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
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
EMPL European Parliament
Follow its sittingsJohan Danielsson
So, the first vote then is the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of the 2018 regime and the opinion of the EMPL Committee. So, we start the vote. The first, first we vote on amendment 133, 134, which is a proposal for rejection. So, we do it by roll-call vote. The vote is open.
Is there some... okay. Do we have a technician?
Okay, so we leave the vote open and the technicians are trying to solve the problem so that all members actually can vote.
Johan Danielsson
It works. So, we close the vote. Rejected. 36 against, 15 in favor, and one abstention. Then we move to the vote on compromise 1, also a roll-call vote.
I open the vote. I close the vote. Adopted. 30 in favor, 22 against, zero abstentions. Then we move to compromise two, also a roll-call vote.
I open the vote. I close the vote. Adopted. 27 in favor, 24 against, one abstention. Then we move to compromise three, also a roll-call vote.
I open the roll-call vote. I close the vote. Adopted. 46 in favor, one against, five abstentions. We move to compromise four.
Those in favor? By show of hand. Those against? Abstentions? Let's check.
I open the vote. I close the vote. Adopted, 28 in favor, 17 against, seven abstentions. We move to compromise five. It's a roll-call vote.
I open the vote. I close the vote. Adopted, 48 in favor, one against, three abstentions. I move to compromise six, roll-call vote. I open the vote.
We're missing one. I close the vote. Adopted, 49 in favor, no one against, two abstentions. I move to compromise seven.
Those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise 8, those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise 9, those in favor? Against?
Abstentions? I think adopted, but let's check. I open the vote. I close the vote. Adopted, 37 in favor, 14 against.
We move to compromise 10, roll-call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote. Adopted, 41 in favor, 10 against. Compromise 11, roll-call vote.
I open the vote. I close the vote. Adopted, 26 in favor, 25 against, one abstention. I move to compromise 11A.
Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Adopted. Then we move to amendment 249.
You have found it? Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected.
250. Amendment 250. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions?
Rejected. Amendment 251. In favor? Against? Abstentions?
Rejected. Then we go to amendment 252. In favor? Against? Abstentions?
Rejected. Then we go to compromise 12. It's a roll-call vote. I open the vote. Close the vote.
Adopted: 37 in favor, 1 against, 14 abstentions. We move to compromise 13. It's a roll-call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote.
Adopted: 40 in favor, 1 against, 10 abstentions.
Takes us to compromise 14. Those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Then it's compromise 14A. It's a roll-call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote. It's adopted, 45 in favor, six against, one abstention.
Takes us to compromise 14B. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Then we move to compromise 15. It's a roll-call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote. It's adopted, 45 in favor, two against, five abstentions.
Then we are at amendment 280 from Demirel. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? I would assume rejected, but let's have a check.
I open the vote.
The vote is closed. Rejected: 28 against, 23 in favor. It moves us to compromise 16. Those in favor? Those against?
Abstentions? Adopted. It takes us to compromise 17. It's a roll-call vote. I open the vote.
I close the vote. It's adopted: 39 in favor, 11 against, 2 abstentions. It takes us to compromise 18. It's a roll-call vote. I open the vote.
I close the vote. It's adopted: 30 in favor, 15 against, 7 abstentions. It takes us to compromise 19, also a roll-call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote.
It's adopted: 38 in favor, 7 against, 7 abstentions. It takes us to compromise 20. Who's in favor? Against? Abstentions?
It's rejected.
Okay, you want to check it. I think it's rejected, but let's check. I open the vote. I close the vote. It's rejected, 24 against, 22 in favor, 6 abstentions.
We move to compromise 21. Yeah, 19 or 20. Yep, so we move to compromise 21. Those in favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. We move to compromise 22. Those in favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. We move to compromise 23. Those in favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Then it takes us to compromise 24. Those in favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted.
We move to compromise 25. Those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Okay, we take amendment 295. Those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Let's check.
295, I open the vote. I close the vote. It's adopted, 29 in favor, 23 against, no abstentions. Takes us to compromise 26. Those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Adopted. 27, it's a roll-call vote. I open the vote.
I close the vote. It's adopted, 49 in favor, no one against, three abstentions. It takes us to compromise 28. It's a roll-call vote. I open the vote.
I close the vote. It's adopted, 37 in favor, 13 against, two abstentions. It takes us to compromise 29, who's in favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. It takes us to compromise 30, who's in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Then we come to compromise 31, no, we have an amendment, sorry, we have two amendments even. So, first amendment 305, who's in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Amendment 306, who's in favor? Against? Abstentions? Rejected. Takes us to compromise 31, it's a roll call vote, I open the vote.
I close the vote. Adopted, 48 in favor, two against, two abstentions. We go to compromise 32, it's a roll call vote, I open the vote.
I close the vote. It's adopted, 49 in favor, 2 against. Takes us to compromise 33. Who's in favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Takes us to compromise 34, it's a roll-call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote.
It's adopted, 45 in favor, 1 against, 6 abstentions. We go to compromise 35. Who's in favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. Compromise 36, in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Takes us to compromise 37. Who's in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Compromise 38 is a roll-call vote. I open the roll-call vote. The vote is closed. Adopted, 51 in favor, 1 abstention, no one against. Compromise 39, it's also a roll-call vote.
I open the vote.
I close the vote. 45 in favor, one against, five abstentions. It's adopted. Compromise 40. Who's in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise 41. It's a roll-call vote.
I open the vote. I close the vote. It's adopted. 41 in favor, five against, six abstentions. Compromise 42.
It's also a roll-call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote. Adopted. 48 in favor and four abstentions.
It's adopted. We go to compromise 43. It's a roll-call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote.
It's adopted. 43 in favor, four against and four abstentions. Compromise 44. It's a roll-call vote. I open the vote.
I close the vote. It's adopted. 47 in favor, four against, one abstention. Compromise 45. It's a roll-call vote.
I open the vote. I close the vote, sorry. It's adopted, 50 in favor, zero against, two abstentions. It takes us to compromise 46. Those in favor?
Those against? Abstentions? Adopted. It takes us to amendment 338. Those in favor?
Those against? Abstentions? I think it's rejected, but let's check. I open the vote. Well, I already did.
Now I will close the vote. It's rejected, 29 against, 22 in favor, zero abstentions. We go to amendment 339. Those in favor? Those against?
Abstentions? Let's check. I open the vote. I close the vote. It's rejected, 29 against, 23 in favor, zero abstentions.
It takes us to compromise A. It's a roll-call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote. It's adopted, 30 in favor, 18 against, four abstentions.
Compromise B. It's a roll-call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote. It's adopted, 24 in favor, 23 against, five abstentions.
Then we move to amendment 137. Those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Rejected.
It takes us to compromise K. It's a roll-call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote. 44 in favor, seven against, one abstention.
It's adopted. It takes us to compromise C.
Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment 140.
Those in favor? Against? Abstentions, rejected. Compromise D, it's a roll-call vote, I open the vote. I close the vote.
It's adopted, 29 in favor, 18 against, four abstentions. Compromise E, it's a roll-call vote, so I open the vote. I close the vote. It's adopted, 43 in favor, eight against. We move to compromise F.
Those in favor? Against? Abstentions, adopted. Then we come to amendment 145. Those in favor?
Against? Abstentions, rejected. Then we go to amendment 146. Those in favor? Against?
Abstentions, rejected. Then we go to compromise G.
Then we go to compromise G, those in favor? Against? Abstentions? I would assume adopted, but let's check. I open the vote.
I close the vote. It's adopted, 32 in favor, 17 against, and 2 abstentions. Then we go to compromise H, those in favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. We move to compromise I, those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Compromise J, it's a roll-call vote, I open the vote. I close the vote. Adopted, 41 in favor, 7 against, 3 abstentions. It takes us to amendment 151, those in favor? Against?
Abstentions? It's rejected. Compromise M, in favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted.
Compromise N, those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Okay, recital 155 with an oral amendment.
Do you accept the oral amendment? Okay, so no objections. Then we vote on amendment 155 with the oral amendment. Those in favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Then we go to compromise O, it's a roll-call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote.
It's rejected, 25 against, 21 in favor and 5 abstentions.
So then we move to amendment 158.
So, I'd really like to vote on my own amendment, but I'm being informed that 5 and 157 falls if compromise O was adopted, which was not the case, but or 210 was not adopted because they are identical. And 210 was not adopted, so for that reason we are not voting on amendment 5 and 157. I hope that's clear. No? Well, not clear in the sense for a normal human being, but clear what the rules of procedure of this house is.
And then we can argue if that makes sense or not, but let's stick to the rules of procedure for this vote and we move on. So, then we end up with amendment 158. And those in favor? Against? Abstentions?
Let's check. I open the vote. I close the vote. Okay, it was rejected, not that clear, 26 against, 25 in favor. So, 159, those in favor?
Those against? Abstentions? Let's check. I open the vote.
I close the vote. Adopted, 29 in favor, 22 against. So, it moves us to... K was adopted, so it takes us to compromise L. Those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise P, those in favor? Against?
Abstentions? Okay, let's check. I open the vote, compromise P. I close the vote. It's adopted, 30 in favor, 17 against, 4 abstentions.
Compromise Q, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Adopted. Then we move to compromise R, it's a roll-call vote.
I open the vote. I close the vote.
It's adopted 24 in favor, 22 against, 5 abstentions. Move to compromise S, those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Compromise T, it's a roll-call vote, I open the vote. I close the vote. It's adopted 38 in favor, 7 against, 5 abstentions. It takes us to compromise U, it's a roll-call vote, I open the vote. I close the vote.
It's adopted 50 in favor, 0 abstentions, 0 against. We take us to compromise V, who's in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
It takes us to compromise W, those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise WA, those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Adopted. It takes us to compromise X, those in favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise Y. Now I need to learn the alphabet in English as well, it's starting to get problematic. It's my fault, it's too many compromises.
I only knew it until C.
So, those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise Z, those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Yes, but now it's easy again. Compromise AA, those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise AB, those in favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise AC, those in favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. Then we have amendment 180. No, it falls. Yeah, you see. Compromise AD, those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise... No, no vote.
All the way. Yes, you're before me. Compromise AL. Yes, glad to see that someone also needs some time. Those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Compromise AM, it's a roll-call vote, I open the vote. I close the vote. It's adopted, 37 in favor, 5 against, 7 against, 7 abstentions. It takes us to compromise amendment AN, it's a roll-call vote, I open the vote. I close the vote.
27 in favor, 21 against, 2 abstentions, it's adopted. Compromise AO. Those in favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. Compromise AP, it's a roll-call vote, I open the vote. I close the vote. It's adopted, 24 in favor, 21 against, 5 abstentions. Moves us to compromise amendment AQ.
Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Compromise amendment AR, roll-call vote, so I open the vote. I close the vote. It's adopted: 41 in favor, 7 against, 3 abstentions, which takes us to compromise amendment AS. Those in favor? Against?
Abstentions? Okay, I think it's adopted, but let's check. I open the vote. I close the vote. It's adopted: 28 in favor, 19 against, 4 abstentions.
It takes us to the final vote, the draft text as amended. It's a roll-call vote. I open the vote. We close the vote. It's adopted: 26 in favor, 19 against, 7 abstentions.
Thank you all, especially for almost keeping your promise to let the chair win all the votes. I will move to the next vote, which is the European Fund for Regional Development, including for European Territorial Cooperation, Interreg, and the Cohesion Fund as part of the fund set out in the regulation. The rapporteur is João Oliveira. We will start the vote with compromise amendment 1. Those in favor?
Those against? Abstentions? Adopted. We go for compromise... no, we need to vote on amendment 78. Those in favor?
Those against? Abstentions? I think adopted, but let's check. I open the vote. I close the vote.
It's adopted, 25 in favor, 18 against, and 6 abstentions. That takes us to compromise amendment 9, those in favor. Against. Abstentions, adopted. It takes us to amendment 84, those in favor.
Against. Abstentions, rejected. It takes us to compromise amendment 2, those in favor. Against. Abstentions, adopted.
It takes us to compromise amendment 5, in favor. Against. Abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment 3, those in favor. Against.
Abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment 11, those in favor. Against. Abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment 7, in favor.
Against. Abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment 12, those in favor. Against. Abstentions, adopted.
Compromise amendment 10, in favor. Against. Abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment 8, in favor. Against.
Abstentions, adopted.
Then we have amendment 145, those in favor? Against? Abstentions? It's rejected. Then we have amendment 38, those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? I think it's adopted, but let's check. I open the vote. I close.
Yes, 27 in favor, 17 against, 5 abstentions. It takes us to amendment 52, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Then we are at compromise amendment 6, those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment 4, in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment 74, those in favor? Against?
Abstentions?
It's rejected. It takes us to the final vote. It's a roll-call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote.
It's adopted, 35 in favor, eight against, and four abstentions. We move to the next vote on the agenda. It's on the opinion on strengthening competitiveness, resilience, and fairness in EU agriculture. It's a single vote. It's a roll-call vote.
I open the vote. I close the vote. It's adopted, 38 in favor, seven against, three abstentions. We move to the next item on the agenda is the EGF and the application of Spain concerning Galicia Automotive Ancillary. It's a single vote.
It's a roll-call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote. It's adopted, 45 in favor, no one against, two abstentions. We move to the next item.
It's the EGF following the application from Finland and the Valmet Automotive. It's a single vote. It's a roll-call vote. I open the vote.
I close the vote. It's adopted, 44 in favor, three abstentions, no one against. We move to the next item on the agenda, which is also the final vote. It's the EGF again, following the application from Belgium and concerning Cora. It's a single vote, it's a roll-call vote.
I open the vote. I close the vote. It's adopted, 45 in favor, zero against, two abstentions. Thank you all, and I hope you all stay for the discussion with the Director-General. But thank you for the vote.
So, colleagues, let's start.
As you know, the next item is the new Commission communication on the European Pillar of Social Rights that was adopted just before the summer recess on the 22nd of July. First of all, of course, I would like to warmly welcome for this item Mr. Mario Nava, the Director-General, for being with us. And as you know, members, since the inception in 2017 of the social pillar, it has been very much the framework of our work in this committee. And throughout the years, we have also adopted and contributed to many legislative and non-legislative proposals to make sure that we actually implement the principles of the pillar. Besides that, we also carried out our regular stocktaking exercise that also concluded in our contribution from the committee to the Porto Social Forum in 2023 and 2025, to the La Hulpe process, and most recently also the letter that we sent in April to Executive Vice-President Minzato.
So in this context, being very clear that this is at the heart of the work of this committee and the Parliament, I would like to start by giving the floor to Mario Nava to give his presentation on this new communication. So, dear Mario, the floor is yours for eight minutes.
Mario Nava
Thank you very much, Johan, and it's a pleasure to be here with you. It's a little bit of a tradition, no, September, exchange of view, I'm here, so I'm very happy for that. I think it's also very timely because we adopted this the 22nd of July. So I don't think we could have come earlier to come and to present it to you. There are a number of slides that will that will run behind me while while I speak.
Now, the in the communication on the Pillar of Social Rights, the the message of course is very clear, we have the 20 principles, they remain our framework for fairer labor markets and for stronger welfare and for stronger welfare systems. The it shows that the social rights are part of the of the European DNA. What is important to know is that the the communication was accompanied by four elements. The element number one is the staff working document, which basically gives an account of everything we have done on the basis of the Pillar Action Plan. The element number two is very important, is the first phase social partner consultation on a future possible initiative on activation.
Activation is probably the most important thing that we need to do in the future. Why? Because we were used to think of employment in terms of percentage, 70% in Lisbon, now 78%.
The problem is that the denominator is shrinking, because the labor force is shrinking. So as the denominator is shrinking, you rather have the numerator that increases, and therefore the activation is the crucial point. So first phase, first phase consultation, for those of you who read it, they will see that it's pretty wide. Then we had the second phase social partner consultation on a future Quality Jobs Act, which has been announced by the President at the SOTEU of last year and will come by December. And then the monitoring report on the minimum wage directive.
Now, the communication comes to the midpoint, so it's good also to take stock of where we are. 78%, we are there, and I'm happy to bet with you that we will be there by 2030. We have six countries well above 80%, the highest is Netherlands at 84% nearly, but we have other countries very close to it. So I think on the 78% we will be there.
On the 60% is a little bit more difficult, but again, I'm relatively ready to bet, maybe a little bit less than on the first one, but I'm ready to bet that we may get there or close to it for a very simple reason: the labor market is tighter and tighter and companies see the importance of training people, not only for themselves, but for the whole system, because then the workers circulate from one to the other to the other company. And on on poverty issue and the reduction of poverty of of 15 million, as you know, there we have launched in in in May the anti-poverty strategy. And of course, the anti-poverty strategy is there to reinforce, to help member states to get to get to that. Now, let's see some achievement that we have that we have obtained. The achievement that we have that we have obtained is that we have had 10 million people that have been trained through the Pact for Skills.
In-work poverty is down. It remains relatively high. The in-work poverty number is 8.3%, so it remains relatively high in 2025, but is going is going down. We have been investing a lot in in young people. 6.3 million of young people found a job or start an apprenticeship or a traineeship and they continue their education through the through the Youth Guarantee.
And similarly, we have supported children in need through the European Child Guarantee. So it's quite clear that we have had a number of achievements in the past. And I just listed few. Those that you see within dotted are not in DG Employment, but they are in DG Justice. But they were, for example, the European Disability Card that you see here on the right was started by DG Employment.
Now, what matters to you is what we will be doing now. What are the key pressure points where that we feel the pain? And there, I think we have three areas of pressure point on which I hope that each and everybody of you relates. One is, of course, affordability and increased cost of living. Two is the impact of artificial intelligence and rapid technological change.
And three is expanding equal opportunities for everybody. So affordability and increased cost of living is obviously a challenge for our citizens. It's a multiform challenge. It's a challenge that it doesn't come only from one thing. It used to come, for example, from energy typically.
It's not only energy now. It's, for example, housing. It's, for example, a number of other elements that provoke that.
So quality job that provide a decent income remain the obvious and the most simple answer to the affordability to the affordability issue. We are very proud of the minimum wage directive that has increased significantly minimum wage across the the EU and that has attracted more people in the labor market. With the minimum wage directive we had we had that effect and that's why we have launched the first stage consultation of social partner on on the activation. So the activation you see the numbers here in Europe we have 260 million people in working age of those 260 million people more or less 200 work more or less 10 million are unemployed so they would like to work but they don't find the work and but then there are 50 million who are inactive. Now the category of inactive is a very large category.
You may be inactive simply because you decided not to work or because you are rich enough by family lucky you or because and that's the category we want to look at because you were working but for whatever reason you had a child you had an elder person to take care you drop out of work and it's difficult to go back.
Without surprise, with the inactive category there is a big gender issue because 63% of them are women and clearly when we do activation policy we also address a very clear gender issue. Then we have an issue on artificial intelligence. There we have a high-level, a high-level expert group coming up. They'll look at potential long-term trajectory. As you know, the jury for the time being is still out on what will be the impact of artificial intelligence on the labour market.
This group will also look at the responsible adoption of algorithmic management. And to close, inequality. Reducing inequalities and expanding work opportunities is an essential, is an essential element. There is no doubt that an inclusive labour market performs better than a non-inclusive labour market. We have a number of areas which help: pay transparency directive, we know it may be difficult for SMEs and we have, we are about to provide support for SMEs, we have vocational educational training strategy coming out.
Conclusion, in the 10 seconds remaining, I think we have been able to demonstrate that the social pillar has played its role, but we have been able to demonstrate that c'est n'est qu'un début.
So we started the process in July with our communication. Next year will be the 10th anniversary and you will hear from us a lot. And if you invite me, I will be happy to say it. And maybe the first thing, and then I close truly, next week we will have the fair labor mobility package adopted by the Commission on Tuesday. And that's will be a major part of a fair labor fair labor market in Europe.
Thank you very much. Apologies for being too long. And presented in plenary by Minsatou immediately after.
Johan Danielsson
Thank you very much, Mario, and also for really making an attempt to respect the time and also for highlighting, of course, some of the key subjects, initiatives that are essential to our committee. We will now start the question and answer session. We will do it in several rounds. The first round will be for question and interventions for the political groups, coordinators or other representatives who will have 1.5 minutes each with a one and a half minute reply to each of them. Yes.
So we will do in the first round we will do this ping pong. So we will start with the EPP. So Mr. Arimont.
Pascal Arimont
Ja, vielen Dank. Vielen Dank, Sekretär Nava, für diese Präsentation.
Ich glaube, dass die sozialen Rechte, die Sie gerade beschrieben haben, nicht nur das Herz dieses Ausschusses sind, sondern vermutlich, und daran glaube ich auch, das Herz der Europäischen Union sind. Es gibt, glaube ich, keinen Ort auf der Welt, wo diese Rechte, wo man so stark für diese Rechte sich einsetzt als in der Europäischen Union. Und wir sollten auch dafür sorgen, dass das so bleibt, natürlich immer in der Balance, in dem Gleichgewicht, dass wir auch wettbewerbsfähig bleiben müssen, aber ohne diese Rechte würden wir dieses Gleichgewicht auch nicht haben. Ich möchte ein spezifisches Thema hier ansprechen und Ihnen auch die Frage darin stellen. Ich habe Ihre Aufzählung gesehen.
Für mich fehlte ein Element, was wir zu den sozialen Rechten hinzufügen müssen. Und ich spreche da aus leidiger Erfahrung der letzten drei Wochen. Wir werden in den nächsten Jahren, Jahrzehnten immer mehr Naturkatastrophen erleiden. Und die, die diese Naturkatastrophen bekämpfen, sind sehr oft Freiwillige, ob es der Feuerwehrmann ist, ob es der vom Technischen Hilfsdienst ist, ob es vom Roten Kreuz ist.
Diese Menschen retten unser Leben, nicht sinnbildlich, sondern in der Realität. Nun, wenn man sich mit diesen Leuten unterhält, dann und vor allen Dingen zum Beispiel mit den freiwilligen Feuerwehrleuten, dann sind sie immer in ihrem Land sozialversichert und auch versichert gegen Unfälle. Es gibt aber ganz viele Situationen, wo die sozialen Rechte dieser Leute an Grenzen stoßen, wenn sie neben ihrem Beruf noch Freiwilligkeit machen. Und genau da ist der Punkt, dass ganz viele Menschen, die diese Freiwilligkeit machen, diese Freiwilligkeit nicht mehr betreiben können, weil sie dann Probleme in ihrem Beruf kriegen, weil sie entweder zu viele Stunden dann angerechnet kriegen oder sie fallen in ein anderes Statut oder sie fallen in ein anderes Sozialstatut eines anderen Landes. Und da möchte ich Sie bitten, ob die Kommission im Moment daran arbeitet, dass wir ein freiwilliges Sozialstatut kriegen, damit all diese Menschen keine Probleme haben, wenn sie umsonst sich für unsere Dienste oder unsere Rechte und unser Leben einsetzen.
Vielen Dank.
Johan Danielsson
Thank you. And just a reminder to try to respect the time so all colleagues that want can put a question. Mr. Nava.
Mario Nava
Thank you very much.
I think your question has two elements. One is the climate disaster and the impact on workers, and the second is what happens when these workers are volunteers. So on the climate disaster and the impact on workers, I'm sure you are aware that the OSHA, one of our five agencies, which is the agency for safety and health in Bilbao, actually ran a very long campaign last year, which concluded now, exactly on that, on how climate changes the risk of work. And the results were quite, were quite interesting in terms of protection, of what we need to do for workers and so on and on. And then you have the point on volunteer, which I think is an extremely well-put point.
And I think what we should probably learn, for the time being the Commission is not yet working on that, but what we should probably learn is from the lessons that we derive from climate disasters for the, for the workers to see what can be mutated to the volunteers that, as you say, literally save our lives. Thank you.
Estelle Ceulemans
Merci, merci Monsieur Nava de venir ici nous réexpliquer aussi à quel point ce pilier européen des droits sociaux doit être notre boussole, hein, depuis qu'il a été adopté puisque et pour compenser un petit peu les boussoles de compétitivité. Voilà, mais juste pour rappeler aussi qu'en principe c'était je pense un plan d'action qui était prévu et pas simplement une communication de la Commission sur effectivement donc un nouveau plan d'action sur le pilier européen des droits sociaux. Or ici c'est une communication que vous venez nous présenter. Or si on regarde le précédent plan d'action, il était ambitieux. Il il reprenait des actions concrètes, hein.
Entre communiquer et agir il y a évidemment toujours une nuance qui est importante. Il y avait notamment prévu dans le premier plan d'action une directive sur les salaires minimums, une directive sur les travailleurs de plateforme. Regardez enfin voilà, il suffit d'aller regarder le premier plan d'action. Or voilà, vous nous vous nous présentez aujourd'hui une situation où les challenges sont importants parce que si le premier plan d'action reprenait trois objectifs, trois targets et que on voilà sur celui en tout cas de l'augmentation du taux d'emploi on agit bien mais le problème et on le sait c'est la qualité de ces emplois. On on a vraiment un souci.
Et sur les deux autres targets, l'accès à la formation mais aussi la lutte contre la pauvreté, là par contre on est loin du compte. Or ici on le sait on avait vraiment besoin d'un nouveau plan d'action notamment pour rencontrer les nouveaux risques.
On l'espère, ça se trouvera dans le Quality Job Act que nous attendons tous avec beaucoup d'impatience, notamment comme vous l'avez souligné, les nouveaux risques, c'est les risques psychosociaux pour les travailleurs, c'est travailler dans des hautes températures, c'est un meilleur encadrement de l'intelligence artificielle. Je ne vais pas vous expliquer tout ce sur quoi on travaille ici. Donc voilà, ma question, Monsieur Navas, c'est comment est-ce que vous interprétez les choses et comment est-on passé d'une simple communication plutôt à un vrai plan d'action ambitieux pour renforcer justement notre pilier européen des droits sociaux ? Merci.
Mario Nava
Merci beaucoup, Madame Collemans. Je suis d'accord avec vous qu'à moitié, comme on dirait, parce que je crois qu'on a d'abord déjà fait beaucoup. Et c'est clair, vous avez tout à fait raison, il suffit de regarder le premier, on avait beaucoup de choses et on les a faites. Mais au-delà des choses qu'on avait déclarées dans le tout premier, on a fait d'autres. On a fait la Union of Skills, par exemple.
On a fait la Anti-Poverty Strategy que j'ai mentionnée, donc ça c'était une action concrète que on a fait le mois de mai. On verra la semaine prochaine avec le Fair Labor Mobility Package et on verra à la fin de l'année avec la Quality Job Act. Donc je crois qu'il y a de l'action qui suit. Ceci dit, j'étais assez clair en dire que la communication ce n'est qu'un début. Et donc il y aura l'année 2027 qui par ailleurs, et pour la rhétorique des anniversaires, sera la dixième année du socle de droits sociaux et donc ça sera une année assez importante.
Et pendant cette année, on essaiera de vraiment mettre en pratique tout ça. Donc je dirais que c'est vrai que là c'est une communication, mais c'est vrai aussi que deux actions importantes, Union of Skills et Anti-Poverty Strategy ont été faites. Et deux autres actions sont annoncées, sont dans la pipeline, l'affaire Labor Mobility et là on l'aura mardi. Et après on verra quoi d'autre est essentiel de faire pour tout ça. Et je répète, on a beaucoup de choses sur lesquelles construire comme par exemple, vous l'avez annoncé, la condition de travailleurs dans des situations climatiques terribles.
C'était exactement sur quoi qu'EU-OSHA s'est penchée.
Thank you. Then for the PfE in my list, I have Ms. Verbroek, but cannot see that she's here anymore. Anyone else that wants to take the floor for PfE? If not, ECR, I have no one in my list. There is no one here.
So then we go to Renew, Ms. Toom.
Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Nava, for having us and thank you for presentation of this new action plan. As mentioned in the plan itself, the principles of the pillar helped us manage the shocks of past years. But I can only agree with what was said by Estelle. It's a pity that ambition is kind of declining.
Jana Toom
But if it comes for three headline targets for 2030, we're making good progress on people in employment, but we might miss the target for adults in training and the poverty reduction. And in these circumstances, is the Commission changing their approach and putting more emphasis on these areas in the preparation of the upcoming legislative proposal? Because if we look at the target, we see that it was supposed that we reach like 60% of adults participating in training every year by 2030, but now we have only 39.5 and it's not sufficient, obviously. I also want to hear more about your plans for the European Care Deal. What areas are you looking at and how much commitment are you looking to put behind it to make sure it addresses the challenges with the uneven distribution of care responsibilities?
I also find interesting that Commission is working on the right to stay strategy. I fully support this principle, but I wonder how we can make sure that we actually deliver on this instead of ending up with a similar situation like with Just Transition, where our promises of leaving nobody behind are left broken towards the end of the fund itself. Can we somehow link up these two ideas?
And finally, a more general question about omnibuses. We are all mesmerized by simplification. Omnibuses are coming from doors and from windows of literally every committee, and we don't have clear overview of them. But what we see from all committees, more or less, that many of these omnibuses are undermining the workers' rights. So if we look at this omnibus process in general and our ambitions regarding social rights action plan, how do you see the balance and do you in the Commission have overview of all these numerous omnibuses regarding this particular topic?
Thank you.
Mario Nava
Thank you very much. On the, on the ambition declining, no, as I said, I only agree half. I think on adults in training we are behind, there is no doubt, but we have been making lots of investment. The Union of Skills has been published exactly to insist on the training and retraining of the, of the people in working age. So that is one thing we are trying to do.
We have, as you know, an observatory, we have launched it, we are working with companies, so we're really trying to insist on that.
And for the 15 million people out of poverty, of which we have taken out only three and a half, four millions now, that's exactly the purpose of the anti-poverty strategy. And if you look at the anti-poverty strategy, the anti-poverty strategy is super linked to the activation and to the labor issue. It basically sees working as one of the main elements to eliminate people from poverty, to take out people from poverty, in addition to the in-work poverty and other areas. So I really think that you're right, we are far from the target in those two areas. We still have four years, but we are far from the target, but I also think that measures in order to reach the targets have been done.
For the EU Care Deal, that will be in 2027, is part of the things I said to Madame Keulemans that will come in 2027. And on the omnibus and right to stay, I feel that's a bit out of my area, but on the omnibus what I can say, of course, is that what we make sure every time is that omnibus is simplification but not deregulation. And I think till now we've been able to strike that balance. And on the right to stay, I think there is a process which is ongoing, will be out next week, next year, sorry, and is completely premature to say anything.
Johan Danielsson
Thank you.
I don't see anyone from the Greens. Please object if there is someone here that wants to take the floor. From the Left, I have Mr. Arvanitis. Sorry. The floor is yours for one and a half minutes.
Konstantinos Arvanitis
Ευχαριστώ. Καλημέρα. Αν κατάλαβα καλά, υπάρχει πολύ μεγάλο ενδιαφέρον για τον εθελοντισμό, καθώς από ό,τι φαίνεται για κάποιους είναι η λύση για την απασχόληση. Αλλά νομίζω ότι, κύριε Νάβας, ευχαριστούμε πάρα πολύ που είστε εδώ, η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή αναγνωρίζει ότι ενώ πλησιάζουμε στον ευρωπαϊκό στόχο για την απασχόληση, απέχουμε πολύ για το στόχο που αφορά στη μείωση της φτώχειας. Δηλαδή μεταθέτουμε το στόχο από το '30 στο 2050.
Εγώ δεν θα είμαι στα εγκόσμια το 2050, θα έχω αποδημήσει λόγω ηλικίας από ό,τι και δεν θα προλάβω να δω το αποτέλεσμα. Μήπως να το πάμε λίγο νωρίτερα, να το ζήσουμε και εμείς; Θα ήθελα να πω λοιπόν ότι σε πολλά κράτη μέλη η απόσταση από τους στόχους στον ευρωπαϊκό πυλώνα είναι ιδιαίτερα ανησυχητική.
Στην Ελλάδα το 27,5% του πληθυσμού παραμένει σε κίνδυνο φτώχειας και κοινωνικού αποκλεισμού, μέλος της Ευρωζώνης η Ελλάδα, ενώ η ίδια επιτροπή επισημαίνει ότι η κοινωνική προστασία στηρίζεται συχνά σε έκτακτες εφάπαξ ενισχύσεις. Και τονίζω και κάτι τελευταίο, διότι στην Ελλάδα έχουμε 13 ώρες εργασία, όχι οκτάωρο πια. Και σημειώνω ότι στην Ελλάδα έχουμε τεράστιο μεγάλο αριθμό θανατηφόρων ατυχημάτων. Οι Έλληνες και Ελληνίδες πραγματικά σκοτώνονται στη δουλειά. Τονίζω ότι εδώ πολλές φορές από την Κομισιόν μας λέτε ότι η κατάκτηση του κατώτατου μισθού, εδώ δώσαμε τη μάχη για τον κατώτατο μισθό.
Όμως πρέπει να σημειώσουμε ότι πρέπει να δούμε και το επίπεδο ζωής και τις συλλογικές συμβάσεις εργασίας που σε πολλά κράτη μέλη δεν υπάρχουν. Σε εμάς οι συλλογικές συμβάσεις είναι τουλάχιστον κοντά στο 30%. Σας ευχαριστώ.
Mario Nava
Thank you very much. About Greece, last week I was in Alexandroupoli, Kavala and Philippi. That's the poorest part of Greece, as you know, is this extremely beautiful region of Greece at the border with Turkey and Bulgaria. And I felt how much they were looking at Europe. There was a newspaper which I kept jealously and they said this is the first time a Director General of the Commission comes to Alexandroupoli, Kavala and Philippi.
Now, the poverty targets, there is a target in 2050, but there is also a target in 2030. In 2030 is a reduction of what is called the poverty, the general poverty indicator, which is a mixture of a relative indicator and an absolute indicator. And for 2050 is bringing to zero the material deprivation. So is really the eliminating the poverty. But as you know very well, the issue with poverty is really an issue of allowing people to participate in life.
So I understand very well what you say.
I don't even say in the labour market because often poor people are probably not anymore in working age, but is the participation in life. And that's why with the ESF+ and I was there in Alexandroupoli, Kavala and Filippi to witness that, with the ESF+ we are trying to finance all sorts of social services. We went through with the authorities of that particular region and we will look at many others and is very much a sort of a holistic things. It looks at kids that for whatever reason they don't have parental care, it looks at young to go in the labour market, it looks at people with disability all through their life and therefore cannot work, it looks at elderly people, activity for elderly people, sorry.
Johan Danielsson
Yes, it's good to know that Commission and you care about the topics, but also we need to leave sufficient room for members to ask their questions. But it makes sense that you try to give real answers, so I think thank you for that as well. We will now move to the second round of questions. Each group representative has one minute for the question and Mr. Nava will then reply at the end of them to all the questions we gathered them. So first we start with the EPP and Mr. Radtke.
Dennis Radtke
Yeah, I'm going to speak in German. Hallo Mario, good to have you here. Translation is working? Ja, ich kann's kurz und schmerzlos machen, was mich natürlich einfach umtreibt. Ja, wir alle oder zumindest eine große Mehrheit hier im Raum haben ein veritables Interesse an der Weiterentwicklung der europäischen Säule sozialer Rechte, an weiteren Schritten zur Implementierung.
Aber das, was die Kommission mit Blick auf den mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen vorschlägt, ist eigentlich das genaue Gegenteil davon.
Also wenn wir, es reicht ja nicht aus, einfach nur freundliche Aufforderungen an die Mitgliedstaaten zu senden, sondern wir haben mit dem ESF+ ein eigenes Tool, um diese Dinge voranzutreiben. Und die Position der Kommission, die Vorschläge zum ESF+, jenseits der materiellen Frage, die Architektur, die Eigenständigkeit wird aufgegeben. Ich halte das für das genaue Gegenteil von dem, über was wir hier diskutieren, nämlich wie können wir die europäische Säule sozialer Rechte noch besser und noch stärker implementieren und weiterentwickeln, wenn wir uns selbst die Instrumente dafür aus der Hand nehmen. Thank you very much, then for the S&D, Ms. Bischoff.
Lieber Mario, danke für die Präsentation. Ich habe zwei Punkte. Die Säule lebt von den konkreten Aktionen, das ist deutlich geworden und der Quality Jobs Act ist essenziell. Ich war gerade auf einer Mission in Südkorea mit AI. Wir sind viel zu langsam für die Entwicklungen, die im Moment passieren.
Gabriele Bischoff
Wir brauchen algorithmisches Management und die Kontrolle und die Maßnahmen ganz schnell. Deshalb steht das für mich im Zentrum. Und meine Frage ist, wir sehen jetzt, dass insbesondere auch sehr viele qualifizierte Jobs betroffen sind. Und das bedeutet, wir können das in Südkorea schon sehr sehen, dass junge Leute mit guten Abschlüssen nicht mehr eingestellt werden. Welche Maßnahmen hat die Kommission hier?
Weil in meinem Land zum Beispiel können wir diese Trends etwas zeitverzögert auch bereits realisieren, weil sich diese Einstiegsjobs für Akademiker am leichtesten und besten mit KI ersetzen lassen. Und meine zweite Frage ist, dass seit wir die Lissabon-Strategie haben, haben wir die Armutsziele immer verfehlt. Gibt es so etwas wie einen Urgent Mechanism genau hierfür? Weil wir wissen, vier Jahre, du hast es gesagt, vier Jahre ist keine Zeit, wenn man noch so ein Gap hat. Also da muss noch mal der Turbo rein.
Wie sieht der aus?
Brigitte van den Berg
Thank you very much. Thank you very much also, Madam Commissioner, to be here. Great to see you here after the summer.
I want to talk with you about targets, and specifically educational targets, because this is an important topic of the INI that we wrote on the opportunities for VET, and for VET, for vocational education and training. Because, as you might know, the target that we have on education is focused on tertiary education. Since 2009, we ask Member States to have at least 40% of their people educated on a tertiary level. We increased that in 2020 to 45%, and we even increased it in 2026 to 47%. But if we look at the skill shortages that we have, the persistent shortages that we have in our most important development sectors in the economy, we actually need more professions that are educated in vocational education and training.
And before, what's interesting is that before 2009, we used to have a target that was focused on upper secondary education, and we used to ask our Member States to have 85% of our people educated on an upper secondary education. So I want to ask you, do you think that this target actually still asks for the right outcome?
And do you think that we should maybe, next to our target on tertiary education, have a target on vocational education and training for our member states? And second of all, I want to ask if the Commission would consider to commission research on the signaling effect that the tertiary target has had on our policy. Because I think that this target has unintentionally affected the image and the attractiveness and the perceived status of VET across Europe. And I think that this evidence would really be very useful to ensure that when we are going to the VET strategy, that we know that it generally supports the parity of esteem that we want between vocational and academic pathways. Because this is an important objective that the Commission also put forward in their Union of Skills.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, and please members try to to respect the time. Then for the Left, Mr. Oliveira, the floor is yours.
João Oliveira
Thank you, Chair, I'll speak in Portuguese. Senhor Nava, a primeira pergunta que quero fazer-lhe é quando é que vai a Comissão Europeia fazer um balanço completo do Pilar Europeu dos Direitos Sociais e dar explicações sobre o incumprimento dos objetivos que foram definidos na revisão de 2021?
Em relação à pobreza, isso é particularmente evidente. Quando olhamos para a situação dos trabalhadores em situação de pobreza, para os dados sobre a pobreza infantil, para o aumento do número de pessoas em situação de sem-abrigo, vemos que a evolução vai no sentido exatamente contrário aos objetivos que foram definidos em 2021 e que agora acabam por ser aqui reafirmados e, por isso, precisamos de uma explicação sobre esta evolução no sentido contrário a esses objetivos da revisão de 2021 do Pilar Europeu dos Direitos Sociais. A segunda pergunta que quero fazer-lhe é de saber como é que se articulam estes objetivos que aqui foram afirmados com as políticas que a União Europeia vai promovendo em sentido exatamente contrário. A habitação continua a encarecer. Hoje mesmo, o BCE prepara-se para anunciar um novo aumento das taxas de juro com mais consequências de aumento dos custos com a habitação para níveis insuportáveis pelas pessoas.
O custo de vida continua a aumentar sem intervenção nos preços essenciais, na energia, nos combustíveis, nos transportes, na alimentação.
Como é que é possível compatibilizar todos estes objetivos que são afirmados no Pilar Europeu dos Direitos Sociais com políticas que vão no sentido exatamente contrário, particularmente nestas áreas que lhe referi?
Thank you. I will give the floor now to Mr. Nava to reply to the answers. We will have time for a third round of catch the eye. I have three members that have indicated that they would like to take the floor. If someone else wants to take the floor, please indicate it.
Mr. Nava, the floor is yours.
How much do I have?
Mario Nava
Thank you very much for the excellent question. I go in reverse order for Mr. Oliveira. First of all, one thing may be the perception, the anecdotal perception you have, another thing are the numbers. No, the numbers of people in poverty has been going down. Not enough as much as we wanted, but it has gone down by about three and a half million.
Europe remains the area of the world with the lowest inequality and with the lowest amount of poverty. It may not be enough for our sensitivities, but it's by far and large the area in the world with that. The second area is China, the third is US. These are the numbers.
So I agree very much with you that we need to do more, and that's the reason why we came up with the anti-poverty strategy, which really gives the word, if you want, to the to the people who are in a situation of poverty, but it's not true that the numbers have worsened and went in the opposite direction. And the same thing on the cost of living, you are very right, there is an issue of cost of living. I underlined in my intervention that what really responds to the cost of living is quality job, is wages which are enough to compensate for the cost of living, and that's why we are also very proud not only of the adoption of the minimum wage directive, but we have published together with the pillar of social right the report on on it. On Mrs. Vandenberg, Brigitte, I think you have a point. And I think the the world has changed.
I mean, the world changes, you know, every year, every summer, every every winter, the world changes. And we have realized that for a number of of reasons, the as you have called them, the two streams, the streams of tertiary education and the streams of of VET are two streams that go up together and and they are in a way complementary. That is the reason why we want to come with a VET strategy soon.
As you know, we don't have yet an announced date, but it's a matter of months rather than, rather than anything, rather than anything else. In the VET strategy, it's very clear that we will address one crucial point that you mentioned, which is the VET skill shortages, which is evident everywhere, whenever, even in our, even in our daily life, in our anecdotal daily life. I take note of what you suggested for the, for the study. As far as I know, we don't have it there, but, but I take note of that. But I think the crucial point you have is that we need to have much more attention to the VET as a stream of education, because this is clearly something that is going, if we want to increase the employment rate for the whole population, we really need to look at the two things.
Gabriele, Frau Bischoff, on artificial intelligence, we are very much far away from other countries in the world, that is true. However, we published a Eurobarometer a year ago, and there are, there are two numbers in the Eurobarometer that really stick to, to my mind. One is the number of people in Europe who use artificial intelligence or are interested to use artificial intelligence, and that number was 62%. And the other number is the number of people who think that some regulation for artificial intelligence is necessary, and that was 85%.
I think this is a major advantage for Europe. We do think, we, the European citizens, 85% means this room, left, right, and sovereignist and leftist, all of them, you all think that it's necessary to put some limits, to put some borders to the development of artificial intelligence and all of that. Artificial intelligence and entry job, do they devastate entry job? For the time being, we have some evidence, although not super convincing, but there is some evidence, there are some areas where this is very clear. We have done a lot with Youth Guarantee, we need to do more.
Unfortunately, this is something that starts very early. You have seen the number of PISA that were published this week, they are devastating number of PISA. Look at the number of people who cannot read. There are some countries where 50% of the people are not, do not have a good reading level, let alone mathematics, let alone science.
We are below our major competitors in the talents and we are more or less at the same level of our major competitors for the, for the, for the worst performance. So I think here really is a major thinking that we need to do before the work at schools, education at schools and then of course making sure the transition from work to schools remain, remain function. MFF and social cost, my friend Dennis and, and Herr Radtke. The MFF, the proposal for the MFF does not entail the abolition of social spending. Actually what we do is that we propose a minimum of 14% of a total, of a total envelope which is more or less similar to the amount we have today for social spending.
This is now up for discussion. There is the Commission proposal, the Parliament I understand is voting something in, in November if I'm not wrong, and of course the Council is, is negotiating. I think attention to social matter will remains. What has happened this summer I think has only pushed for, for that and I'm, I'm really convinced that we can continue to work together in that direction.
Thank you. Thank you very much for the reply. I have four people on the list for the third round so please stick to one minute so we are able to have the replies as well.
Marianne Vind
Thank you, Johan, I'll speak in Danish. Først og fremmest så er jeg glad for at høre, at Kommissionen bekræfter, at den sociale søjle for rettigheder fortsat skal være en del af EU's sociale skjold. Som min gode kollega har nævnt, så handler det her jo om det, der fylder hos almindelige mennesker. Deres liv, deres leveomkostninger, adgang til en bolig, ordentligt arbejde og en sikker fremtid på arbejdsmarkedet. Vi skal levere på det her.
For når flere mennesker oplever en økonomisk usikkerhed, og når fattigdom stadig er en realitet i Europa, så rammer det ikke kun den enkeltes tryghed. Men det skaber plads til yderliggående kræfter, der lever af utilfredshed og skaber splittelse, hvor meget simple svar har stor appel.
Så jeg er nysgerrig på, hvordan Kommissionen ser sin rolle i at oplyse borgerne i EU om, at EU arbejder seriøst med det her, arbejder seriøst med at forbedre levevilkår. Tak.
Maria Zacharia
Σας ευχαριστώ. Κύριε Nava, ο ευρωπαϊκός πυλώνας κοινωνικών δικαιωμάτων κρίνεται και θα κριθεί όχι από τις διακηρύξεις, αλλά από το τι συμβαίνει καθημερινά στους χώρους δουλειάς. Θέλω να θέσω δύο θέματα. Για τον εργαζόμενο κοινωνικό δικαίωμα σημαίνει μισθός που του επιτρέπει να ζει αξιοπρεπώς. Συλλογική σύμβαση που τον προστατεύει, σταθερή εργασία, υγεία και ασφάλεια.
Και πραγματικό δικαίωμα να οργανώνεται και να διεκδικεί. Σε αυτά κάποια κράτη μέλη όπως η Ελλάδα είναι πολύ πίσω. Θα πρέπει να συνδέσουμε απαρέγκλιτα ότι ευρωπαϊκό δημόσιο χρήμα χωρίς σεβασμό στα εργασιακά και συνδικαλιστικά δικαιώματα δεν μπορεί να υπάρξει. Αυτό πρέπει να γίνει ο ευρωπαϊκός πυλώνας, όχι υποσχέσεις δικαιωμάτων αλλά η εγγύησή τους. Το δεύτερο θέμα που θέλω να βάλω είναι ότι η εργασία αλλάζει με την ψηφιοποίηση και την τεχνητή νοημοσύνη.
Όμως η τεχνολογική πρόοδος πρέπει να υπηρετεί τον άνθρωπο. Η υπεραξία που δημιουργούν η αυτοματοποίηση και η τεχνητή νοημοσύνη πρέπει να επιστρέφει στην κοινωνία με καλύτερους μισθούς, ισχυρότερες συλλογικές συμβάσεις, περισσότερο ελεύθερο χρόνο και κοινωνική προστασία. Σας ευχαριστώ.
Johan Danielsson
Thank you. Next one is Mr. Angel. The floor is yours.
Yes, thank you very much, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Nava, for all the explanations.
Marc Angel
I chaired the monitoring group on the platform on the implementation of the platform work directive. And talking about AI, you mentioned the high-level group to examine the potential and the impact of AI. This is very good. We are very worried in our working monitoring group on the omnibuses, the digital omnibuses, the effect of these omnibuses when you water down the GDPR, when you water down the AI Act. And we had experts who said this has an impact on the platform on the platform work directive.
It may not take the rights away, but it will make it very, very difficult to implement these rights later on. This is some of our conclusions. So I hope that my I hope that this level group is aware of this and that you working on the AI on the on the Quality Job Act that you take into consideration that we have to really have strong strong legislation which cannot be put in and also possible to implement them because we see the danger with the platform work directive. Thank you.
Branislav Ondruš
Thank you, Mr. Nava.
My intervention will be not about you, but from the comprehensive point of view I must say that the social policy of the Commission is not credible. Just look what we have just voted about. If 28 regime would be adopted in a form as it has been proposed by the Commission, to speak about Pillar of Social Rights would be just a joke, and a very bad joke. So if anything contributes to more social Europe, then it is Excellence Johan's job on compromise amendments to absolutely anti-social proposal of the Commission. So therefore I'm sorry Mr. Nava, it is not about your particular your job, but if Commission wants to convince European people that it tries to build really social fairness in European Union, so I think that Madame Minzatu must use its position her position of Vice-President to influence social dimension of any Commission's Commission's legislative work, not just what falls under DG Employment.
Thank you.
Johan Danielsson
Thank you everyone for questions, comments. I would like now to give the floor back to Mr. Nava for his replies, but then also for the concluding remarks. The floor is yours for five minutes.
Mario Nava
Thank you very much. On the, on the first point, Mr. Wim, on the European Pillar of Social Rights, what role the Commission find for itself on anti-poverty? I think, not I think, it's a reality that this was the first ever anti-poverty strategy. So I think you should at the very least recognize to the Commission a certain courage to come to an area that till now was only and eminently national, if not local in some, in some nations. What we do in the anti-poverty strategy is to raise a number of actions that Member States could do, is of course to put in evidence how much the ESF could help, and the ESF does help a lot with anti-poverty.
For example, you know, the Restos du Cœur, in most countries, the Restos du Cœur, one third is financed by the ESF.
So I believe we do have a number of areas where we find a role for ourselves, but let me be very clear, we do need Member States' cooperation. We cannot win the battle of poverty alone, we do need Member States' cooperation. And the battle of poverty is big because the number of poverty in Europe, albeit they are the lowest in the world, they are still relatively high. We have about 19, 1-9 percent of the European population which is considered at risk of poverty or exclusion. The second issue, Mrs. Zacharia, on the health, job and safety and what do we do with the workers and how do we ensure that their job is relatively safe, first of all, protected, makes sense and so on and on.
I think many of the issues you raised actually are part of what we call the quality of the job. I mean, we have worked with the various committees and we have asked what are the components of the quality of job and the components are health and safety, wages, contract, stability, this kind of thing. So I believe there we have been giving some replies and of course the Quality Job Act of next year will be of this year, sorry, of December this year will be very, very important. Platform Work Directive.
I couldn't agree more with you that the platform work directive is probably a watershed directive in the sense that it transformed people who had no rights in people with rights. So God forbid that the implementation of that is very difficult. We have been and I thank you for your work in the implementation monitoring group, we have been working with member states making sure that all of this is is is implemented. If you think that there is something in the omnibus that make difficult that implementation, please let me know. And let me know and by saying to you let me know, I respond also to to Mr. Ondros what we do of course as social department.
First of all we have a network of social correspondent in each and every DG, so in each and every DG of the Commission there is a person who is sort of our antenna. But second we participate very actively and Fabien Dell who is here is the head of unit in charge, we participate very actively to each and every interservice consultation. And therefore if you give me the evidence when there will be the interservice consultation of omnibus, if I am convinced by your evidence I will be able to put the point.
So in response to Mr. Ondros, I do think that we do our best to include social fairness not only in our policy, but also in other, in other, in other policies as much as we can. And then at the end of the day, of course, it's always a final compromise which is struck. Thank you.
Johan Danielsson
So thank you very much for the presentations. Mario, also for answering all the questions from members. Thanks for colleagues for putting the questions and your contribution. I think the discussion today shows that the committee continues to believe that the European Pillar, Social Pillar is a cornerstone for a strong social dimension of the European project, but also that the committee and the Parliament are looking for concrete proposals that make sure that the principle of the pillar also make a real difference for workers and citizens throughout Europe. So I believe that we have, we will have plenty of opportunities to continue these discussions.
With this said, I move to the next point of the agenda. The next point of the agenda is any other business. And we have no other business except Mark wants to go for lunch, which seems like a plan. Next point is just to say that the next meeting of the committee will be on the 1st of October. So thank you for today.