Marianne Vind will take the floor for five minutes. So please, Mrs. Vind, the floor is yours.
Marianne Vind
Thank you, Chair, and as you said, I will speak on behalf of Estelle. So, dear President, dear colleagues, first of all, I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs and the teams involved for the constructive negotiations we have conducted on the report concerning the second pension pillar. The European Commission presented this reform as a part of its ambition to strengthen the savings and investment union and to mobilize more private savings in support of the European economy. However, when it comes to pension, we are not only talking about investment of financial markets. Above all, we are talking about social rights and economic security for workers and pensioners.
This text goes to the heart of our European social model: retirement income security, solidarity among workers, and the citizens' trust in their pension systems. From the Employment Committee's perspective, our first priority must be clear. The development of supplementary pensions must under no circumstances come at the expense of public pension schemes. Public pensions remain the main safeguard against old-age poverty and the principal instrument for reducing inequalities. The two pillars must be complementary, not competing.
Our second priority is to preserve a central role on the social partners. In many Member States, occupational pension institutions are the results of social dialogue and collective bargaining. This bipartite governance is one of the strengths of our European model. Any reform must therefore strengthen, not weaken, the participation of trade unions and employers' organizations in the design, management, and development of occupational pension schemes. Third, we must fully respect the diversity of national systems.
Pension models have evolved through the social history of each Member State. Excessive harmonization could undermine systems that are functioning effectively. We need a European framework that guarantees transparency and the protection of members while remaining sufficiently flexible to take account of national realities and existing collective agreements. Our fourth priority is to strengthen the protection of members. This requires greater transparency, better comparability of performance, and clear, understandable information for workers.
However, these objectives must not result in disproportionate administrative burdens for pension funds or constraints that could reduce returns to the detriment of future retirees.
Our fifth priority is to maintain a prudent balance between returns and security. Occupational pension institutions invest for the long term and contribute to financing the European economy. Yet, the pursuit of high returns must never compromise pension security. The prudent person principle must remain at the core of the regulatory framework in order to protect workers' contributions and accrued rights. We must fully integrate the gender dimension in this reform.
Pension gaps between women and men remain particularly high in supplementary systems. Member States should be encouraged, in consultation with the social partners, to implement concrete measures to reduce these inequalities and ensure fairer access to pension rights. Our ambition should be simple: to build strong, transparent, and efficient occupational pension systems while preserving social dialogue, national competence, and the protection of workers. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you so much for this intervention, and then I give the floor to the shadow rapporteurs for two minutes each, starting with Mrs. Sommen.
Liesbet Sommen
Thank you, good afternoon everyone, dear Chair, dear colleagues. Occupational pensions play an important role in strengthening retirement adequacy across Europe. But when discussing the future of the IORP framework, we must never forget that pension funds are not ordinary financial institutions. Their primary purpose is to provide workers with secure and adequate pensions. And from an EMPL perspective, the social dimensions of pensions must remain at the center of our approach.
Too often, discussions focus mainly on financial performance and market integration, while insufficient attention is being paid to adequacy, coverage, and workers' interests. And we must also fully respect Member States' competences here, including the organization of pension systems, labor law, and taxation. There is no one-size-fits-all model for pensions in Europe. And at the same time, citizens deserve greater transparency. Workers need clear and understandable information about the costs, the fees, and the expected outcomes of occupational pension schemes.
And we should also strengthen pension tracking systems so that citizens can obtain a comprehensive overview of their future retirement income, including both first and second pillar pension entitlements. Social dialogue remains essential. Social partners have been instrumental in building and managing occupational pension schemes across Europe, and collective bargaining continues to be one of the most effective tools for ensuring broad and fair pension coverage. Their role must be strengthened, not weakened. And finally, we need a stronger European framework for monitoring pension developments.
This is why I support the creation of a European Pension Forum, bringing together Member States, social partners, civil society, and other stakeholders to ensure that both the social and financial dimensions of pensions are properly being taken into account.
Our objective should be clear: pension policy must serve workers and pensioners first, not only financial markets. Thanks.
Mélanie Disdier
Merci Madame la Présidente, chers collègues. La retraite, c'est la récompense attendue par beaucoup d'Européens après une vie de labeur souvent bien remplie et éreintante. Il convient donc d'accorder à ce sujet toute l'attention qu'il mérite. Sur l'objectif, tout le monde est d'accord. Cependant, un point est régulièrement soulevé, le respect des prérogatives des États membres.
La politique sociale diffère largement d'un État membre à un autre et nous nous devons de respecter leurs choix souverains. Ce texte n'a qu'un seul objectif, permettre le développement de solutions alternatives pour financer des pensions de retraite sans imposer quoi que ce soit à ceux qui ne le souhaitent pas. Pour permettre leur développement, il est essentiel de préserver leur attractivité. Sur cet aspect, je regrette que l'idéologie et la politique politicienne prennent le pas sur le bon sens. D'abord sur la flexibilité concernant la gestion des fonds.
En imposant des seuils de participation excessifs pour modifier les stratégies d'investissement, la gauche paralyse la gestion des fonds et met en péril l'épargne des salariés. C'est une posture purement dogmatique. Les mêmes qui veulent saborder ces modèles de retraite par sectarisme politique se plairont à dénoncer leur inefficacité. Pourtant abonnés aux revendications de justice sociale et fiscale, ces politiciens refusent d'admettre qu'un régime par capitalisation repose essentiellement sur le revenu du capital, prouvant que l'idéologie leur importe plus que le bien-être des travailleurs. La gauche prouve encore une fois qu'elle ne sait pas capitaliser pour l'avenir.
Elle ne sait que taxer ceux qui prennent la peine d'investir. De notre côté, nous soutiendrons le développement de ces alternatives et la liberté pour les travailleurs de choisir leur modèle d'épargne pour leur retraite. Nous sommes ceux qui faisons confiance au bon sens des gens face à ceux qui défendent une technocratie socialiste et paternaliste.
Li Andersson
And I do not have the shadow from the ECR present, which means I will give the floor next to Mrs. Thon from Renew.
Jana Toom
Thank you very much, Chair, colleagues. When it comes to occupational pensions, we have a mixed picture across Europe. Despite the latest revision in 2016, there are still some Member States where occupational pensions have not caught on. And we see that more and more challenges are piling up for workers that will retire in the future. That is why it is necessary to look at ways to ensure that we have the best framework in place for occupational pensions to be provided to workers all across Europe.
But we need to be careful when we make changes to this framework. Let us not forget that occupational pensions are provided to workers as a social benefit. This is a part of the overall compensation provided to workers and therefore has a very strong social purpose. While we want to make it easier for the pension plans to achieve stronger economic results, we also want to keep in place a framework with strong guardrails. That is why I want to emphasize that the most important criterion for the occupational pensions plan is the long-term interest of the members and the stability of retirement income.
I also want to talk about the gender pension gap. In my home country, we have quite a balanced situation for the moment, but it is looking worse and worse for each coming generation.
Across Europe, we see that the pension gap in private pensions can reach up even to 40%. This is an issue that we have to absolutely addressed and we have to also set in this directive that member states and social partners look into what can be done within occupational pension system to improve retirement income for women. I think there is a lot of common ground on this topic amongst us and I'm confident that we will be able to send a strong message from EMPL that strengthening occupational pensions is welcome as long as we keep the strong social purpose of this system. Thank you.
Gordan Bosanac
Thank you. I would like to thank the rapporteur and her team for good progress made in negotiations of the EMPL opinion. While us as Greens did not table amendment in EMPL on this file, we do support all measures that protect workers' pensions rights and ensure adequate retirement income and preserve well-functioning national pension system, while keeping strong first pillar public pension at the center of the pension provision. In particular, we are pleased to see stronger language on reducing gender pension gap and on focusing on risk related to ESG criteria in the monitoring the implementation of risks plans by IORPs. We must stress that occupational pensions should complement, not replace statutory pensions.
Evidence suggests that expanding supplementary pension schemes can increase pressure to reduce public pensions provision and this has to be clearly stated in the text. Furthermore, pension governance must prioritize people's long-term security over often short-term financial interest, with a strong role for social partners in the management and oversight of pension schemes. And finally, for us, it is important that workers receive clear, accessible and comparable information on their pension entitlements. Let us not forget, occupational pensions remain investment-based products that expose savers to market risk, which disproportionately affect low and middle-income workers while often benefiting wealthier individuals. Thank you.
Leila Chaibi
Merci. Merci beaucoup à Madame Estelle Ceulemans pour sa proposition de rapport. Quand j'entends toutes les interventions des groupes, j'ai l'impression, j'ai le sentiment qu'il y a un quasi-consensus sur le fait que cette proposition de la Commission européenne, elle risque, il y a un risque qu'il faut éviter de sacrifier les systèmes de retraite publique. Je dis quasi-consensus parce qu'on a entendu que le seul groupe qui s'opposait, le seul groupe qui était pour accélérer au contraire les systèmes de capitalisation, c'était le groupe des Patriotes par la voix du Rassemblement National. Petite parenthèse, on a souvent des débats sur est-ce que le Rassemblement National maintenant défend des propositions en faveur des travailleurs plutôt qu'en faveur du capital.
Je crois que l'intervention de la collègue du Rassemblement National éclaire là-dessus, clairement le Rassemblement National, le groupe des Patriotes ne se situe pas du côté des travailleurs. Je referme la parenthèse. Donc alors nous, de notre côté, nous sommes opposés à la proposition de la Commission sur ce texte et sur le deuxième qui concerne les retraites car il y a le gros risque selon nous de la libéralisation du secteur des retraites. Les institutions de retraite professionnelle sont vues comme un potentiel nouveau marché à investir uniquement et non pas comme un droit social. Maintenant cela dit, donc nous avons déposé des amendements de suppression, de rejet.
Maintenant nous avons aussi une approche damage control, une approche constructive dans le cas où la proposition de la Commission européenne existe toujours malgré et dans le cas où nos amendements de suppression ne sont pas votés majoritairement. Bon, nous sommes lucides sur les rapports de force ici. Et dans ce cas-là, qu'est-ce qu'on demande ? On demande, et je crois que ça a été dit par les différents collègues du S&D, du PPE, des Verts et de Renew, plus de transparence pour les travailleurs et pour plus de place aux négociations collectives. On demande aussi un cadre axé sur la prudence qui n'apporte pas de risque financier pour les épargnants et nous rappelons avec fermeté que toute réforme, encore une fois, ne doit en aucun cas impacter les régimes de retraite publique par répartition.
Voilà les positions que nous allons porter. Nous sommes un peu déçus qu'il n'y ait pas de réunion de shadow, qu'il n'y ait uniquement des réunions techniques pour parler de ces problèmes qui sont des problèmes éminemment politiques. Merci encore à la rapporteure et à son équipe et à toutes les équipes pour avoir pris en compte d'ores et déjà un certain nombre de nos positions. Et nous espérons que la commission ECON saura prendre en compte notre avis et ne mettra pas de côté, elle, les travailleurs. Merci.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And if there are other colleagues who want to take the floor now, please indicate that. And Mrs. Saharia is the first.
Maria Zacharia
Ευχαριστώ, κυρία Πρόεδρε. Η πρόταση αυτή δεν αφορά απλώς τη διαφάνεια ή την εποπτεία των επαγγελματικών συνταξιοδοτικών ταμείων. Αφορά τη στρατηγική κατεύθυνση που επιλέγει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση για το μέλλον της κοινωνικής ασφάλισης. Το ίδιο το κείμενο αναφέρει ως στόχο την ενίσχυση της χρηματοδότησης της ευρωπαϊκής οικονομίας μέσω συνταξιοδοτικών αποταμιεύσεων. Δηλαδή περισσότερες αποταμιεύσεις των εργαζομένων να κατευθυνθούν προς τις κεφαλαιαγορές.
Δεν είναι τυχαίο ότι σήμερα η Επιτροπή προωθεί την Ένωση Αποταμιεύσεων και Επενδύσεων, την οποία είχαμε στην Ολομέλεια πέρυσι, ακριβώς πριν ένα χρόνο, συζητήσει, με σκοπό τη διοχέτευση τρισεκατομμυρίων ευρώ ιδιωτικών αποταμιεύσεων στις στρατηγικές προτεραιότητες της Ένωσης. Όμως οι συντάξεις των εργαζομένων δεν είναι επενδυτικό προϊόν. Είναι κοινωνικό δικαίωμα. Η αξιοπρεπής σύνταξη πρέπει να στηρίζεται πρωτίστως σε ισχυρά δημόσια συστήματα κοινωνικής ασφάλισης, στην αλληλεγγύη των γενεών και στην αναδιανομή. Οπότε, όπως καταλαβαίνετε, συνάδελφοι, είμαι ενάντια σε αυτήν την αλλαγή.
Ευχαριστώ πολύ.
Thank you. And next is Mr. Oliveira from the Left.
João Oliveira
Obrigado, Presidente. A designada União das Poupanças e dos Investimentos é uma iniciativa de assalto aos recursos dos trabalhadores que estão entregues aos sistemas de pensões e de para servir de base à financeirização da economia. Esta discussão que estamos a fazer de alterações a estas diretivas confirma precisamente que o objetivo é utilizar o dinheiro dos trabalhadores que está entregue aos fundos de pensões para servir de base a aventuras financeiras especulativas a partir da promoção de atividades e produtos financeiros de alto risco e com a redução das regras prudenciais no funcionamento do sistema financeiro. Estas alterações contêm alguns elementos particularmente graves, nomeadamente a obrigação que é determinada aos Estados-Membros de criarem condições para que os fundos de pensões financiem obrigatoriamente soluções e produtos de capital de risco. O que isto significa é a imposição aos trabalhadores no espaço da União Europeia do mesmo risco que milhões de trabalhadores, particularmente nos Estados Unidos, enfrentaram com a falência dos sistemas de pensões em que tinham depositado uma vida inteira de trabalho.
Esta não é a solução que sirva aos trabalhadores.
Thank you very much. And I have no further requests for the floor, so I will then give the floor to the Commission representative, Mr. Tilman Lueder. So please, the floor is yours for the next three minutes.
Tilman Lueder
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much for having us here. Lots of different opinions. First of all, maybe to address this issue, this is not a proposal to channel workers' hard-earned income into some European pet projects and into European priority. This is to actually make the social partners stronger, give them co-decision and have a better investment portfolio. So I think it's a caricature to say that we are taking away the money and channeling it into a European priority projects.
This is not the case. We do agree that collective agreements, the bottom-up approach is the best way, is the best form of auto-involvement that we can have. We would have been a bit happier if you would be slightly more favorable to cross-border consolidation. After all, we have many countries who have a very, very low population base and I think there should be cross-border consolidation to get better investment returns in bigger funds. So that one we would have liked to see a slightly more favorable attitude to cross-border consolidation.
It's not bad for a lot of countries in the European Union. We are fully in agreement that it's the members, it's the representatives who should be deciding on the investment strategy. I think stable income is a good, is a good laudable objective, but it should also be higher income. So equity investment is not per se bad. Equity investment is not per se incompatible with getting high and stable incomes.
We should look at the successful models in Europe. The successful models in Europe are actually based on the social partnership model. You look at the certain member states, I can't name them, but you know exactly whom I'm referring. They have strong social partnership models. They have strong bottom-up governance and they have diversified portfolios.
They are not just into debt. They are also in equity. And it is totally compatible with the social partnership model and with a strong co-decision model to have a diversified portfolio. And I think that is the balance which we're trying to strike. We should also give the membership the sustainability preference, choice on sustainability preference.
But I don't think, and that is the main point, that a more capital-based, more capital market-based system of investing pensions is totally and fundamentally incompatible with the social partnership models. They have very successful models which precisely combine a strong equity exposure, a strong funded pension system with a strong voice for the social partners. And the final word is that this proposal is not about diminishing the role of the public, the first pillar pensions. It is called the supplementary pensions. The truth is in the name.
It accepts the reality that you need additional income streams to safeguard a high level of pension income. And therefore, we don't accept that this is somehow eroding or cannibalizing or eating into the public sector pensions. Thank you very much.
Li Andersson
Thank you. And then the floor back to Mrs. Wind representing the rapporteur.
Marianne Vind
Thank you. We have taken notes and will report back to the rapporteur. Thank you.
Li Andersson
All right. Thank you very much, colleagues, for these interventions. We then move on to the next point, still on pensions, but another file from another point of view. So the next item is the opinion to the proposal of amending the 2019 regulation on the pan-European personal pension product, an element of the savings and investment union strategy launched in March 2025. In this case, it is about a voluntary personal pension scheme that can complement existing public and occupational pension schemes as well as national private pension schemes.
And a PEPP may also receive employer contributions where this has been agreed. Picking up on the earlier introductions on the previous item, the earlier mentioned 2025 ECA report found that the PEPP was not a viable retirement saving options for EU citizens compared to other products. And therefore, they recommended to assess the reasons for the lack of its uptake and take appropriate follow-up action. And the current Commission proposal aims to do that. So we will start with the rapporteur, Mrs. Liesbeth Sommen, to present her opinion for the next five minutes.
Liesbet Sommen
Thank you, once again, good afternoon everyone. When we discuss the future of PEPP, we must start from a simple principle. Pensions exist first and foremost to guarantee social dignity in retirement age, not to create new business opportunities for the financial sector. Yes, I fully support the idea outlined in the Draghi report to better mobilize European savings for European investments. Europe needs these investments to strengthen its economy, to support innovation, and let's think for instance about AI.
But pension savings are not just another source of capital. They represent the capital of millions of workers. And that is why we need to be extremely careful. Pension money cannot become simple fuel for speculation on financial markets. Citizens who save for their retirement should not bear excessive risks in the name of competitiveness or market development.
Strong safeguards, transparency, and guarantees must therefore be at the heart of any revision of the PEPP framework. We must also ask ourselves a fundamental question: why should these savings be invested? If we want citizens to trust these products, investments must be guided by clear ethical principles and contribute to sustainable social and economic development. At the same time, I believe the Commission proposal approaches this issue too much through a financial lens. Too little attention has been paid to the social dimension of the pensions, to adequacy, coverage, inequalities, and the realities faced by workers throughout their careers.
Pensions are not a financial product, they are a core pillar of our social model. And access to supplementary pensions must therefore not become a privilege for those with stable and well-paid careers. Workers in precarious employment, platform workers, part-time workers, and those with fragmented careers must not be left behind. We cannot allow private pension products to weaken the solidarity-based systems. We should also respect Member States' competences.
Taxation remains a national competence, and any future framework must fully respect the diversity of pension systems across Europe. And finally, this debate demonstrates why Europe needs a European pension forum, as I already described in my previous intervention. It would bring all stakeholders together to discuss what is good about pensions in Europe and where we can have mutual learning. Let me conclude with one final point. Social dialogue and collective bargaining remain indispensable, also here in this file, for the development of fair and adequate pension systems.
That is the approach that we should follow when we want a PEPP framework that is fair, trustworthy, and truly serves European citizens. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much, and then the shadow rapporteurs, starting with Mrs. Vind from S&D.
Marianne Vind
Thank you, Chair, I will continue in Danish. Først og fremmest vil jeg meget gerne takke ordføreren for det gode arbejde med EMPLs opinion.
Jeg ser frem til nogle meget konstruktive forhandlinger. Tanken bag PEPP er p% mange m%der rigtig god. I dag har mange europ&ere store opsparinger st%ende p% deres bankkonti med lavt afkast. Det er ikke ideelt, hverken for borgerne eller for den europ&iske $konomi. Derfor giver det god mening at se p% bedre muligheder for langsigtet opsparing.
Men hvis PEPPen skal fungere i praksis, skal den v&re enkel og forst%elig. Borgerne skal vide, at produktet findes, og de skal kunne se v&rdien i det. Og som Lisbeth n&vnte, skal vi f$rst og fremmest tage opsparerne i mente. Samtidig skal det ogs% v&re muligt og attraktivt at tilbyde produktet. Ellers n%r det ikke ud til dem, det er tilt&nkt.
PEPPen kan have en merv&rdi for borgere, som ikke allerede er d&kket af de nationale pensionssystemer. Det kan for eksempel v&re selvst&ndige, det kan v&re personer i mere usikre ans&ttelser eller borgere, der arbejder p% tv&rs af gr&nser. Vi ved jo, at borgere, der arbejder p% tv&rs af gr&nser, ofte er lidt mere s%rbare p% arbejdsmarkedet og i stor risiko for ikke at f% en pensionsopsparing. Men for mig er det ogs% helt afg$rende, at PEPP ikke m% sv&kke de velfungerende nationale pensionssystemer. Den b$r v&re et supplement, d)r hvor den giver v&rdi, ikke en erstatning for kollektive ordninger og arbejdsmarkedspensioner.
Et andet vigtigt sp$rgsm%l er skat. Her vil jeg gerne understrege meget klart, at skat er national kompetence. Vi kan opfordre medlemsstaterne til at overveje en passende skattebehandling, men vi skal respektere, at der er nationale forskelle i pensionssystemer. Alt det her vil v&re vores udgangspunkt i forhandlingerne. Jeg ser frem til de videre forhandlinger.
Tak for ordet.
Li Andersson
Taksamike. And from the Patriots, no speaker. From ECR, also Mrs. Vivaldina apologized for not being able to be present. From Renew, no. Yes, and then we have Mr. Boeselager from the Greens.
Gordan Bosanac
Thank you very much. First, I would like to thank the rapporteur for collecting the amendments as we wait for the first batch of compromises. And on that way, I would like to make three points. Firstly, data indicates that supplementary pension products like PEPP are mostly used by higher income households. Therefore, we still believe that public pension schemes remain and must be enhanced at the cornerstone of the pension system for all workers, especially middle and lower income earners.
Another important issue is that such pension products are linked to high fees and costs charged by financial intermediaries and low returns generated for savers. Within this in mind, we support proposal to maintain a fee cap so that the total cost of basic PEPP do not exceed 1% of the accumulated capital per year. And finally, by its very nature, PEPP is a complex investment product and as such is not easily understood by workers with lower level of financial literacy. We need to ensure that its features and costs are presented in a clear and simple but also comprehensible manner and that safeguards exist to protect the most vulnerable consumers from undue risk to receiving stable and reliable retirement income.
Leila Chaibi
Oui merci. Merci beaucoup à la rapporteure Lisbeth Sommen pour son projet d'avis qui apporte des propositions d'amélioration importantes par rapport à la proposition de la Commission européenne. Proposition de la Commission européenne qui était je le pense problématique et est problématique pour l'avenir de nos retraites. Et je soutiens une grande partie une très grande partie des choses qui ont été dites en introduction par Madame Sommen. Pour nous la proposition de la Commission européenne elle remet en question le principe le système de retraite nationale publique et le PEPP est un moyen de faire de la retraite un nouveau marché.
Comme l'a dit Madame Sommen en introduction d'en faire un produit financier. L'approche qui est adoptée est une approche de mon point de vue biaisée qui vise avant tout à se servir de l'épargne des citoyens des travailleurs pour financer des secteurs en plus possiblement à haut risque. Il y a la nature de ce qu'on va financer avec l'épargne des travailleurs et donc à la fin tout ça pour privatiser les retraites. Le retraite qui je le rappelle 83 % des Européens n'ont qu'une retraite du premier pilier. 83 % des Européens ont seulement la retraite nationale le système public de retraite du premier du premier pilier la retraite publique.
Alors nous comme c'est le cas pour l'autre texte qui concerne les retraites étant donné que nous sommes opposés à ce qui est proposé par la Commission européenne on propose un amendement de rejet. Notre position est claire. Mais pour autant on a également une approche damage control une approche constructive et là aussi nous souhaitons qu'il y ait le plus de transparence possible pour les épargnants. Mettre l'accent sur le cadre axé sur la règle de la personne prudente la prudent person rule et non une réduction des normes prudentielles qui donnerait trop de pouvoir aux banques et aux assurances. On souhaite pas que cette réforme crée plus de risque financier pour les épargnants et nous rappelons avec fermeté que toute modification ne doit en aucun cas impacter les régimes de retraite publique par répartition.
Les systèmes complémentaires comme cela a été dit par plusieurs collègues notamment par la collègue du S&D ils favorisent celles et ceux qui ont déjà de l'épargne. Et donc quand on n'a pas d'épargne et bien on peut pas participer on n'a pas droit à la retraite et comme l'a dit Madame Sommen en introduction décidément je la cite beaucoup c'est rare que la gauche cite autant le PPE mais donc l'accès à la retraite ne doit pas devenir un privilège. Pas d'autre mot pour le dire aussi bien que vous l'avez vous l'avez dit. Et donc voilà cela risquerait d'augmenter les inégalités. Les négociations elles commencent seulement cette semaine.
Nous espérons que Madame la rapporteure et son équipe pourront prendre en compte certaines de nos propositions et à la fin que la commission ECON prendra en compte notre avis pour ne pas mettre de côté les travailleurs.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And now if other colleagues wish to take the floor please indicate that starting with Mrs. Sarria.
Maria Zacharia
Θα σας πω μια ιστορία όχι φανταστική ιστορία. Τα γεγονότα έγραψαν ιστορία πραγματικά. Στην Ελλάδα του 2012 οι εργαζόμενοι στα ασφαλιστικά μας ταμεία υποστήκαμε μεγάλο κούρεμα με το PSI.
Με το κούρεμα δηλαδή του ελληνικού χρέους γιατί τα ασφαλιστικά ταμεία κατείχαν ελληνικά κρατικά ομόλογα και έτσι ήταν δισεκατομμύρια, 8 έως 13 δισεκατομμύρια η απώλεια αυτών των ασφαλιστικών ταμείων. Και μια δεύτερη ιστορία έτσι επειδή κάποιοι είπαν ότι δαιμονοποιούμε τις επενδύσεις των ασφαλιστικών ταμείων. Πιο πριν από την κρίση, 2007, δομημένα ομόλογα ήταν ένα συγκεκριμένο ομόλογο το οποίο μέσω της JP Morgan, μεσάζοντων και λοιπά, χάθηκαν και εκεί κάποια εκατομμύρια. Αν λοιπόν θεωρείτε ότι αυτές οι επενδύσεις είναι καλές, βάλτε τα δικά σας λεφτά. Τα λεφτά των εργαζομένων αφήστε τα ήσυχα.
Ευχαριστώ πολύ.
João Oliveira
Obrigado, Presidente. A promoção de sistemas complementares de pensão, fragiliza, particularmente a partir de produtos financeiros de fundos privados de pensões, fragiliza os sistemas públicos e universais de segurança social que tratam de forma mais igualitária e mais justa os trabalhadores e os pensionistas. Essa fragilização naturalmente acontece porque o desvio de recursos financeiros para os fundos de pensões privados significa o desvio de contribuições que dão a sustentabilidade aos sistemas públicos e universais de segurança social, incluindo sistemas públicos e universais de pensões. E por isso a promoção destes sistemas complementares é sempre prejudicial e negativa para os trabalhadores com o reverso da moeda que é o favorecimento do negócio dos fundos de pensões privados. Quer sublinhar aqui o conjunto de elementos que constam do relatório especial número 14 do Tribunal de Contas Europeu do final de 2025 que a Comissão pura e simplesmente desconsiderou, particularmente com o sublinhado que é feito nesse relatório de que, em primeiro lugar, estes fundos de pensões, estes sistemas complementares, incluindo o produto de pensão pan-europeu, só funciona com uma alta subsidiação pública, seja por via de incentivos fiscais, seja por outras formas, e naturalmente só pode subsistir se permitir for permitida a cobrança de custos mais elevados aos seus subscritores.
Há várias notas daquele relatório do Tribunal de Contas Europeu que desaconselham completamente o percurso que a Comissão Europeia está a propor com estas alterações ao produto europeu, ao produto de pensão pan-europeu e portanto estas alterações que estão a ser propostas são completamente são absolutamente negativas e são de rejeitar como de resto já foi dito pela própria relatora.
Li Andersson
Thank you and I have no further requests for the floor so I will again give the floor back to the representatives from the European Commission, Mr. Tilman Lueder.
Tilman Lueder
Yes, thank you very much. So I'll also have a story which is the story of the PEPP compared to other private pensions. And you're absolutely right, there are a lot of private pension products out there which have very low returns and very high costs. But the PEPP is exactly not one of them. The PEPP actually outperforms all of the existing products that we've seen.
It has the highest return at the lowest cost. So it has the best cost-benefit ratio. And why is that the case? Because it follows a simple investment strategy which we call the life-cycle strategy where the portfolio is adapted according to your age. You start taking the risk and as you retire, the risk is taken out of the portfolio and you end with a relatively risk-free portfolio at retirement.
And that gives you the optimal combination between what you want, which is a high return but also stability. And that is what the PEPP has done and that is what the PEPP even in the past has proven. Now you regret that the fee cap is gone. We assume that the PEPP will not become more expensive in a competitive market with a life-cycle strategy, you will see even cheaper PEPPs on the market in the European Union. So the fee cap was not the one thing which keeps the PEPP cheap, it's the life-cycle strategy.
The life cycle strategy is a very simple product. It goes from equity and slowly de-risks to a more fixed income portfolio, very easy construction, intuitively understood by everything, totally aligned by the way with the prudent person principle. If an employer gives matching contributions to this product, this product will get scale and this product will become big and this product will perform even better. This product is not, again I have to say it just like in the occupational context, this product is not a substitute for the public pension. This product is a complement.
We also don't agree that this is a difficult product.
There is a reality that a public pension is not fully funded, it's dependent on the budget, it's dependent on budgetary situation. We don't want investors, future pensioners to suffer the vagaries of budgetary stability. So we need to have funded products, whether they're occupational, whether they are the PEPP, it doesn't matter that much. Both of them can be subsidized by employer contributions and both of them have stability inbuilt because they are actually funded. They are not dependent on the balance sheet of the employer and they're not dependent on the balance sheet of the state.
And that is what actually gives you stability. Thank you very much.
Li Andersson
And I will now give the floor back to the rapporteur, Mrs. Sommen, for the concluding remarks.
Thank you all colleagues for your constructive approach and for the fact that we agree with each other here very clearly. Also thank you to the Commission for their introductory remark and their responses. We will of course look into the file very deeply, engage in negotiations like we've already done a little bit amongst ourselves and we will continue the work. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much and I'm sure the debates and discussions will continue in the meetings. And we now move on to the next item on our agenda, which is the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2027. As this budget covers the final year of the current multiannual financial framework, it comes at a time when many Europeans continue to face significant social and economic challenges. Rising living costs, housing affordability, demographic change, labour and skill shortages, as well as persistent poverty and social exclusion continue to put pressure on citizens across the European Union. And against this backdrop, it is essential that the EU budget provides adequate support for employment and social policies, contributes to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights and helps ensure that no one is left behind in the green and digital transitions.
I will now give the floor to Mrs. Liesbet Sommen, replacing our standing rapporteur for the annual budgetary procedure, to present the draft opinion. Mrs. Sommen, you have the floor for the next five minutes.
Liesbet Sommen
Yes, thank you colleagues and I'm sorry to be talking so much this afternoon. I hope you can forgive me for this. But unfortunately so my colleague Romana Tomc can't be with us today and I will read out her points on the budget 2027 report. As a final budget of the current MFF, 2027 represents a critical bridge. It is our final opportunity to ensure that our long-term social goals are met and that we effectively prepare the Union for the next financial cycle.
Our continent continues to face deep persistent socio-economic challenges. We are confronting heavy structural barriers to growth, to competitiveness, widening demographic gaps, child and youth poverty and the growing crisis in housing affordability. To address this, we must ensure that the 2027 budget provides robust targeted resources for EU employment and social policies. We cannot afford empty political promises, we need budgetary realism backed by concrete financial support. And to achieve true social and territorial cohesion, we must fully protect the core financial instruments of our Union.
Specifically, the European Social Fund Plus must remain properly funded to foster economic resilience. However, funding on paper means nothing if it does not reach citizens on the ground and therefore our opinion sends a clear firm message to the Member States. We must urgently accelerate the uptake of EU funds and fully utilize every single available euro remaining under the current MFF. Administrative bottlenecks must be removed so that local communities, families and businesses feel the direct impact of EU solidarity before this cycle concludes. On the most glaring gaps in our current policy frameworks, one of the most glaring gaps in our current policy frameworks is the lack of adequate responses to demographic challenges.
Europe is rapidly aging due to declining fertility rates and extended life expectancies. This is no longer a future threat, it is our current reality. The 2027 budget must place a strong emphasis on funding high-quality accessible and affordable care and support services. Furthermore, we must introduce highly targeted actionable measures to combat youth unemployment, child poverty, social exclusion, shielding our families and most vulnerable groups. And finally, a competitive Union relies entirely on a skilled and prepared workforce.
If we want to withstand external shocks, we must invest heavily in vocational training, high-quality traineeships and lifelong learning. Skills are the ultimate engine of European competitiveness. Thank you very much and Romana looks forward to your amendments and a constructive negotiation. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much and then to the shadow rapporteurs, Mrs. May from the S&D has apologized for not being able to be here today, so our next speaker is Mrs. Dauchy from the Patriots.
Marie Dauchy
Oui, merci. Un budget n'est pas une simple addition de chiffres. C'est un choix politique et le choix qui nous est présenté aujourd'hui est révélateur des priorités de Bruxelles. Pendant que nos agriculteurs croulent sous les normes, que nos industriels ferment leurs lignes de production et que nos entreprises affrontent une concurrence mondiale de plus en plus rude, l'Union européenne décide de réorienter toujours davantage de moyens financiers vers des dépenses extérieures. Nous ne contestons pas l'importance des enjeux géopolitiques mais nous refusons que nos agriculteurs, nos entreprises et nos territoires deviennent la variable d'ajustement budgétaire de l'Union européenne.
Car la réalité est là, partout en Europe nos filières agricoles sont fragilisées, nos exploitants subissent l'explosion des coûts de production, l'accumulation des contraintes administratives et une concurrence totalement déloyale. Dans le même temps, notre industrie perd ses parts de marché, voit ses coûts énergétiques exploser et fait face à des délocalisations qui détruisent nos emplois.
Les aides la cohsion ne doivent pas devenir un instrument de pression politique. Elles doivent servir dvelopper nos territoires, soutenir l'emploi et accompagner les investissements dont nos conomies ont tant besoin. Enfin, derrire chaque restructuration industrielle, il y a des salaris, des familles et parfois des territoires entiers qui se retrouvent fragiliss. C'est pourquoi nous demandons que le Fonds europen d'ajustement la mondialisation soit pleinement prserv, renforc et surtout simplifi. Lorsqu'une usine ferme ou qu'un plan social frappe un bassin d'emploi, l'aide europenne doit arriver rapidement.
Aujourd'hui, les procdures sont souvent si lourdes que les travailleurs attendent des mois avant d'en voir les effets. Notre priorit devrait tre simple : dfendre ceux qui produisent, ceux qui travaillent et ceux qui font vivre nos territoires. Les agriculteurs et les industriels europens n'ont pas besoin de nouvelles contraintes, ils ont besoin de soutien, de protection et de visibilit. Merci.
Jana Toom
Thank you very much, and thanks to the rapporteur and also to Elizabeth representing the whole EPP today. Let's make sure that the employment and social policies do not get overlooked in the next year's budget. The economic forecast for 2027 is looking very challenging, as we expect the fallout of high energy prices to push inflation up and continue to put pressure on the personal budgets of Europeans. Next year will also be the last year of this budget program, so it will be the last opportunity to use the money that was already allocated for so many good priorities. It is really important that all the money allocated for employment and social priorities is used exactly where it is needed the most.
Sufficient financial support will make a huge difference in helping people make it through this tough economic situation and preventing a decrease in the progress towards our social targets from the European Pillar of Social Rights. We need in particular to have dedicated support for families and vulnerable groups and an absolute priority on eradicating child poverty. We discuss every year the need for a European Child Guarantee, and this year will not be different. In some situations, the objectives might not be addressed in the next budget period, like in the case of Just Transition or the Globalization Adjustment. That makes it incredibly important to make the best use of the possibility to fund actions in these areas in the next year.
I am reading that in Estonia, in my home country, some companies are dropping out of projects financed by the Just Transition Fund because they are not able to complete them as agreed in the project design. We have to make sure that all the necessary support is given if beneficiaries need extra help to implement projects, and we must have backup solutions if funding needs to be reallocated to other projects. I have said that from the beginning, that we did not allocate sufficient resources to be able to deliver on our promise of a transition that leaves nobody behind. If we end up not even spending the little money we already allocated, we will leave so many workers fall through the cracks. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you. And I have no one from the Greens, so from the Left, Mr. Oliveira.
João Oliveira
Obrigado, Presidente. O oramento da Unio Europeia para 2027 ser o ltimo oramento do atual quadro financeiro plurianual e, portanto, com este oramento de 2027, teremos de fazer o balano do que foi o quadro financeiro plurianual que est em vigor, incluindo a sua reviso intercalar, e particularmente em relao aos objetivos a que este quadro financeiro deu resposta, particularmente de forma negativa com a acentuao da militarizao como uma das prioridades para a qual foram deslocadas verbas do oramento da Unio Europeia, a par do favorecimento das multinacionais com as polticas de liberalizao e de privatizao que continuaram a ser suportadas com o oramento da Unio Europeia.
Para 2027, alguns desses elementos estão já anunciados. No passado dia 10 de junho, o comissário Serafin fez o anúncio do que vai ser o orçamento para 2027 da União Europeia para 2027 e fez já, deu já nota de que 1150 milhões de euros do orçamento 2027 será a fatura de juros para pagar o empréstimo de 90 mil milhões feito à Ucrânia. 1150 milhões de euros só em juros para prolongar a guerra na Ucrânia. Ao mesmo tempo, nem uma palavra sobre a habitação, nem uma palavra sobre o investimento para melhorar as condições de vida, os salários, as condições de trabalho dos milhões de trabalhadores que enfrentam dificuldades com o aumento do custo de vida, que enfrentam dificuldades no acesso à proteção social, à saúde, à educação, a uma habitação condigna, nem uma palavra sobre a prioridade que deve ser dada ao desenvolvimento económico a partir do apoio a estratégias de desenvolvimento com o apoio aos setores produtivos e à produção nacional com associadas naturalmente ao emprego de qualidade. Nem uma palavra sobre investimento em redes de apoio social, seja à infância e à juventude, seja aos idosos, seja às pessoas com deficiência.
Essas devem ser as prioridades que a partir da Comissão de Emprego e dos Assuntos Sociais devemos sublinhar.
Li Andersson
And are there other colleagues who wish to take the floor at this point? If not, I would give the floor to the Commission representative, Loris Di Pietrantonio, for the next three minutes.
Loris Di Pietrantonio
Thank you very much and thank you for the good opinion of the Parliament on the budget 2027. Obviously, the budgetary exercise this year, as in many years of this current programming period, comes in a very difficult situation and in a complicated geopolitical context, with many headings of the budget obviously limited in terms of margins of flexibility. You name it, Heading 7, NextGenerationEU, the repayment of the interest rates on NextGenerationEU through the EURI cascade mechanism. Obviously, all these measures have implied a certain constraint on the budget and the way the budget was set out. Still, the budget proposal for 2027 creates a balance between the different challenges that the budget has to respond and especially is inspired at an increasing degree of performance orientation.
All new priorities have to be funded by redeployments. So this is the reality of the budget that we have in front of us. Nonetheless, we welcome very much the priorities that the opinion strikes a focus on, name it the socio-economic challenges, poverty, housing, labour market adequacy, the European Pillar of Social Rights, the accent on women, children, youth and families, as well as vulnerable groups. On the challenge of demography, this is also very much in the attention and focus of the European Commission and we do perform actions within the budget lines of prerogatives which is dedicated to this challenge.
We are also very satisfied for the budgetary coverage related to the EU agencies. This is in line with the requested subsidies and we also welcome the top-up for the two agencies Cedefop and ETF which is related to their building challenges. We also welcome the proposal for a better mix of human resources for the European Labour Authority. The European Social Fund Plus remains a cornerstone for the implementation of the budget and especially for addressing the priorities related to social, employment and education and skills. Being the cornerstone will make sure together with Member States that every euro is implemented and in fact the reality on the ground is exactly that.
It is being implemented, it is requiring a lot of financial implementation and consumption and looking towards the final year of the implementation this trend will remain strong and very pronounced. With that I thank you very much for the opinion on behalf of the European Commission.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much and I will now give the floor back to Mrs. Sommen representing Mrs. Tomc if you have any final remarks.
Well, I would like to thank everyone for its interventions. It is not my place when I'm replacing Romana to make the conclusions but I wish you all very much success with this file.
Li Andersson
So, thank you to all the speakers for this discussion and just to let you know the deadline for amendments to the opinion is the 24th of June while the deadline for budgetary amendments is 14th of July. And now colleagues, we originally scheduled for the homelessness count pilot project to be presented at 17:45 and since we are a bit ahead of schedule I would propose we continue at 17:30 so there is a short break but if there are members that are coming specifically to that part they still have time to arrive. So, 15 minute break and we continue at 17:30.
OK colleagues, now would be the time to call the members if they are coming because now we are continuing with the European Homelessness Count pilot project. As we have discussed in this committee several times previously, one of the main principles of good policy making is anchoring policy in data and in evidence. And the next item on our agenda is an excellent example of this approach. So to effectively be able to combat homelessness, we need evidence-driven policies, and the pilot project led by our next guest speaker, Professor Koen Hermans of Leuven University, provides exactly the kind of insights that we need. It demonstrates that even in a complex and sensitive issue such as homelessness, the right approach and methodology can generate meaningful evidence and real understanding of this problem, enabling us to address a pressing challenge faced by millions of Europeans.
Before giving the floor to our expert, I would first like to invite Mrs. Katarina Ivanković-Knežević, Director for Social Rights and Inclusion at DG Employment, who sponsored this project, to give introductory remarks and set the context for the next three minutes.
Katarina Ivanković-Knežević
Thank you, thank you very much, dear Ms. Anderson, honorable members of the Parliament, Professor Hermans, ladies and gentlemen. It's really a great pleasure to be here today and to make these opening remarks for the presentation of the final results of the pilot project European Homelessness Count. It is a pilot project that was, as you know very well, requested by the European Parliament, and we find it extremely important to report back on what has been achieved, what are the final results of this project. And as Li just pointed out, it's even more pleasure to present a successful project which really had shown what the challenges are, where the solutions might be, and what could be the next steps, which is equally important as just implementing the pilot project itself.
European Commission launched this study at the end of 2023, so already quite quite a number of years ago. It was clear that we had to make concrete advancements on the EU level on homelessness statistics. While we all understood that homelessness is a real and increasing challenge at EU level, we also agreed that we need a better data to inform the policy makers on the precise extent of the problem, on the people that are affected by it and on the causes leading to housing exclusion. Here we made a link between homelessness and housing exclusion. This is why the European Platform on Combating Homelessness has dedicated work strand on data and analysis.
And within this strand, the Commission has set up several projects, including with the OECD on the data mapping, monitoring and evaluation, a social innovation project on digitalization and data-driven tool, and the project that you will discuss today. The European Homelessness Count is, in our opinion, delivered all of its objectives. As a pilot project, it developed and tested the most promising methodologies at the city level for counting homelessness. The project raises important questions that still need to be answered and points us in the right direction for the future work. And in order to strengthen our future work on homelessness, the Commission adopted on the 6th of May a bold social package, including a proposal for a Council recommendation on fighting housing exclusion.
We hope that the Council will adopt it speedily so that Member States can proceed to its implementation with the continued support of the European Commission in the context of EU Platform for Combating Homelessness. The informal ministerial meeting on homelessness that will be organized by Irish presidency in November will be occasion to discuss at the highest levels the future EU actions in this area. A lot of progress has been made in terms of policy development. It is now urgent to translate these policy efforts and results on the ground for our most vulnerable citizens. And the project discussed today constitutes an invaluable contribution to a strong evidence-based response to the totally unacceptable social reality of homelessness.
I just want to use this opportunity to thank Professor Hermans personally for all of his involvement and the challenges he has faced. It has not been one-man project because as you will hear, 35 different cities participated in the project, that means to agree with 35 different authorities, also a number of civil society organizations, also a number of other researchers and academics in the area, and last but not least, my colleagues in the Commission who have followed it from the day zero. It's really a project to look into and to take it as a good example forward. Thank you very much.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And now we are all very interested to welcome the experts, Mr. Professor Koen Hermans, to present this. So please, Mr. Hermans, your floor is yours for the next 12 minutes.
Koen Hermans
Thank you very much for the very kind words by the Commission. And we are quite proud to present today the EU Homelessness Count project. As you can see on the slide, the project was a cooperation between MRI in Budapest and LUCAS KU Leuven.
KU Leuven was coordinating the project. However, as Katarina already mentioned, we cooperated with 35 cities in 21 member states. And also we have developed a huge network of national researchers that have actually implemented the methodology. As was already stated, the goal of the project was to develop a common methodology to measure ETHOS Light 1, 2, 3 at city level. I will explain that in a second.
In the first year in 2024, we not only developed the methodology, but we have implemented it in 15 cities in 10 member states. And in October 25, we set up 35 point-in-time counts in 35 cities, not in 20, but in 21 member states in the European Union. Our goal was actually to focus on ETHOS Light 1, 2, 3. ETHOS, the European Typology on Homelessness and Housing Exclusion, is the common framework that is used as the guiding framework. ETHOS Light 1, 2, 3 refers to those who are sleeping rough.
This is ETHOS Light 1. Those who are staying in night shelters, so it means having a bed for a night, but in the morning back on the streets. And then ETHOS Light 3, which refers to long-term, but at the same time temporary accommodation for persons experiencing homelessness. The Commission asked us to focus on ETHOS Light 1, 2, 3. But in the project, we also went a step further.
We also focused on those who are staying in institutions, those who are making use of what we call non-conventional dwellings, such as mobile homes, such as squats. And we also tried to include those who are staying temporarily with friends and families. As already mentioned, our main focus was on ETHOS Light 1, 2, 3. But many of the cities, almost 23 out of 35, took a step further and tried to also cover ETHOS 4, 5, and 6. And I think this is already an important result in itself, because as you will see later on, the results for ETHOS Light 1, 2, 3 are strongly impacted by homelessness policies at the local and the national level.
What we actually did was we developed what we call a modular approach. So each module builds on the other module. We have a very simple basic count methodology developed. In this basic count, we mainly focus, or we only focus, on ETHOS Light 1, 2, 3. We mainly involve, or we only involve, services for the homeless.
And the idea is to have what we call a head count. The focus is on the extent of rough sleepers, just counting the extent of persons sleeping rough. And we combine this with data, available data, on ETHOS Light 2 and 3. The basic count methodology was used in some of the cities who had no data collection at all. For instance, Catania in the south of Italy, they did the basic count.
Most of the cities used what we call an elaborate count or a service-based count. The difference between the first and the second is that the data on ETHOS 1, 2, 3 are collected based on the same questionnaire, based on the same variables that are measured. But the focus is still on ETHOS Light 1, 2, 3. And some of the cities in Austria, in Latvia, in Belgium, in the Netherlands, and in Ireland, they went a step further and they also tried to include ETHOS 4, 5, and 6. I'm not going to dive very much into the details on 4, 5, and 6, but will present the results on ETHOS Light 1, 2, 3.
Why have we used a modular approach and not a standardized methodology in all the cities is that we have learned from the beginning of the project, if you want to collaborate with all these cities, you have to find a balance between what we call local ownership on the one hand and comparability on the other hand.
If you develop a standardized method for all these cities in a very homogeneous way we have learned that cities are not very interested. Cities have their own needs have their own questions have their own tradition of data collection and even more important they the the scale and the network of services is very different throughout Europe. So it it also influences what is feasible at the local level. So this is the main reason we developed this modular approach. These are the cities that have participated in 24 and 25.
At the left you see the cities in 24 and at the right you see the cities that have participated in 2025. We are very proud that we have been or that this project involved cities through the whole of Europe from Amadora in the south and Barcelona to Turku at the really north of Europe Dublin Ireland but also the Latvia Lithuania and some of the other East European countries and this already I think is is quite a success in itself. If we dive a little bit deeper into the details of the numbers as you can see the the differences between the numbers are are really striking. At the left you see the cities you see the population of these cities and then you can see the numbers for ETHOS Light 1 2 and 3. We have cities with very large extent of homelessness in the city for instance the largest number was counted in Dublin 8,510 persons in ETHOS 1 2 and 3 other large cities that pop up are for instance Lille and Lyon the two French cities but also Amsterdam in the Netherlands and Barcelona in Spain.
Of course these are also the largest cities. And then in the table moving to the right you see the differences between ETHOS Light 1 2 and 3. And if you dive a little bit deeper into these results you can see that there is an important distinction between these cities. At the left we see some cities that have what we call a very strong shelter-based system for instance Dublin Münster Potsdam and Rostock in Germany almost all the persons in a homelessness situation are in ETHOS Light 2 and in ETHOS Light 3. So it means that the temporary accommodation system covers quite well the homeless population.
At the right you see other cities like Bucharest Amadora Barcelona and Sofia. In these cities the the majority of the persons that have been counted are actually sleeping rough so they are staying in the streets. It implies a structural shortage of shelter provision and of course homelessness is much more visible in the public space in these cities. So this is an important result but it also shows that if you collect data on ETHOS Light 1 2 3 you collect on the one hand the extent of homelessness the profile of homelessness but it also means that you the numbers are reflecting local policies as I already mentioned since in some of the cities most of these persons are temporarily or are in a temporary accommodation.
If you have a stronger shelter system, as is the case in for instance Dublin, Münster, Potsdam and Rostock, it also becomes, you can also see that the share of women is much larger. So women are making use of different survival strategies. Women are not always on the street, but are less visible, and a larger shelter system also has an impact on the profiles of the homeless persons that are counted. So what we I think show is that, sorry for not, this is what I was trying to explain. At the left you see the shelter-based cities and on the right you see cities with a stronger street concentration.
And what's quite important, I didn't, I haven't mentioned it yet, especially in Dublin, in Münster and Potsdam and Rostock, these cities are of course in Germany and in Ireland. In these cities and in these member states there is a stronger legal mandate to the municipalities to provide shelter. So it also drives the figures upwards for ETHOS Light 2 and 3. On the other hand, we also learned that in those cities with a larger street concentration, we also see that in some of the cities people are actually hiding, are much more difficult to count because of the effect of criminalization policies. In one of the cities during the night of the count and the days before the count, there was a strong policy by the police and it had, it had actually had an effect on the persons that have been counted.
People were actually hiding for the police, were fearing the consequences of being visible in the streets. So what we have learned I think, this is a pilot project, we have learned that these kind of point-in-time counts are a necessary but of course not a sufficient method to measure homelessness. We also know that homelessness is a very dynamic process. People are sometimes in the streets, are sometimes staying with friends or families or are making use of, of for instance squats and stuff like that. So grasping that dynamic element of homelessness is not feasible with a point-in-time count.
I already stressed that if you only focus on ETHOS Light 1, 2, 3, that the numbers also reflect the homelessness policies at the local level. If you have a strong accommodation system, numbers are higher. The strongest example of that is, is Dublin. It doesn't mean that homelessness is the largest in the Irish cities. It shows that, that the shelter system has an impact on the numbers.
The modular approach is quite robust and but also at the same time flexible. We have learned that these cities have their own needs, have their own questions. So one standardized method now launching for the whole of Europe is not fully feasible. At the same time of course, comparable results remain the main goal in the long term. So the idea of developing a harmonization process is, is the next step for us.
And what's quite crucial and we learned it throughout the process, more and more national member states are developing their own national data systems. The idea of the project was developed in 2022, 2023. In the meantime, some of the member states have made quite a lot of progress. Spain is a good example I think, Germany is a good example, Italy is developing their own national data collection system.
So finding the balance between what is needed on the local, on the national and on the European level is quite challenging. And what we have learned for instance in the German cities is that you can't develop a national or European system without respecting what's going on in the member states. And the very first last conclusion is we have learned that harmonization is a long-term process, but we are quite convinced that this project is a very important first step and we hope that next steps will be taken, for instance a parliamentary preparatory action could be a next step. We have now a large network of researchers in all these member states, so we are looking forward for a next step.
Thank you so much for this very interesting presentation. I will now open the floor for members and group representatives, starting with Mrs. Keulemans.
Estelle Ceulemans
Voilà, merci Madame la Présidente, merci Professeur. Merci effectivement de la présentation des résultats du projet pilote. Je pense que c'est vraiment important et en particulier au moment où l'Europe décide de lancer une stratégie pour éradiquer le sans-abrisme d'ici 2050. On voit effectivement comment le fait d'obtenir ou d'avoir des données disponibles ou des indicateurs convergents est important. Vous le soulignez effectivement très clair, mais comme on le dit en néerlandais, meten is weten, et on ne construira aucune politique cohérente sans effectivement avoir un vrai aperçu de ce qu'on appelle le sans-abrisme.
D'autant plus que voilà, vous le dites aussi, la criminalisation, le fait de vouloir rendre invisible les différents types d'accueil. Il suffit de voir d'ailleurs ici à Bruxelles, au niveau du Samu social, c'est un enfant sur quatre qui est, pardon, une personne sur quatre accueillie est un enfant. Mais donc voilà, au moment des choix politiques et puisqu'on l'a fait en 2000 par rapport à des indicateurs en matière de pauvreté, quelles seraient vos recommandations à vous suite à ce projet pilote pour construire des indicateurs robustes qui ne seront évidemment jamais la panacée ou la solution totale, mais quelles sont vos propositions à vous pour avoir des indicateurs robustes pour prendre toutes les dimensions du sans-abrisme et pouvoir enfin mettre sur pied de véritables politiques de lutte contre le sans-abrisme.
Marie Dauchy
Oui, merci. Personne ici ne conteste la détresse que représente le fait de vivre dans la rue. Derrière chaque sans-abri, il y a une histoire difficile, une rupture, parfois une vie qui a basculé. Face à cette réalité, nous avons tous le devoir d'agir, mais pour agir efficacement, encore faut-il poser le bon diagnostic et vous l'avez dit vous-même parce que vous avez dit qu'il fallait se reposer sur les faits. Alors d'abord, le logement et l'action sociale relèvent avant tout de la compétence des États membres.
Chaque pays dispose de ses propres réalités, de ses propres dispositifs et de ses priorités. Je rebondis sur ce qu'a dit le professeur Hermans. Il a dit que certaines villes ne s'intéressent d'ailleurs pas à l'uniformisation car elles ont mis en place leur propre fonctionnement. Il faut donc veiller à respecter le rôle et les responsabilités des États membres qui restent les mieux placés pour répondre aux réalités du terrain. Ensuite, comparer les situations entre États est utile, mais encore faut-il le faire avec prudence.
Un pays qui dispose d'un important réseau d'hébergement d'urgence ne peut pas être évalué de la même manière qu'un pays qui en possède beaucoup moins. Le risque est de produire des comparaisons incomplètes et de tirer des conclusions erronées. Enfin, nous ne pouvons pas ignorer les tensions croissantes qui pèsent sur nos capacités d'accueil et sur nos dispositifs sociaux. Dans de nombreux territoires, les structures sont saturées et les acteurs de terrain alertent régulièrement sur leurs difficultés. C'est pourquoi nous pensons que la solidarité doit d'abord permettre de répondre aux besoins de nos concitoyens les plus fragiles tout en s'accompagnant d'une maîtrise effective des flux migratoires.
Car si nous voulons préserver durablement notre modèle social et aider efficacement ceux qui en ont le plus besoin, nous devons être capables de traiter à la fois les conséquences et les causes des difficultés que nous constatons aujourd'hui.
Merci.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much and are there other members that wish to take the floor at this point? If not, I have a question on methodology as well because you mentioned that the Commission was interested in the categories one to three, but that you also looked at the categories one to six in the projects. And if you could elaborate a bit about which groups you target through which categories because you mentioned yourself that women are usually underrepresented among those living on the streets, more commonly in shelters, but as far as I understand young people who are homeless are to the best of my understanding usually living in friends' places so they would fall under category six. So is there a risk of excluding a certain groups when we look at homelessness by only looking at the categories one to three? No other requests for the floor, so I give the floor back to Professor Hermans.
Or do you did you want no, yes. Okay, please.
Koen Hermans
Thank you very much for for these three questions. Yeah, first of all, of course as as already was mentioned housing is is a competency of of the member states, but it didn't stop us to produce statistics on poverty, on housing exclusion and and other social circumstances. So I don't understand why homelessness would be an exception on this. Homelessness is just another important social problem. We have produced indicators on poverty on the European level.
Of course there are differences between social protection policies, but these indicators are very helpful to understand these differences in social protection systems, housing systems. So I think it's a very good argument to to produce these statistics to understand the impact of of national policies. A second point is concerning the the first question, what do we do what is the next step I think. Of course if you look back to the produce the production of of for instance poverty indicators, it took us more than one or two years to produce at the European level these kind of of statistics and these kind of indicators. And at the same time we're still aware of there are still some comparability issues when when we are looking on in this poverty indicator.
So for me it's a next step, it's an an enlargement of what we already have. And I think that going into that harmonization process, it it won't be realized in one day or one year, but starting up this process, bringing different actors on different levels together, what we we really are sure that we have built the first step in that process. There is now that network of member states, there is a network of of cities and there is a network of of researchers to produce that harmonization process. And I think we already are much further in that harmonization process. We have a common framework, we have a common set of variables, we have a common set of of questionnaires, of methods that can be used.
As you can see on the slide, we have deliver delivered a handbook in which we explain the methodology that can be used in different cities and different member states. I'm fully aware of of the the challenges. I already mentioned the the progress that has been made on the national level in some of the member states. But this this hasn't to be a problem I think.
This is a really important step forward. So I'm really I'm really convinced that taking the next step and producing local and national indicators on homelessness is is what we need to do. And the European Union can play a very important role in the harmonization process I think. Then the third question. Yes, there's still that ongoing debate on what what we define as homelessness.
As you can see, covering ETHOS Light 1 to 3 shows already a lot of relevant information. At the same time we are fully aware of the limitations with only focusing on ETHOS Light 1 to 3. I completely agree with you. You're referring to women, but also young adults are not always in shelters, are not on the streets. They have different survival strategies.
So what we actually did was in some of the countries, I already named Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Ireland, to go a step further. And especially in these countries we see that if when you are including ETHOS 6, it becomes the largest category. It is the case in Denmark, it's the case in the Netherlands, it's the case in in Belgium, and it's also the case in Austria. So it really shows that you you really have to go a step further. At the same time we also tried to develop or to to go a step further in those member states with a less extensive service network, for instance Ljubljana, also in Budapest, also in Riga.
And in these cities we have learned that it's much more difficult to cover ETHOS 6, but at the same time we have learned that progress is possible. And that we have set up these experiments. And then you were I completely agree you're referring to ETHOS 6, but also ETHOS 5 is quite crucial to cover. ETHOS 5 refers to those who are not sleeping rough, who are not visible, but have their own sleeping locations, for instance a car, for instance a shack, a tent, sleeping in abandoned buildings. And we see that in some of the European cities this is even more important than covering ETHOS Light 1.
But as I already mentioned, you can't develop such kind of method from the top down in a very standardized way because then the reaction of the cities is it's not feasible for us. So trying to find a balance between local ownership, trying to understand where these cities are, and at the same time taking a step further. And I I think that the modular approach is very helpful to guide cities but also to guide member states to take a next step.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. That means we reach the end of this presentation and debate. Very interesting, also very important project. And as I said at the start, to make good policies you also need to have the right data so that we really make evidence-based decisions. So I really think this also responds to a real need.
So thank you very much and thank you to all the members that participated. And this also means that this is the end of our meeting today. And please be reminded that tomorrow we have the ECON-EMPL economic dialogue on European Semester Spring Package at 9:00 in ANTALL 2Q2. So see you tomorrow.
Stellen Sie eine Frage zu diesem Video – ich analysiere das Transkript, um Ihnen zu antworten.