23.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 482/1

23.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 482/2

—

having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Titles XVII, XVIII and XIX thereof,

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1),

—

having regard to Council Decision 2006/702/EC of 6 October 2006 on Community strategic guidelines on cohesion (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 5 July 2011 on the Commission‘s fifth Cohesion Report and the strategy for post-2013 cohesion policy (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 June 2011 on the state of play and future synergies for increased effectiveness between the ERDF and other structural funds (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 7 October 2010 on EU cohesion and regional policy after 2013 (5),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 May 2010 on the contribution of the cohesion policy to the achievement of Lisbon and the EU 2020 Objectives (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 May 2010 on the implementation of the synergies of research and innovation earmarked Funds in Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 concerning the European Regional Development Fund and the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Development in cities and regions as well as in the Member States and the Union (7),

—

having regard to the Commission proposal of 6 October 2011 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund covered by the Common Strategic Framework and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (COM(2011)0615),

—

having regard to the Commission proposal of 6 October 2011 for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on specific provisions concerning the European Regional Development Fund and the Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (COM(2011)0614),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 6 October 2010 entitled ‘Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative: Innovation Union’ (COM(2010)0546),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 9 November 2010 entitled ‘Conclusions of the fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion: the future of cohesion policy’ (COM(2010)0642),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 6 October 2010 entitled ‘Regional policy contributing to smart growth in Europe 2020’ (COM(2010)0553),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 3 March 2010 entitled ‘Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (COM(2010)2020),

—

having regard to the Commission’s March 2012 ‘Guide to Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3)’,

—

having regard to the OECD’s December 2012 ‘Report on innovation driven-growth in regions: the role of smart specialisation’,

—

having regard to its study of December 2012 entitled ‘Ex-ante conditionalities in cohesion policy’, commissioned by the Directorate-General for Internal Policies,

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 21 March 2013 entitled ‘State of the Innovation Union 2012 — Accelerating change’ (COM(2013)0149),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 13 September 2013 entitled ‘Measuring innovation output in Europe: towards a new indicator’ (COM(2013)0624),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development (A7-0462/2013),

A.

whereas, especially during these times of economic, financial and social crisis, the EU must step up its efforts to complete the innovation union and create sustainable economic growth, and whereas, because of the tight budget situation in many Member States and regions as well as at EU level, resources available are limited, and particularly efficient use has therefore to be made of them,

B.

whereas ‘Smart specialisation strategy’ means the national or regional innovation strategies which set priorities in order to build competitive advantage by developing and matching research and innovation (R&I) own strengths with business needs to address emerging opportunities and market developments in a coherent manner, while avoiding duplication and fragmentation of efforts, and which may take the form of, or be included in a national or a regional R&I strategic policy framework (8).

C.

whereas supporting research, development and innovation (R&D&I) is one of the Cohesion Policy objectives that is subject to obligatory thematic concentration under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for 2014-2020;

D.

whereas for the 2014-2020 programme planning period Member States are required, for the first time, to design an R&I strategy to boost regional innovative capacity and to coordinate R&D&I spending more effectively (9);

E.

whereas, in the process, regions should focus on a small number of priority areas that take account of their respective strengths and weaknesses, and should drive innovation to promote and renew regional economies in a sustainable manner;

F.

whereas regions should formulate a smart specialisation strategy through a process of critical self-analysis, in close cooperation with civil society and with stakeholders that include research centres, universities and other higher-education establishments, and businesses (10);

G.

whereas the purpose of the strategy is to maximise synergies from all instruments and investment in the R&D&I area — and to boost, in particular, synergies between Horizon 2020 and the Structural Funds — in order to close the innovation gap between regions;

H.

whereas regions should also draw up investment plans for the use of all available regional, national and EU funding for R&D&I, indicating as well how to stimulate private investment and how it should be used in the implementation of the Union’s R&D&I priorities in the coming years;

I.

whereas summaries of such strategies, or at least plans for their implementation, should be included in partnership agreements and operational programmes;

J.

whereas the Commission may withhold interim payments of ERDF funding for the thematic objective of strengthening R&D&I if these pre-conditions are not met;

K.

whereas, given the multi-level governance nature of regional policy, regions should be allowed the flexibility of identifying the modalities for fulfilling the ex-ante conditionalities;

L.

whereas the regions should not only become more closely integrated internally, but must also cooperate more closely with each other, in order to become more competitive globally;

1.

Acknowledges that a smart specialisation strategy is a dynamic, long-term process, the participants in which are on a constant learning curve, and that this process should also continue over the next programme planning period and beyond;

2.

Considers that, aside from the need to fulfil the ex-ante-conditionality, developing such a strategy can offer regions significant medium-term and long-term advantages in terms of the effectiveness of their R&D&I, as it entails a coordinated approach and a close look at their potential for innovation;

3.

Calls on each region to view such a strategy not only as a statutory obligation but also as a source of opportunity; calls, therefore, on all regions and Member States, in so far as they have not yet done so, to press ahead with formulating their smart specialisation strategies, so as not to risk delays in receiving EU funding for the relevant operational programmes owing to the lack of such a strategy;

4.

Recognises the need for information in the regions, and therefore emphasises the importance of the advice and support provided by DG REGIO, DG RTD and other relevant directorates-general, as well as by the platform in Seville (11), and calls on them to step up their activities further; calls on all regions to make greater use of the platform; advocates developing broad-based local campaigns to disseminate information on the smart specialisation strategy in order for stakeholders and civil society to be able to participate;

5.

Calls on the Commission to support the regions in establishing the foreseen monitoring system in an effective way, using meaningful indicators, and thereby, in particular, to provide data on which EU-wide and international comparisons can be based;

6.

Underscores the fact that the regions differ significantly in their levels of development and have very different strengths and weaknesses; calls, therefore, on the regions to make their own appropriate choice of actions by focusing on strengthening their regionally-based characteristics, potentials and competitive advantages, rather than by simply copying the successful strategies of other regions;

7.

Stresses that while regions can strive to pioneer new technologies, in order to tap into new markets, alternatively they can build on — and hence diversify — already existing knowledge, skills and abilities in related activities, should this be where the knowledge transfer is greatest (‘related diversity’);

8.

Emphasises how important it is, in terms of strengthening regional economies, not to focus exclusively on individual areas of competitive advantage but also to create a value chain linking all stages of development and production, from basic research through application-oriented research and technology transfer to specific, usable products and business start-ups;

9.

Encourages the regions to invest in cross-sector and cross-technology activities that can generate cross-cutting links throughout the regional economy so that a variety of businesses, as broad as possible, can contribute to as well as benefit from the generation of more growth and jobs; encourages, in this regard, the regions in particular to draw on and foster the potential of all types of SMEs — which per definition are micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (12) — as they act as regional drivers of innovation and are therefore of fundamental importance to the economy of each region.

10.

Is of the opinion that the regions, when selecting their priorities, should — in addition to strengthening their innovation systems with a view to achieving greater competitiveness and added value — undertake actions that address structural and societal challenges within society, such as unemployment, poverty, energy security and demographic change;

11.

Calls on the regions not to focus solely on technology-based innovation, but rather to base their strategies on as broad a notion of innovation as possible; hopes that account will be taken not merely of high-tech but also of low-tech — and, indeed, non-technical –innovation, such as process optimisation and organisational transformation; points specifically to social and environmental innovation in this context; stresses that the aim of innovation strategies should be to stimulate innovative practices;

12.

Is aware that setting priorities is a sensitive procedure that regions undertake; believes, therefore, that the introduction of a review system would offer regions the opportunity to rethink their strategies; takes the view that the initial selection of meaningful results-oriented indicators and the quality of the contribution from the actors involved are key factors for the success of the smart specialisation strategy, reducing the risk of errors when priorities are set;

13.

Is of the opinion that the quality of cooperation between government and the relevant actors in regions will have a decisive influence on the success of the RIS3 strategy, and will markedly reduce the risk of wrong priority choices being made;

14.

Underscores, in this connection, the importance of consulting with businesses, and with SMEs in particular, since a ‘vision of innovation’ will only be successful if businesses have the appropriate potential to put it into practice;

15.

Stresses the need to rethink and, where necessary, expand all the consultation processes and target groups, so as to avoid missing future drivers of innovation; considers it particularly important to involve future entrepreneurs;

16.

Makes it clear that, in the process of developing a shared vision, it is, for reasons of ownership and awareness-raising, fundamental that local and regional policy-makers, universities, research and innovation centres and businesses, as well as civil society and social actors, are as closely involved as possible;

17.

Highlights the important role that close cooperation inside the knowledge triangle plays in the transfer of knowledge, for example in the framework of the European Institute for Research and Innovation or of regional innovation clusters and centres; underlines, in this regard, the importance of ‘investment in people’;

18.

Calls on public and private stakeholders to use the many opportunities to fund these actions under the ERDF for 2014-2020, including by supporting the establishment of regional innovation incubators and by developing links and synergies between universities, other research and higher educational institutes, innovative and creative entrepreneurs and businesses, and business support providers and investors, as e.g. in the case of creative and cultural industries;

19.

Is of the opinion that, for this process, appropriate structures and efficient administration need to be in place, and that administrative authorities and ministries must establish a culture of cooperation between themselves and in dealings with businesses and other actors; calls on regional and national decision-makers and authorities to modernise their internal procedures in line with the needs of the new ‘entrepreneurial discovery process’ and, in particular, to enter into a more intensive, long-term dialogue with the relevant actors; encourages SMEs, especially in regions with a high share of such enterprises, to collaborate through suitable platforms in order to strengthen their role in the smart specialisation process; recommends that, if necessary, resources available for capacity building should be used to empower administrations and stakeholders further;

20.

Considers that all authorities and actors concerned at regional level should, if necessary, be offered high-quality training and seminars focused on issues related to the preparation and implementation of smart specialisation strategies;

21.

Welcomes the Commission’s and the EU legislative authority’s successful efforts to improve the environment for synergies between the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) and other EU programmes, such as COSME and, in particular, Horizon 2020, for instance through harmonised standard rates or combined funding (13);

22.

Urges the regions to make full use of all funding, cooperation and investment opportunities, including upstream and downstream actions (14), in order to promote synergies between ESIFs and Horizon 2020 and, in so doing, to close the innovation gap between regions;

23.

Calls, in this regard, on those regions that are lagging behind in terms of building research infrastructure and capacity to foster collaborative arrangements with research establishments of excellence, along the lines of ‘teaming/twinning for excellence’, in order to build up centres of excellence on their own that, in the future, will benefit the regional economy as a whole;

24.

Calls on the regions, within the framework of the strategy, to give in-depth consideration to the question of how to attract investment in the private sector, since there is still considerable scope for boosting the investment potential in R&D&I in this sector;

25.

Calls on all regional and national actors in charge of devising and implementing the RIS3 strategy, the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) road map, the ESIFs and Horizon 2020 to cooperate more closely as regards planning and coordination, and, where necessary, to develop appropriate structures (15) to integrate the various tiers of government action; invites the Member States to exchange best practises on such structures;

26.

Calls on DGs REGIO and RTD to persist in their efforts to ensure that programmes are compatible, in order that synergies may be created; underlines that joint support should be provided to national and regional authorities to aid in the design and implementation of their respective strategies; expects DGs REGIO and RTD to step up their cooperation in this regard, in particular by issuing guidance documents for the actors involved;

27.

Welcomes all efforts to extend advisory services; is of the opinion that it would be beneficial if potential recipients of Horizon 2020 funding and relevant advisory bodies were to be involved as well in this exchange in an appropriate fashion;

28.

Calls on the regions not only to improve their internal links between education and research institutions, businesses and the administration, but also to build alliances with other regions so as to supplement their own value chain;

29.

Stresses out that opportunities will be fostered if close cooperation is established between the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KIC) partners in the regions and the authorities and organisations involved in designing and delivering the RIS3 strategies as described in Annex IV in COM(2011)0615, 2011/0276(COD), C7-0335/2011, including partnership with regions hosting existing and potential co-location centres, such as Regional Implementation and Innovation Communities (RICs);

30.

Considers it vital that regional specialisation strategies help create new European networks of excellence in a range of sectors, thereby helping to boost the European Union’s competitiveness and international profile;

31.

Is of the opinion that regional cooperation is potentially of huge benefit, because of the knowledge and technology transfer involved, both to the regions themselves, in terms of their local economic strength, and to the EU as a whole; points in this regard to very successful collaborative arrangements such as, for instance, the ‘Regions of knowledge’ initiative;

32.

Notes that many regions shy away from the complex analytical and coordinating efforts required; encourages the regions to make use of the option provided by the legislator whereby up to 15 % of the programme funding can be invested outside the programme area (16);

33.

Points out that, in border areas, the challenges are often the same on both sides of the border owing to the common territorial features which these areas share; calls on the Commission and the Member States, and on local and regional authorities, to draw up cross-border smart specialisation strategies, and to establish cross-border clusters, making use of EU interregional cooperation funding;

34.

Welcomes the territorial cooperation options provided for by the common strategic framework (17); welcomes as well any other small-scale internationalisation action by the regions and by actors working on their behalf;

35.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the Member States.

23.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 482/9

—

having regard to Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the geological storage of carbon dioxide and amending Council Directive 85/337/EEC, European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/60/EC, 2001/80/EC, 2004/35/EC, 2006/12/EC, 2008/1/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 (1) (the CCS Directive),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 27 March 2013 on the Future of Carbon Capture and Storage in Europe (COM(2013)0180),

—

having regard to the Commission Green Paper of 27 March 2013 entitled ‘A 2030 framework for climate and energy policies’ (COM(2013)0169),

—

having regard to the EU climate and energy package of December 2008,

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 March 2012 on a Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050 (2),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0430/2013),

A.

whereas Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a promising technology that may be the only means of achieving significant CO2 reductions from industrial sources and has the potential to significantly reduce CO2 emissions from fossil fuel power plants, yet requires investment and industrial-scale demonstration to promote innovation, secure cost reductions, and confirm its environmental safety;

B.

whereas the International Energy Agency predicts that fossil fuels will continue to provide 75 % of the global energy mix by 2030, suggests that CCS is necessary to deliver almost 20 % of the CO2 reductions needed by 2050, and claims that if CCS is not deployed, an additional 40 % in electricity investment will be needed to prevent a temperature rise in excess of 2 oC;

C.

whereas CCS is the only technology able to provide significant CO2 reductions from major industrial sectors including steel, cement, and chemicals and oil refineries, and in conjunction with the use of biomass for electricity generation has the potential to promote a net reduction in CO2 emissions;

D.

whereas based on current usage levels of fossil fuels and future projections for the use of the same, CCS would seem to be essential to achieving the target of keeping the rise in global temperatures below 2 oC;

E.

whereas the development of CCS should be regarded as a strategy that is complementary to the development of renewables in the transition to a low-carbon economy;

F.

whereas in 2007 EU heads of government aspired to have up to 12 CCS demonstration plants in operation by 2015, but as their financial viability depended on there being a high carbon price these ambitions cannot now be realised;

G.

whereas development of this technology should not serve as an incentive to increase the share of fossil fuel power plants;

H.

whereas the EU is losing its technological lead in CCS and — with only one project still being considered for NER300 funding, and European Energy Programme for Recovery projects having been terminated or suspended — now has no effective policy to promote development of CCS flagship projects;

I.

whereas the general public should always receive a full and clear picture of the advantages of and possible threats from CCS before any projects are developed at commercial scale;

1.

Recognises that CCS deployment has the potential to allow the EU to meet its 2050 low-carbon aspirations at least cost and that it is necessary in particular for decarbonising high CO2 emitting industries; believes that it may also contribute to the diversity and security of energy supplies while maintaining and creating employment opportunities; affirms the urgent need to develop a range of full-chain CCS flagship projects so as to identify the best and economically most advantageous solutions, and calls on the Commission to set goals for the achievement of this objective; appreciates that, given the substantial investment required, instruments in addition to the EU emissions trading system (ETS) are needed to foster research and the technical and safe application of CCS;

2.

Believes that although CCS might offer part of the solution to reach the goals for limiting greenhouse gas emissions, it would be even better if the Member States could reach these goals without the use of CCS;

3.

Calls on the Commission to encourage CCS deployment not only in connection with coal and gas power generation but also in a range of industrial sectors such as chemicals, metallurgy, iron and steel, cement and refineries; insists that the Commission should address the issue of CCS deployment within the 2030 climate and energy framework, and should bring forward proposals for promoting the early construction of CCS flagship projects;

4.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to adopt far-reaching measures to foster international cooperation and to promote the use of technologies for mitigating the effects of climate change, in order to point expanding economies in the direction of developmental alternatives including, for example, CCS, which are less carbon intensive;

5.

Believes that the Steel Action Plan should make specific reference to the need to develop CCS flagship projects within this sector;

6.

Recognises that CCS deployment cannot take place without support from Member States and private investors, and that the former have an absolute and sovereign right to encourage or prevent its application; notes that while certain Member States have indicated that they do not expect CCS to play a role in their emissions reduction strategies, this should not to deter initiatives by those who consider that technology can play an effective role in their transition to a low-carbon economy;

7.

Reminds the Commission that Parliament has called for legislation to require every Member State to produce a 2050 low-carbon strategy; suggests that these national roadmaps should be updated at five-yearly intervals; expects them to indicate whether and how CCS is to be deployed by the Member States concerned;

8.

Calls on the Commission to propose that Member States should be required to prepare and publish national low-carbon roadmaps prior to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conference in 2015;

9.

Emphasises that, in the absence of a high carbon price, Member States that wish to promote deployment of CCS have the key role to play in providing a transparent revenue stream and such other financial support as may be necessary to secure the construction and operation of flagship projects, while enabling operators who face high first-mover costs to secure a return on their investment; notes that appropriate regulatory arrangements may also be required if CCS is to be deployed on a commercial basis; recognises the necessity of environmental safety standards being met;

10.

Calls on the Commission to consider creating an EU industrial innovation investment fund to support the development of innovative climate-friendly technologies including CCS flagship projects, other innovative low-carbon technologies, and measures to reduce CO2 emissions from energy-intensive industries and their processes; suggests that this could be financed from the sale of allowances from the EU ETS; underlines that this should not lead to a new demand on the EU budget; recognises that in framing the parameters for the use of such a fund, account should be taken of experience gained from the limitations and inflexibility of the NER300 funding mechanism;

11.

Believes that CCS policies and strategies should only be framed on the basis of sound evidence of the positive impact that they will have on the environment, on the stability of EU industry, on employment in the EU and on the affordability of energy prices for the public and for industry;

12.

Believes that longer-term CCS support should be derived principally from an appropriate CO2 price signal; suggests that the Commission should facilitate debate on possible options by carrying out an analysis of systems requiring the purchase of CCS certificates proving the CO2 emissions avoided, through storage or treatment, in proportion to the CO2 embedded within the fossil fuels placed on the market;

13.

Requests that the Commission prepare guidelines for Member States with regard to the various financial and other mechanisms which they could deploy to support and incentivise CCS development, and to access support funds from within the EU budget;

14.

Notes the decision of the European Investment Bank to prohibit lending for the construction of coal power plants that would emit more than 550 g CO2/kWh; emphasises that without the financial support to develop CCS, the introduction of stringent emissions performance standards will be essential;

15.

Suggests that the Commission should consider how use could be made of the EU Coal and Steel Research Fund to support CCS pre-commercial demonstration in these industrial sectors;

16.

Appreciates the encouragement given by the Norwegian Government to CCS projects within the EU and expresses the wish that in negotiating the next programming period a request be made for funding support for CCS flagship projects;

17.

Requests that the Commission assess the benefits of adopting and developing the Ciuden CCS pilot project in Spain, which has received some EUR 100 million in support funding from EU sources, as a European test facility for capture technologies and inland CO2 storage;

18.

Acknowledges that significant financial savings can be made by establishing CCS clusters of industrial installations served by shared pipelines or other CO2 transport systems; suggests that plant operators cannot generally be expected to take into account the future requirements of other installations, and that major investments such as trunk pipelines intended eventually to carry CO2 from multiple sources could be developed through public-private sector partnerships; emphasises that Member States seeking the deployment of CCS may have a direct role to play in ensuring the provision of CCS transport and determining the availability of storage infrastructure;

19.

Calls for closer cooperation with the United States and Canada in the form of an exchange of expertise and good practices in the light of CCS activities undertaken in the context of the US-Canada Clean Energy Dialogue;

20.

Insists that new low-carbon technologies should be regarded as complementary and not as being in competition with one another; stresses the fact that both renewable and CCS have roles to play in the future EU energy mix and that the latter should not be to the detriment of achieving the EU’s mandatory renewables development target; calls for measures to promote the use of both technologies to be proposed within the 2030 climate and energy framework;

21.

Notes that Europe’s geology may provide an abundance of potential sites for the permanent sequestration of large quantities of CO2, not least below the North Sea far from human habitation; supports EU measures and funding to establish a common definition of a storage site’s character, identify appropriate storage locations across Europe, develop pilot projects, and prepare sites for commercial-scale storage on the territory of supportive Member States;

22.

Calls on the Commission to promote the production of a European atlas of potential CO2 storage sites;

23.

Recognises that Article 6 of the London Protocol has been amended so that it no longer needs to provide a barrier to the cross-border transportation of CO2 for sequestration; notes, however, that ratification of this change could take many years; calls on the Commission to clarify whether there are circumstances in which it will permit the cross-border transfer of CO2 prior to ratification of the Protocol;

24.

Notes the concern of some potential CCS developers that the requirements and liabilities placed upon them for the geological storage of CO2 in sites approved by Member States are unquantifiable and excessive; recalls, however, the rules on responsibility for the storage of CO2 laid down in the Directive on the geological storage of CO2 (the CCS Directive) and the obligations incumbent upon holders of a storage permit;

25.

Fully accepts that any accidental release of CO2 from a storage site must be prevented and the environmental integrity of the project protected in accordance with Article 1 of the CCS Directive; calls on the Commission to offer guidance regarding the degree to which the details of compliance arrangements should be determined in advance through negotiation between potential operators and the competent authorities of the Member States concerned;

26.

Points out that the CCS Directive gives Member States wide flexibility to determine the financial security to be provided by CCS operators and the period before which responsibility for a closed storage site is transferred to the competent authority; suggests that Member States that seek to promote CCS development will have to play a more entrepreneurial role and accept a greater share of the responsibilities than presently understood;

27.

Calls on the Commission to revise its CCS Directive guidance documents to clarify these points;

28.

Suggests that the CCS Directive requirement that in the event of CO2 leakage operators must surrender allowances does not take into account the costly remedial efforts required; fears that this obligation puts a further obstacle in the way of CCS development; calls on the Commission to propose a revision in its assessment of the CCS Directive;

29.

Insists that it is no longer acceptable to invest in power plants or industrial installations likely to emit large quantities of CO2 without regard to how this will be reduced in future;

30.

Highlights that, according to a Eurobarometer survey, the European population remains largely unaware of CCS but that those who are informed are more likely to support it; Calls on the Commission and the Member States to improve communication in order to raise public awareness of CCS, and believes that a wider understanding of CCS is crucial to public acceptance, and thus to the delivery, of CCS;

31.

Notes that Member States are permitted to evaluate in different ways the provisions of the CCS Directive requiring an assessment of capture, transport and storage capability to be made prior to the granting of operating licences for power plants;

32.

Calls on the Commission to suggest that it can be a condition — in the Member States that have decided to make use of CCS technology — of construction that adequate preparations for the implementation of CCS, or of other measures to reduce CO2 emissions significantly, be made for all new fossil fuel power plants and high-emission industrial installations above an agreed size, except in the case of electricity demand peak shavers or when a Member State has complied with a legislative requirement to publish a roadmap indicating how it will meet its 2050 CO2 reduction goals without the use of CCS;

33.

Asks the Commission to analyse and submit a report on the level of CCS which would need to be deployed by certain key dates, for example 2030, in order for CCS to make a significant contribution to 2050 emissions reduction targets;

34.

Welcomes the various initiatives to make use of CO2 in ways that reduce overall emissions into the atmosphere and create alternative products such as sustainable transport fuels; calls in particular for the Commission to assess urgently the potential for the secure use of CO2 to enhance oil and gas recovery within the EU;

35.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

23.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 482/14

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 6 December 2012 entitled ‘eHealth Action Plan 2012-2020 — Innovative healthcare for the 21st century’ (COM(2012)0736),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 30 April 2004 entitled ‘e-Health — making healthcare better for European citizens: an action plan for a European e-Health Area’ (COM(2004)0356),

—

having regard to the Commission Recommendation of 2 July 2008 on cross-border interoperability of electronic health record systems (2008/594/EC),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 4 November 2008 entitled ‘Telemedicine for the benefit of patients, healthcare systems and society’ (COM(2008)0689),

—

having regard to Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the applications of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare,

—

having regard to the Commission’s eHealth Strategies Report of January 2011 entitled ‘European countries on their journey towards national eHealth infrastructures’ (1),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the opinions of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, the Committee on Regional Development and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A7-0443/2013),

A.

whereas equal access to high-quality universal healthcare is internationally recognised — especially within the EU — as a fundamental right;

B.

whereas access to a healthcare system is in many cases restricted as a result of either financial or regional constraints (e.g. in sparsely populated areas), and eHealth systems can play an important role in improving these health inequalities;

C.

whereas the trust of patients in the healthcare services provided to them is crucial in order to guarantee high-quality healthcare;

D.

whereas Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union stipulates that Union action must complement national policies and be directed towards improving public health, preventing physical and mental illness and diseases and obviating sources of danger to physical and mental health;

E.

whereas, therefore, Union action in the field of eHealth consists of helping all competent authorities at local, regional, national or state level to coordinate their efforts at national and cross-border levels and supporting their actions in fields where EU intervention can provide added value, the aim being to improve the quality of life of citizens;

F.

whereas the economic downturn implies cuts in national healthcare budgets, which implies that solutions must be found to increase the efficiency of healthcare systems and, hence, ensure their sustainability;

G.

whereas eHealth should be a cost-effective and efficient way of providing healthcare to patients while aiming to reducing their medical expenses without placing undue burden on current national healthcare systems;

H.

whereas inequalities resulting from the digital divide will extend to healthcare inequalities if access to high-speed internet connections is not improved as eHealth services are expanded;

I.

whereas the organisational and cultural approaches to the way healthcare is delivered vary from one Member State to another, which is of significant value, in particular for encouraging innovation;

J.

whereas we are facing multiple cross-border health concerns;

K.

whereas there has been an increase in the mobility of the general public within the healthcare systems of their own countries, and whereas it is now more common for some patients to undergo medical treatment outside their country of residence;

L.

whereas article 4(5) of Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare stipulates that Union action shall not affect laws and regulations in Member States on the use of languages;

M.

whereas there is little benefit to patients in unnecessarily repeating clinical tests when the results of these already exist in their medical records and can be accessed by healthcare professionals treating them in other places;

N.

whereas information and communication technology (ICT) has developed to such a point that it can be applied in eHealth systems, and whereas this has met with success in various Member States and in countries around the world, entailing numerous benefits at national level, in particular as a means of strengthening patient safety, facilitating a holistic approach to patient care, fostering the development of personalised medicine and increasing the efficiency — and thereby sustainability — of healthcare systems;

O.

whereas, however, further investment in research, development, evaluation and monitoring is required to ensure that eHealth systems (including mobile applications) lead to positive outcomes;

P.

whereas there is a need for ICT specialists, consumers, patients, informal carers, healthcare professionals in general — and doctors in particular — and the public health authorities to work together in this field;

Q.

whereas successful eHealth initiatives and projects like epSOS or the Virtual Physiological Human initiative have demonstrated the great value of eHealth solutions;

R.

whereas importance should be given to databases (such as cloud computing) and to the matter of where and how they are kept, and whereas the security of such databases must be a priority;

S.

whereas priority should be given to legal and data protection considerations relating to eHealth, and, as patients’ health data is of an extremely sensitive nature, there is a need to balance data protection with access to data and to establish clarity regarding liability;

T.

whereas there is a need for regulatory frameworks regarding eHealth in all Member States;

U.

whereas EU guidelines for health professionals on how to use patients’ data correctly are needed;

V.

whereas it is necessary to foster EU-wide use of standards in the design of eHealth systems, and to make the latter interoperable in the various Member States in order to guarantee their effectiveness on a European, cross-border scale, while also ensuring that standardisation actions only seek to ensure interoperability and do not result in a single player having a monopolistic position;

W.

whereas not all citizens and healthcare professionals have the opportunity to use IT tools or the skills needed to take advantage of eHealth services;

X.

whereas, as a consequence, and in order to provide all the actors with the necessary knowledge and skills to engage in eHealth,

Y.

whereas, due to longer life expectancy and the gender sensitivity of certain diseases, women are affected by chronic and disabling diseases to a greater extent than men;

Z.

whereas patients with chronic disease need a multidisciplinary approach;

AA.

whereas eHealth solutions have the potential to increase the well-being of — especially chronic — patients because it is easier to treat them at home;

1.

Welcomes the Commission Communication entitled ‘eHealth Action Plan 2012-2020: Innovative healthcare for the 21st century’, which updates the eHealth Action Plan adopted in 2004 by putting in place further actions, especially as regards improving access to health services, reducing health costs and ensuring greater equality among European citizens; urges the Commission to continue working towards the wholesale adoption of eHealth throughout the EU;

2.

Considers that, for all its shortcomings, eHealth has great potential and could be of benefit to the professionals involved in healthcare, to patients and informal carers and to the competent authorities themselves;

3.

Points to the possibilities of eHealth applications that allow for decentralised healthcare policies at regional or local level and for adapting healthcare policies to local needs and differences;

4.

Considers that providing the tools necessary for harnessing public, real-time data will facilitate a better understanding of benefit-risk, the prediction of adverse events and improvements in the efficiency of health technology assessments;

5.

Emphasises that eHealth applications must be accessible to everyone and that, when developing any product or software application, accessibility should be a mandatory condition, in order to prevent any inequality with regard to access;

6.

Recommends that the necessary steps be taken to close the digital gap between the different regions of the Member States and to ensure that having access to and use of eHealth services does not become a source of social or territorial inequality, in order that they benefit all EU citizens equally, reaching patients who are not familiar with ICT technologies as well as those who otherwise would be excluded or underserviced by national healthcare systems;

7.

Asks the Commission and the Member States to ensure equal access for women to the field of eHealth, not only as patients but also as caregivers (professional or not), ICT specialists and policymakers; highlights the fact that women are involved at all levels of the health sector throughout their lives;

8.

Calls on the Commission to encourage and promote eHealth services designed for (informal) family carers so as to support them in their often heavy caring tasks and to enable them to provide the best care possible;

9.

Points out that adoption of a ‘eHealth culture’ by healthcare professionals is paramount, as is the creation of conditions that lead to patients being empowered by and having trust in eHealth;

10.

Emphasises, in this respect, the importance of strengthening the role of healthcare professionals, and of patients and patient organisations, in the development and implementation of the eHealth Action Plan;

11.

Stresses, in particular, the need to ensure that patients have the possibility of consulting and using information concerning their health, and asks, therefore, the Commission and the Member States to ensure patients’ health literacy in order to enable effective implementation of eHealth tools;

12.

Asks the Commission and the Members States to pay particular attention to digital literacy and to technical training in order to ensure that eHealth tools, especially telemedicine, are genuinely effective and accessible for the whole population;

13.

Considers the proposed cuts to the Connecting Europe facility for broadband and digital services deeply regrettable, especially given the current crisis of competitiveness in the Union; hopes that financing for this area under Horizon 2020 will be maintained; encourages local and regional authorities to make effective use of EU funds to finance eHealth — without thereby reducing funding for traditional health services, such as by closing down community-owned hospitals — and to share health literacy knowledge;

14.

Urges the Commission and the Member States to provide the economic, human and material resources necessary to ensure that access to and use of eHealth services will not add to the territorial inequalities already affecting access to existing ICT services;

15.

Urges in particular the competent authorities within the Member States to make full use of the EU structural funds to improve internet connectivity and reduce the digital divide;

16.

Calls on the Commission to support these efforts through the Digital Agenda for Europe, to facilitate the use of these funds for this purpose, while providing clear guidelines regarding funding in order to directly support the ICT and health sectors, and to engage further with telecom operators to encourage broadband mapping.

17.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop new eHealth tools that are accessible to and user-friendly for the elderly and for persons with disabilities;

18.

Calls on the Commission to encourage eHealth solutions for isolated women, not only those living in remote areas but also home-bound women lacking the mobility and/or (social) support network they need in order to maintain their health and well-being;

19.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to play a major part in bringing different stakeholders together to share experience and best practices;

20.

Calls, in the light of these considerations, for the establishment of a platform for collaboration in research between patients, academia, industry and professionals in order to ensure the delivery of an effective and all-inclusive eHealth policy.

21.

Points out that the development of eHealth applications, including the use and re-use of health data, requires measures concerning confidentiality, data protection, liability and reimbursement in order to ensure that sensitive data are protected from hacking, illegal data selling or other forms of abuse; welcomes, in this respect, the Commission’s intention to launch a study regarding the legal aspects of eHealth services;

22.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to bring forward guidelines and legislative proposals to fill the legal gaps that currently exist, in particular in the field of responsibilities and liability, and to ensure effective implementation of the eHealth system across the EU;

23.

Urges in particular the Commission and the Member States to proceed with guidelines and legislation on the legal and data protection considerations relating to eHealth, in particular legislation enabling secure sharing, processing and analysis of data, in order to balance data protection with data access.

24.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure good governance of operations related to health information on the internet;

25.

Stresses the need for doctors, other professionals involved in healthcare, patients and informal carers to be provided with continuous and specialised assistance and training in eHealth so as to help them develop their digital literacy and, hence, make the most of eHealth services without exacerbating social or territorial inequalities;

26.

Believes that assistance and training should prioritise

27.

Recommends that the opinions of doctors and other professionals involved in healthcare, along with those of patients associations, be taken into account, not only in the development of eHealth applications but also in their evaluation and monitoring;

28.

Points to the importance of preserving a human dimension in healthcare, especially in view of the fact that the population is ageing and that it is therefore increasingly difficult to distinguish between medical and social aspects; calls, therefore, on the Commission to make sure that eHealth technologies will not become a substitute for the trusting relationship between patients and their (health)care professionals;

29.

Calls on the Member States and the Commission to run eHealth awareness and IT literacy training campaigns (taking into account social and territorial inequalities) aimed at overcoming the lack of knowledge and trust among patients, the general public and healthcare professionals; believes that these campaigns should be tailored to suit each of the social groups targeted, since public information and active public participation are key to the effective development of new healthcare delivery models;

30.

Urges the Member States to step up cooperation on eHealth at national and regional level, but also at cross-border level so that countries further advanced in this field can communicate what they have learned to those with less experience;

31.

Calls on the Member States to share their experiences, knowledge and good practices, and to work among themselves, with the Commission and with stakeholders, to increase the effectiveness of patient-centred eHealth systems;

32.

Stresses that, to this end, the Member States should continue to collaborate by means of electronic platforms that allow them to share good practices regarding eHealth systems and solutions, and that and both the Commission and the Member States should support the connection between the different eHealth projects in the EU;

33.

Underlines the potential of apps for mobile devices for patients, especially for those with chronic diseases, and encourages the development of helpful, specifically health-oriented apps with medically verified content;

34.

Urges the Commission to come forward with an ‘mHealth action plan’ for mobile devices, which should include guidelines on market surveillance of mHealth apps in order to ensure data protection and the reliability of the provided health information, as well as to guarantee that these apps are developed under appropriate medical scrutiny;

35.

Urges the Commission and the Member States to adopt standards for health-related mobile apps so as to ensure that the information transmitted is accurate, and to remedy the lack of legal clarity and transparency regarding the use of the data collected by such apps;

36.

Urges the Commission and the Member States to continue working through pilot projects, such as epSOS and ‘Renewing health’, and/or the Virtual Physiological Human initiative in order to develop pan-European interoperability, and to continue to support innovative solutions for person-centred care, including advanced modelling and simulations, needed to achieve the aims of predictive and personalised medicine;

37.

Stresses that the organisation of healthcare systems falls under the competence of authorities in the Member States; urges, nevertheless, the Commission to continue to work with healthcare professionals, patients’ associations, other key stakeholders and the competent authorities when framing its policies and addressing the conflicting priorities in eHealth, keeping in mind that the main priority is the access of patients to an effective and affordable healthcare system;

38.

Stresses that eHealth creates new jobs in medicine, research and health-related services, and, in this regard, calls on the Commission to encourage national authorities to make use of EU funds to finance programmes for eHealth and cross-border health threats;

39.

Calls on the Member States — given that the eHealth Action Plan is aimed at creating new job opportunities in the research, health, medicine and ICT sectors — to pay particular attention to the gender balance in education, training and recruitment in all these sectors;

40.

Urges the Commission and the Member States to work together to develop sustainable funding models for eHealth services within national health budgets, and to consult other stakeholders, such as health insurance funds, national health institutions, healthcare professionals and patients organisations, when doing so;

41.

Underlines the fact that innovations in the field of eHealth create business opportunities and contribute to future growth;

42.

Stresses the need to step up research into eHealth systems, but to do so in a way that research expenditure does not impact directly on the cost of the service provided;

43.

Urges the Commission to dedicate resources within future research and development framework programmes to eHealth;

44.

Emphasises the need to guarantee that appropriate support is given to SMEs, in order to ensure a level playing field in the eHealth sector, boost SMEs’ market access in this domain and ensure that they contribute to social and territorial cohesion;

45.

Calls, therefore, on the Commission to support and facilitate SME eHealth projects by setting guidelines on the eHealth market and improving cooperation between SMEs, on the one hand, and stakeholders, research bodies and health insurance schemes, on the other, to create innovation for healthcare providers.

46.

Stresses that, when it comes to SMEs developing ICT tools, there is a need for transparency and competition in order to ensure affordable prices for eHealth tools.

47.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop data standards for collecting, sharing and reporting on cross-border, health-related issues;

48.

Urges the Commission and the Member States to work together with patients, and with other relevant stakeholders, to pinpoint eHealth tools and models to support the implementation and development of Article 12 of Directive 2011/24/EU, which deals with the development of European reference networks between healthcare providers and centres of expertise;

49.

Urges the Commission and the Member States to continue their efforts to implement Article 14 of Directive 2011/24/EU on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare, which is aimed at establishing an eHealth network;

50.

Calls on the Commission to allow membership of all regional authorities that are competent for eHealth applications in the eHealth Network set up through Directive 2011/24/EU;

51.

Stresses the need of an ethical code of practice for cross-border activities that is without prejudice to the principle of subsidiarity;

52.

Underlines that it is essential for patients to be able to access their own personal health data; stresses that patients, having given prior consent to the use of this data, should always be informed, in a clear and transparent manner, of how it is being processed;

53.

Urges the Commission and the Member States to apply the processing standards for health-related personal data laid down in the proposal for a regulation on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, once that regulation has entered into force;

54.

Points to the need to use international standards both in the modelling of information and in its exchange in all Member States, to develop international codes for eHealth professions and to harmonise the relevant definitions;

55.

Welcomes, in this respect, the ongoing international collaboration with the WHO and the OECD;

56.

Welcomes the EU-US cooperation on eHealth, characterised by on-going collaboration such as that developed in the context of the Memorandum of Understanding on cooperation surrounding health information and communication technologies, and including, notably, the jointly developed EC-HHS roadmap for the development of internationally recognised interoperability standards and interoperability implementation specifications for electronic health information systems;

57.

Emphasises the need to ensure the technical standardisation and interoperability of ICT-enabled solutions and of data exchange at all levels of European healthcare systems, while developing guidelines for the EU-wide interoperability of these systems;

58.

Stresses the importance of assuring interoperability between software applications used by patients and doctors, respectively, in order to attain better results and improve communication;

59.

Welcomes the Commission’s intention to propose an eHealth Interoperability Framework by 2015, and sees this as a very important step towards patient empowerment in eHealth; regards it important that this Framework includes the creation of standardised reporting in medical records as well as support for the development of medical devices, including a feature for the automatic electronic storage of medical records;

60.

Emphasises the need to ensure that the cultural and linguistic diversity of the European Union is fully respected with regard to the technical standardisation and interoperability of European healthcare systems;

61.

Calls for eHealth tools to be developed not only on the basis of technological and financial considerations, but also on their effectiveness and their worth in terms of improving health outcomes and quality of life, stressing that the overriding aim of the development of such tools should be the best interests of the patients, including the elderly and patients with disabilities;

62.

Calls on the Member States, when promoting the plan, to stress the importance of the gender balance;

63.

Urges the Commission and the Member States to promote a gender-balanced approach to healthcare and medicine and, when implementing the eHealth Action Plan, to take into consideration the specific needs of women and girls as healthcare beneficiaries;

64.

Stresses the importance of global surveys in eHealth evidence-building;

65.

Recommends that the Member States and the Commission, with the help of the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), collect gender-disaggregated data on initial findings as regards the accessibility and impact of eHealth systems and tools, and calls for steps to be taken to share best practices in eHealth implementation;

66.

Recalls the need for the future eHealth Action Plan to guarantee the following key principles:

67.

Calls on the Commission to publish every other year a progress review as regards the implementation of the eHealth Action Plan in the individual Member States, showing how this tool has been modified in innovative ways to provide citizens with high-quality and efficient healthcare systems, and, in the light of this, to set effective indicators at national and Union levels to measure the progress and impact of the actions planned, paying particular attention to potential discrimination or to access inequalities that could affect consumers and patients.

68.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, to the Committee of the Regions and to the Member States.

23.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 482/22

—

having regard to the five-point action plan (1) presented by the Commission in March 2013 following the discovery of a vast network of fraudsters passing off horsemeat as beef,

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules,

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004,

—

having regard to the proposal for a regulation on official controls and other official activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health, plant reproductive material [and] plant protection products (COM(2013)0265),

—

having regard to the report of the European Court of Auditors of 11 October 2012 on the management of conflicts of interest in four European Union agencies,

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the opinions of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A7-0434/2013),

A.

whereas the general principles of EU food law, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, prohibit the marketing of unsafe food along with fraudulent practices, the adulteration of food, and any other practices which may mislead the consumer;

B.

whereas Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods and Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers lay down detailed provisions in relation to the ban on misleading advertising and labelling practices;

C.

whereas the EU regulatory framework in place for food safety and the food chain has provided a high level of food safety for EU consumers until now; whereas the current legislation is, however, still fragile and not always reliable, and therefore there is a need for improvements on the ground;

D.

whereas, at the same time, recent food fraud cases have damaged consumer trust in the food chain, having a negative impact on the agro-food sector, as these scandals damage the overall image of this key sector of the EU economy; whereas restoring the confidence of consumers of European agri-foods both inside and outside the EU is of paramount importance; whereas it must, however, be stressed that the vast majority of European agri-foods are of excellent quality and therefore deserve international recognition;

E.

whereas transparency is a key component of the approach adopted by the Commission and Member States towards food safety controls;

F.

whereas the agro-food sector is one of the biggest economic sectors in the EU, providing 48 million jobs and worth EUR 715 billion annually;

G.

whereas individual cases of food fraud have a negative impact on the image of the entire agro-food sector;

H.

whereas EU food law is very detailed in the area of food safety and includes controls and tests for residues and other contamination of food and feed, but whereas there is no framework in place specifically to target food fraud, other than the general stipulation that consumers may not be misled;

I.

whereas problems are also found in the implementation of the current legislation and there is a need to have more effective official controls on food of animal origins at each stage of the food chain;

J.

whereas no statistics exist on the incidence of food fraud in the EU, and whereas the Commission has only recently identified food fraud as a new area of action;

K.

whereas recent cases of fraud include, for example, the marketing of horsemeat as beef and the marketing of the meat from horses treated with phenylbutazone as edible horse meat, the marketing of ordinary flour as organic flour, of battery cage eggs as organic eggs, of road salt as food salt, the use of methanol-contaminated alcohol in spirits, the use of dioxin-contaminated fats in animal feed production and the mislabelling of fish species and seafood products;

L.

whereas food fraud generally occurs where the potential for and the temptation of food fraud are high and the risk of getting caught and sanctions are low;

M.

whereas the food supply chain is often long and complex, involving many food-business operators and other parties; whereas consumers are increasingly unaware of how their food is produced and individual food business operators do not always have, and are not required to have, an overview of the entire product chain;

N.

whereas the massive-scale fraud of horsemeat meals throughout Europe is the symptom of an uncontrollable globalised supply system, cut-price agri-food productivism and an incomplete labelling system;

O.

whereas traders and intermediaries in the food chain are not always registered and certified as food business operators; whereas the Commission and the Member States are often uncertain as to how many non-registered traders are active;

P.

whereas following serious incidences of food fraud, convicted fraudulent food business operators are sometimes closed down by national competent authorities; whereas these businesses soon after re-register elsewhere and continue trading as before; whereas information exchange between Member States on convicted fraudulent businesses would improve the monitoring of these businesses in order to prevent them from pursuing new fraudulent activities;

Q.

whereas responsibility for implementing and enforcing EU food law lies with the Member States and whereas enforcement and control are thus mostly limited to the national level, as a result of which an EU-wide cross-border overview is limited to non-existent;

R.

whereas national authorities tend to focus their controls on food safety and do not prioritise food fraud, often due to a lack of capacity and resources;

S.

whereas the competent authorities of some Member States have specialised police units to combat food fraud; whereas controls in some Member States are partly delegated to private control bodies; whereas in other Member States controls are carried out wholly by the competent authorities;

T.

whereas the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed is a useful tool for the rapid exchange of information between Member States and the Commission, for example in the recent horsemeat fraud case;

U.

whereas the Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) is responsible for checking on compliance with EU food safety and quality requirements, and whereas its audits are typically announced in advance and prepared in conjunction with the competent authorities; whereas the number of audits per year is restricted by the FVO’s limited capacity; whereas the FVO has indicated that it is not currently equipped or trained to focus on food fraud;

V.

whereas the warnings concerning the increase in the number of horses being slaughtered in some Member States have been completely ignored by the competent authorities, in particular the FVO;

W.

whereas Europol has observed a rise in the number of food fraud cases and expects this trend to continue, along with the growing involvement of criminal organisations in food fraud;

X.

whereas Europol’s information system can be used by Member States to share information about cross-border investigations; whereas Europol can only assist Member States with its expertise, analytical tools and databases at their request; whereas in the horsemeat fraud case, Member States were initially reluctant to work with Europol;

Y.

whereas since 2011, Europol has successfully conducted several OPSON operations on counterfeit and substandard food products; whereas in carrying out these operations, Europol cooperates with Interpol, Member State authorities, non-EU countries and private partners;

Z.

whereas labelling the country or place of origin of meat and meat products in itself does not prevent fraud; whereas the origin of a food product partly determines the price of the food product in some cases;

AA.

whereas the conclusion of the free trade agreements currently envisaged by the EU could serve to weaken European food safety legislation;

AB.

whereas a fresh effort must be made to understand fraud in an economic context characterised by the global financial crisis and by social dumping both inside and outside the EU;

AC.

whereas trading practices serve to foster a race to the bottom as regards quality, safety and transparency, and have an impact on the profit margins of the whole sector;

AD.

whereas distribution practices and the use of distribution intermediaries are destabilising production markets by cutting producers’ margins;

1.

Deplores the fact that combating food fraud is a relatively new issue on the European agenda, and that in the past it has never been a key priority for legislation and enforcement at EU and national level;

2.

Expresses its concern about the potential impact of food fraud on consumer confidence, food safety, the functioning of the food chain and the stability of agricultural prices, and emphasises the importance of quickly restoring European consumers’ confidence;

3.

Calls, therefore, on the Commission to give food fraud the full attention it warrants and to take all necessary steps to make the prevention and combating of food fraud an integral part of EU policy;

4.

Underlines the need to gain further insight into the scale, incidence and elements of cases of food fraud in the EU; calls on the Commission and the Member States to collect data systematically on fraud cases and to exchange best practices for identifying and combating food fraud;

5.

Notes that EU law does not currently provide a definition of food fraud and that Member States adopt different methodologies in the definition thereof; considers a uniform definition to be essential for the development of a European approach to combating food fraud; stresses the need to adopt swiftly a harmonised definition at EU level, based on discussions with Member States, relevant stakeholders and experts, including elements such as non-compliance with food law and/or misleading the consumer (including the omission of product information), intent and potential financial gain and/or competitive advantage;

6.

Emphasises the fact that, given the nature of the EU single market, food fraud extends in many cases beyond the borders of Member States and becomes a threat to the health of all European citizens;

7.

Notes that recent food fraud cases have exposed different types of food fraud, such as the replacement of key ingredients with cheaper or lower quality alternatives, the incorrect labelling of the animal species used in meat or seafood products, the incorrect labelling of weight, the sale of ordinary foods as organic, the unfair use of quality logos designating origin or animal welfare, the labelling of aquaculture fish as fish caught in the wild or the marketing of an inferior variety of fish under the name of a superior category or a more expensive species, and the counterfeiting and marketing of food past its ‘use-by’ date;

8.

Points out that foods which are often subject to fraudulent activities include olive oil, fish, organic products, grains, honey, coffee, tea, spices, wine, certain fruit juices, milk and meat;

9.

Is concerned about signals indicating that the number of cases is rising and that food fraud is a growing trend reflecting a structural weakness within the food chain;

10.

Notes that food fraud generally occurs where the potential financial gain is high, and the risk of getting caught low; considers it untenable that committing food fraud in the EU is lucrative and that the chances of getting caught are relatively low;

11.

Points to the complexity and cross-border character of the food chain, in combination with the predominantly national character of controls, sanctions and enforcement, a situation which is believed to increase the risk of food fraud; believes that better traceability of ingredients and products within the whole food chain would help to combat fraud;

12.

Underlines the need to pay great attention to controls on imported goods from third countries and their compliance with EU standards on food and feed safety;

13.

Also draws attention to other factors often cited as contributing to food fraud, such as the current economic crisis, the austerity measures affecting control agencies and pressure from the retail sector and others to produce food ever more cheaply;

14.

Welcomes the Commission’s decision to set up a food fraud team and acknowledges the efforts made by Europol in the fight against food fraud; encourages the Commission to consider the development of an EU Reference Laboratory (EURL) for food authenticity;

15.

Welcomes the Commission’s plan to organise a conference on food fraud in 2014 in order to raise awareness among relevant actors;

16.

Is convinced that unannounced independent inspections are essential to ensure effective implementation of food safety and labelling standards; believes, therefore, that unannounced inspections should be the norm;

17.

Calls on the Commission to enlarge the focus of FVO audits to include food fraud; considers that the FVO and Member States should make use of regular, independent and mandatory unannounced inspections in identifying intentional violations to ensure adherence to the highest standards of food safety; believes that it is important to have a transparent approach to the way in which official controls and inspections are carried out and to make public the reports and outcomes of controls and inspections regarding food operators in order to restore and maintain consumer confidence;

18.

Regrets the limited visibility and uptake of FVO reports and audits by the Commission and Member States; calls on the Commission to follow up FVO reports and recommendations more vigorously;

19.

Calls on the budgetary authority to increase the capacity and resources of the FVO and of the Commission’s food fraud team;

20.

Expresses concern at the reduction in funding in the EU for the bodies which carry out these key monitoring tasks;

21.

Calls on the Member States and European regions to provide control bodies with sufficient personnel, financial and technical resources;

22.

Underlines the fact that efficient controls and inspections should be carried out in such a way that does not create unnecessary administrative burdens for SMEs;

23.

Suggests holding an annual hearing of the FVO in its ENVI Committee to discuss completed and future audits before the FVO adopts its work programme for the following year;

24.

Calls on the Member States to ensure that the issues raised by the FVO are properly acted on and addressed;

25.

Notes that any changes to the process for review and prioritisation of the work programme of the FVO should not change the legal process for the adoption of FVO work programmes;

26.

More specifically, urges the Commission and Member States to act on the findings of FVO audits with regard to fraudulent medical treatment records of animals destined for slaughter for export to the EU, and to exclude meat and other animal products from third countries, which cannot be guaranteed to be compliant with EU food safety requirements, from being placed on the EU market;

27.

Notes that Member States often struggle to successfully prosecute fraudulent food business operators operating across EU borders, owing to jurisdiction issues; regrets the fact that Member States do not systematically cooperate with Europol in cross-border cases of food fraud, but work bilaterally;

28.

Recognises the importance of whistle-blowers in uncovering fraudulent practices in the food sector; calls on the Member States to create the right conditions to enable whistle-blowers to denounce malicious practices safely and anonymously;

29.

Believes that national competent authorities should inform the public, to the extent possible and appropriate, of product recalls and other measures taken by competent authorities in incidences of food fraud;

30.

Considers that official controls should focus not only on food safety issues, but also on preventing fraud and the risk of consumers being misled; welcomes the fact that the Commission’s proposal for a review of official controls incorporates extra controls in respect of food fraud where competent authorities have reason to suspect fraudulent behaviour by an operator;

31.

Observes that some Member States partly delegate controls to private control bodies; stresses that Member State competent authorities should always supervise control systems and verify, certify and scrutinise all private control systems to ensure that they comply with national and international standards in order to make their findings accessible to public agencies;

32.

Rejects any plans to delegate inspection tasks from public authorities to economic operators;

33.

Believes that the role of traders and the legislative framework applicable to business-to-business sales should be clarified;

34.

Believes that all commercial operators which process, trade or store raw materials, food ingredients or food products in the human food chain, including traders and owners of cold stores, should be registered as food business operators and be subject to controls;

35.

Believes that food business operators should be able to tell where the food or ingredients used are sourced from, meaning that each food business operator within the production chain bears their share of the responsibility for the end product;

36.

Acknowledges the importance of clear and transparent business-to-business and business-to-consumer labelling and calls on the Commission to review EU food law in this area, to reduce the risk of food fraud;

37.

Calls for greater awareness and improved monitoring of business-to-business and business-to-consumer labelling of frozen foods; calls on the Commission to present a proposal on the obligatory labelling of meat and fish which indicates whether the products have been frozen, how many times they have been frozen and for how long;

38.

Believes that, even though it is not per se a tool for combating food fraud, labelling the country of origin can help to ensure better traceability along the food supply chain, more stable relationships between meat suppliers and processors, increased diligence when food business operators choose their suppliers and products, and more reliable information for consumers, thus restoring consumer confidence;

39.

Recalls that Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 stipulates that the Commission will adopt, by December 2013, implementing acts regarding the mandatory labelling of the country of origin, the labelling of meat from swine, sheep, goats and poultry, and the voluntary labelling of food following an impact assessment;

40.

Calls on the Commission to come forward swiftly with these implementing acts on the labelling of fresh meat from swine, sheep, goats and poultry, drawing inspiration from the rules already applicable to non-processed beef and veal, ensuring that consumers are informed about animals’ places of birth, rearing and slaughter, while taking into account existing national and regional systems for indicating the origin of meat;

41.

Recalls, furthermore, that Parliament has previously called for origin labelling for meat in processed foods, and that the Commission is working on a report on mandatory origin labelling for meat used as an ingredient; urges the Commission to present swiftly its report and follow up with legislative proposals making the indication of the origin of meat in processed foods mandatory, while taking into account its impact assessments and avoiding excessive costs and administrative burdens;

42.

Calls for the better labelling of processed products which contain fish, in particular as regards the origin of the fish and the fishing techniques used;

43.

Calls on the Commission to accelerate its efforts, together with stakeholders and the Member States, to explore the scope and need for the introduction of electronic certification systems in the food chain, which could reduce the likelihood of fraud based on paper certificates;

44.

Requests that the Commission establish a centralised European register for horse passports in order to prevent the fraudulent issuing of duplicate passports;

45.

Expresses concern at the lack of a European legislative framework governing meat from cloned animals;

46.

Calls on the Commission to develop a method of tracing and identifying meat from cloned animals, for example by setting up an international database containing genetic information about cloned animals;

47.

Considers it valuable that, in addition to and not replacing the system of official controls for the food sector, the sector itself proactively develops and uses private-sector anti-fraud initiatives such as product integrity checks, self-monitoring, analysis, product-tracing plans, audits and certification, and welcomes current initiatives such as the Global Food Safety Initiative and the Food Fraud Initiative at Michigan State University;

48.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to consider imposing a legal obligation on food business operators to report to competent authorities about the incidence of food fraud cases;

49.

Believes that the retail sector has a special responsibility to guarantee the integrity of food products and to demand from its suppliers a safe and secure supply chain; believes that it is the responsibility of retailers to check at least the formal compliance with labelling rules; deplores the pressure on primary producers from retail and other food business operators to produce ever more cheaply, often at the expense of the quality of the foodstuffs or ingredients;

50.

Notes that food business operators currently do not always know the source of the ingredients they use; notes, in this connection, that short supply chains (local and regional) can guarantee greater transparency and can replace the long and complicated supply chains which played a major role in the food fraud crisis;

51.

Calls on the Commission to put forward legislative proposals, pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, for a ‘local marketing and direct sales’ label to help promote the markets concerned and help farmers in adding value to their produce;

52.

Calls on the Commission, pursuant to Articles 7 and 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, to pursue and prevent the marketing of products which remain on the market under a deliberately inaccurate or misleading name, since this is also to be considered a type of food fraud;

53.

Is convinced that a change of attitude is needed within the competent authorities, moving from an administrative and veterinary approach towards a policing approach, based on the experience of the Danish Food Administration’s ‘flying squad’ and of the Arma dei Carabinieri and the Guardia di Finanza in Italy; stresses that such an approach is dependent on designated courts being staffed by judges with expertise in food law;

54.

Stresses that the carrying-out of controls should be risk-based and include the development of risk profiles and vulnerability assessments for each supply chain and food product, drawing on ongoing academic studies which combine knowledge in the areas of food authenticity and criminology, such as the research being carried out by VU University Amsterdam and the University of Wageningen;

55.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to further stimulate European and national research and development programmes to develop and implement technologies and methods used to detect food fraud, such as sensor technology, data analysis and the fingerprinting of products, and to facilitate the commercial availability of tests in the short term; acknowledges the existing European research projects on food integrity and authenticity, such as TRACE and AuthenticFood;

56.

Recommends that the FVO and national authorities include in their audits so-called mass balance checks on input, output and waste flows;

57.

Urges for the improvement of coordination and communication between the national authorities responsible for investigating food fraud, thereby helping Member States to step up their efforts to combat this problem; calls, therefore, on the Commission, as a matter of urgency, to put in place an electronic system, based on the existing Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) as the Commission has suggested, to enable the rapid exchange of information between Member States and the Commission in cases of food fraud; calls for the publication of annual reports outlining cases of food fraud that have been uncovered, by analogy with the RASFF reports;

58.

Calls for the establishment of an anti-food fraud network as a means of improving coordination among the competent European bodies (Europol, Eurojust, FVO), thus preventing and detecting food fraud more effectively;

59.

Suggests introducing DNA testing as a standard procedure in spot checks for determining species, especially regarding meat and fish products, and to establish a centralised DNA database to this end;

60.

Calls on the Commission to address loopholes in existing food safety and traceability rules related to imports of food from third parties, which bear a higher risk of food fraud;

61.

Insists that the free trade agreements negotiated by the EU must not give rise to changes in European food safety and food security legislation or any scaling down of efforts to enforce that legislation;

62.

Believes that the outcomes of controls should be made public in a way that is easily accessible to and understandable for consumers, for example in the form of a rating scheme; is convinced that this would help consumers in making decisions and also provide incentives for food business operators to perform well;

63.

Welcomes the Commission proposal to strengthen penalties in order at least to offset the estimated economic advantage sought through the violation, but considers that this is not dissuasive enough; believes that the Member States should set penalties for food fraud which are at least double the estimated amount of the economic advance sought through the fraudulent activity; deems it necessary, as an extra deterrent, that Member States set even higher penalties, including criminal law penalties, for fraudulent cases in which public health is deliberately endangered, or in cases of fraud involving products aimed at vulnerable consumers; proposes, furthermore, that in the event of repeated offences the food business operator’s registration be withdrawn;

64.

Regrets that the Commission does not have an overview of the different national systems of sanctions for food fraud offences and of the functioning of these sanction regimes based on EU legislation; calls on the Commission to obtain such an overview as soon as possible;

65.

Calls for greater account to be taken of animal welfare and for more stringent penalties to be applied if the relevant rules are breached;

66.

Calls on the Commission to collect data from the Member States and to report on the different regimes in the Member States as regards the type and level of sanctions for food fraud offences and the functioning of the sanction regimes;

67.

Invites the Commission and Member States also to consider other methods which aim to prevent and discourage food fraud, such as naming and shaming through a European register of convicted fraudulent food business operators;

68.

Calls for the extension of current traceability regimes and for the systematic implementation of the ‘step-free’ traceability provided for in basic Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 covering food and feed, food-producing animals, and all other substances destined for this purpose or which can be expected to be used in the production of food or feed; calls for the entire food chain in Europe, including all stages of production, processing and sales and distribution to be transparent and fully open to scrutiny by inspectors in order to ensure that fraudulent food products can be quickly identified;

69.

Recommends the introduction of an obligation for all research laboratories and their staff to notify the competent supervisory authorities of the results of all food and feed tests which suggest that fraud may have occurred or are relevant to combating fraud;

70.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

23.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 482/31

—

having regard to the Treaty on European Union, in particular the preamble and Articles 3 and 6 thereof,

—

having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Articles 6, 9, 145, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 159 and 168 thereof,

—

having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 1, 3, 27, 31, 32 and 33 thereof,

—

having regard to the European Social Charter of 3 May 1996, in particular Part I and Part II, Article 3 thereof,

—

having regard to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) fundamental labour standards and to its conventions and recommendations on labour administration and labour inspection (Conventions 81 and 129), which are an international benchmark for ensuring that legal provisions concerning working conditions and worker protection are applied,

—

having regard to Convention 143 on migrant workers (1975) and the ILO’s supplementary provisions on migrant workers, which provide for the adoption of all necessary and appropriate measures to suppress clandestine movements of migrants for employment and the illegal employment of migrants; having regard also to the provisions regarding the application of administrative, civil and penal sanctions in respect of the illegal employment of migrant workers,

—

having regard to the Decent Work Agenda of the ILO,

—

having regard to the ILO conventions and recommendations in the field of health and safety at the workplace,

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on Community statistics on public health and health and safety at work (1),

—

having regard to Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (framework directive) (2) and to its individual directives,

—

having regard to Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (3),

—

having regard to the resolution of the Council and the representatives of the Member States, adopted in the Council meeting of 22 April 1999 on a Code of Conduct for improved cooperation between authorities of the Member States concerning the combating of transnational social security benefit and contribution fraud and undeclared work, and concerning the transnational hiring-out of workers (4),

—

having regard to Council Directive 1999/85/EC of 22 October 1999 amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the possibility of applying on an experimental basis a reduced VAT rate on labour-intensive services (5),

—

having regard to Directive 2009/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 providing for minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals (6),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 24 October 2007 entitled Stepping up the fight against undeclared work (COM(2007)0628),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 24 October 2007 on the Outcome of the Public Consultation on the Commission’s Green Paper ‘Modernising labour law to meet the challenges of the 21st century’ (COM(2007)0627),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 3 March 2010 entitled ‘EUROPE 2020 A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (COM(2010)2020), and to its main objective which is to increase employment levels to 75 % by the end of the decade in the European Union,

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2011 on the mid-term review of the European strategy 2007-2012 on health and safety at work (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 9 October 2008 on stepping up the fight against undeclared work (8),

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 May 2007 on promoting decent work for all (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 11 July 2007 on modernising labour law to meet the challenges of the 21st century (10),

—

having regard to its resolution of 26 October 2006 on implementation of Directive 96/71/EC on the posting of workers (11),

—

having regard to its resolution of 26 March 2009 on the social responsibility of subcontracting undertakings in production chains (12),

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 May 2013 on labour conditions and health and safety standards following the recent factory fires and building collapse in Bangladesh (13),

—

having regard to the Integrated Guidelines for growth and jobs (2008-2010) (COM(2007)0803),

—

having regard to the Council Recommendation of 22 December 1995 on harmonising means of combating illegal immigration and illegal employment (14),

—

having regard to the Council Recommendation of 27 September 1996 on combating the illegal employment of third-country nationals (15),

—

having regard to the report by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) on tackling undeclared work in the European Union,

—

having regard to the Special Eurobarometer on undeclared work,

—

having regard to the study ‘ICENUW — Implementing Cooperation in a European Network against undeclared work’ (2010),

—

having regard to the study ‘CIBELES: Convergence of Inspectorates building a European Level Enforcement System’,

—

having regard to the study on ‘Indirect measurement methods for undeclared work in the EU’ (2010),

—

having regard to the study on ‘Feasibility of establishing a European platform for cooperation between labour inspectorates and other relevant monitoring and enforcement bodies with the aim of preventing and fighting undeclared work’ (2010, Regioplan),

—

having regard to the judgement of the European Court of Justice of 19 December 2012, C-577/10, European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium,

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A7-0458/2013),

A.

whereas labour inspection plays an important role in protecting employees’ rights, ensuring health and safety at the workplace and combating unsafe working environments, preventing breaches of employment protection rules and promoting fair and socially responsible economic growth, inasmuch as it helps to ensure that wages are actually paid and social security contributions are made, thus increasing tax revenue and the inflow of money to social security systems and ensuring that employees are covered for sickness, accidents at the work place and pensions;

B.

whereas Member States employ a range of models in delivering different specific inspections of the workplace;

C.

whereas there is a growing need for labour inspection in connection with the posting of workers around Europe;

D.

whereas labour inspection plays a key role in ensuring that rights are turned into reality by ensuring that laws are respected, actors know their rights and obligations, and accidents as well as abuse can be prevented;

E.

whereas labour inspections should be stepped up at SMEs and on small construction sites;

F.

whereas the responsibility of multinational companies for the working conditions, livelihood and health of the workers who produce goods and provide services does not end at the shop door or the factory gate, nor can it be guaranteed by agreements on corporate social responsibility (CSR) alone;

G.

whereas the outsourcing of work through subcontracting and temporary agency work often involves less skilled labour, and looser employment relationships, which makes it more difficult to determine who has responsibility for occupational health and safety (OHS);

H.

whereas undeclared work has negative consequences for Member States’ economies and for the financial sustainability of the European social model, undermines the funding and provision of social benefits and public services, and imposes insecurity, vulnerability and poverty on the people concerned, both while they are working and in their old age;

I.

whereas labour inspectors play an essential role in protecting workers’ rights, preventing abuses and promoting economic and social development;

J.

whereas one consequence of the economic crisis has been increasing workloads, placing workers under additional pressure, especially through changes in working hours, and whereas efforts to monitor working conditions must therefore be stepped up;

K.

whereas new types of employment relationship, which are increasingly hard to provide for under the existing regulations, continue to emerge;

L.

whereas irregularly employed workers suffer from secondary negative consequences such as a lack of access to information, occupational health services and training, and the psychological constraints imposed by the fear of having an accident or being caught, which in return affects the productivity of companies and the economy as a whole, as well as from long-term consequences such as having no right to old-age pension or having very low pension benefits, leading to a higher poverty risk;

M.

whereas undeclared work distorts competition in the single market as it allows certain companies to compete unfairly against others;

N.

whereas the consolidation of a genuine common market is intrinsically linked to the elimination of all forms of social dumping;

O.

whereas undeclared work currently accounts for 18,8 % of GDP in the EU 27 and for over 30 % in certain countries;

P.

whereas, in many Member States, the incidence of undeclared work is still on the increase, inter alia as a result of the crisis;

Q.

whereas measures on whistleblowing are necessary to facilitate the detection of abuse and to ensure the protection of the whistleblower, and whereas the EU and the Member States have a duty to provide full protection for whistleblowers;

R.

whereas 168 000 European citizens die every year from work-related accidents or diseases and 7 million are injured in accidents (16);

S.

whereas risk prevention is key to reducing the rate of work-related accidents and sickness; whereas good occupational health and safety management has a positive effect at both national and European level and for companies;

T.

whereas inspection systems to a greater or lesser degree lack the staff and funding necessary for conducting labour inspections effectively; whereas, as a result, there is too little strategic human-resources planning for labour inspection authorities in the EU, their staff numbers are steadily declining in many countries and, at the same time, the inspectors’ work is becoming ever more complex;

U.

whereas fragmentation of the employment market, combined with uncontrolled and unregulated expansion of certain employment arrangements in some Member States, is depressing pay levels substantially and thereby creating a situation likely to aggravate further the problem of undeclared work;

V.

whereas the sectors in which undeclared work is most prevalent are highly-labour intensive ones, such as construction, security, cleaning and domestic services, and residential and care services, characterised by insecure conditions of employment and remuneration;

W.

whereas there is a close connection between irregular immigration and undeclared work since people resident in Europe illegally are not allowed to take up normal employment and are therefore not covered by any protection system;

X.

whereas workers who do undeclared work have no social security, health or accident insurance, and are thus at increased risk of personal financial loss;

Y.

whereas labour inspection of cross-border services and employment relationships is a matter of cross-border concern, and cross-border access to data is inadequate;

Z.

whereas many workers doing undeclared work find themselves in that situation not of their own volition but because they have been coerced;

1.

Highlights the fact that while labour inspection is a public service task which should only be carried out by independent public bodies, this should not preclude labour inspections being assisted by representatives of the social partners; believes that the independence of OHS services vis-à-vis the employer must be guaranteed; considers, as far as occupational health is concerned, that monitoring, alerts, health expertise and the provision of sound health-related advice can only be handled by independent health and safety professionals; considers it regrettable that the management of OHS is still being carried out, in certain Member States, by employer associations; stresses that the inspection and monitoring of occupational health need to be handled by independent inspectors trained in health and safety;

2.

Stresses the importance of drawing up national action plans for strengthening labour inspection mechanisms, and for financing them through the European Structural Funds, in view of the added value of effective labour inspections in underpinning social cohesion and, in general, consolidating justice at the workplace;

3.

Points out that labour inspectorates have a vital role to play in prevention and monitoring and also help to enhance expertise and information provision at company level; urges the Member States to increase the staffing levels of, and the resources available to, their labour inspectorates and to meet the target of one inspector for every 10 000 workers, as recommended by the ILO, as well as to impose more severe penalties on firms that fail to comply with their obligations concerning fundamental rights (salaries, working hours and OHS); considers that the penalties in such cases must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive;

4.

Points out that all categories of worker, employed or self-employed and irrespective of their status, employment relationship or origin, come under the responsibility of the national inspection authorities and must enjoy the same degree of protection; stresses that attempts to limit the scope of labour inspection may have a negative impact on employees’ health and safety, as well as on their rights;

5.

Stresses the need to enhance the role of national labour inspectorates, provide training for their senior staff and coordinate their responsibilities so as to meet successfully the new inspection challenges;

6.

Considers that labour inspection can be effective only if the relevant authorities are adequately funded and have enough staff; voices its concern at the understaffing of Member States’ inspection authorities and the lack of further training, in particular on Europe-wide issues; calls on the Member States to strengthen their inspection systems as this should be an essential part of national plans to respond to the economic crisis; points out that labour inspections play a vital role by verifying that legislation in force is fully implemented as well as by ensuring that especially vulnerable workers are covered and protected;

7.

Points to the need for uniform training of labour inspectors and others in this field, with a view to tightening up enforcement of EU labour law;

8.

Stresses that the financial reforms being carried out in certain Member States must under no circumstances result in reductions of the manpower, funding, and material and technical infrastructural resources of labour inspectorates;

9.

Points out that legal obligations and employee demands appear to be the two main reasons why employers introduce prevention policies (17);

10.

Believes that without adequate risk assessment it is impossible to protect workers properly; believes that SMEs need to be helped to set up risk prevention policies; stresses the positive role played by simple, free and targeted initiatives, such as the Online interactive Risk Assessment (OiRA) developed by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA);

11.

Reminds the Member States that they have all signed and ratified International Labour Organisation Convention No 81 on labour inspection; calls on them accordingly to enforce the Convention’s principles;

12.

Stresses that labour inspections are effective also if they are made without notice, are repeated and are targeted randomly; points out that for penalties to be effective they must be set so as to ensure that employers cannot gain from circumventing existing wage agreements or laws and regulations;

13.

Points out that labour inspection findings must be accompanied by clear deadlines for action so that abuses can be prevented quickly and victims protected at an early stage;

14.

Points out that labour inspectors in the Member States must be authorised to conduct on-site inspections, use smart inspection tools and work in coordination with all relevant authorities, must have an appropriate remit and must work independently;

15.

Calls on the Member States, in cases where labour inspectors uncover abuse, or when whistleblowers bring cases of abuse to the attention of labour inspectors, to protect the workers concerned as well as any whistleblowers involved, and to enable them to assert their rights at no cost; points out that measures to that end, such as a direct or collective right of complaint, are effective means of protecting persons affected and whistleblowers; calls on the Member States to adopt measures to protect whistleblowers and their families in order to facilitate the detection of abuse; stresses that it is important that migrant workers in an irregular situation are protected and that this should be one of the areas of concern; reminds the Member States, in this context, of the ILO Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions) Convention (No. 143) from 1975;

16.

Calls on the Member States to enforce legal provisions with sanctions commensurate with the seriousness of the offence and to sanction dissuasively the non-respect of working conditions; stresses that research has indicated clearly that, in terms of improving working conditions, the highest impact is achieved by strong, well-coordinated prevention measures and inspections at an early stage, inter alia by providing employers with information and advising them or by registering undeclared workers retroactively;

17.

Points out that a system of electronic networking of all relevant social security authorities, along the lines of the Belgian ‘Crossroads Bank for Social Security’ (18), making it easier for them to exchange data, is a useful tool for giving national labour inspectorates access to data they need in order to make inspections;

18.

Highlights that labour inspections face certain challenges as regards inspections where migrant workers and posted workers from the EU and third countries are concerned; stresses that, for labour inspections to be effective, it is important that labour inspections are sufficiently aware of situations with a high risk of non-compliance; points out that national-level electronic systems for the compulsory advance registration of foreign workers by employers could substantially facilitate the task of labour inspection;

19.

Points out that there is an important role to be played by the social partners in accordance with national laws and practices in seeking to ensure that the existing rules are observed; calls on the Member States to ensure the involvement of the social partners in the design and formulation of national labour inspection plans and in the labour inspections themselves;

20.

Advocates the creation of additional, tripartite, sectoral inspectorates representing government, workers and employers, and, as a pilot initiative, calls for these to be brought into operation in those Member States with the highest levels of undeclared work;

21.

Notes that fewer labour inspections are conducted in rural areas; calls on the Member States to ensure that rural regions are properly covered;

22.

Points out that it is common that the working conditions of employees on fixed-term contracts are less adequate than those of permanent employees; notes that, in order for contract work to be subject to proper inspection, the rights of inspectors to inspect companies that provide contract labour must be extended, and inspections must cover the observance of rules on rates of pay and working conditions, as well as the application of minimum wages where required by Member State law or national collective agreements; insists that the prevention of workplace health and safety problems be accorded the same degree of attention in the private and public sectors; points out that observance of the principle of non-discrimination is compulsory; states that it must be made possible for workers on temporary contracts to find out about their rights, including as regards pay rates, via an on-line service or website;

23.

Expresses concern about the situation of seasonal agricultural workers, most of whom are from third countries; believes that labour inspection in this sector is being stepped up; points out that employment in the sector is largely characterised by a mixture of declared and undeclared work;

24.

Points out that while workers who provide domestic services often are undeclared, or enjoy fewer rights than other workers, in many instances this situation lies outside the remit of the national inspection authorities; calls on the Member States to ratify ILO Convention No 189 and, in line with this convention, develop and implement measures for labour inspection, enforcement and penalties, with due respect for the special characteristics of domestic work, in accordance with national laws and regulations; stresses that, in compatibility with national laws and regulations, such measures should specify the conditions under which access to household premises may be granted, with due respect for privacy;

25.

Draws attention to the specific situation of home workers and teleworkers who, during work at home or outside the regular place of work, may also be the subject of labour law abuses, whereby employers fail to carry out their legal obligations to these workers;

26.

Underlines that particular attention should be paid to the transport sector which, owing to its mobile character, may pose additional challenges for labour inspectorates; calls for labour inspectorates to be equipped with adequate means to undertake effective inspections in this sector;

27.

Deplores the problematically high incidence of bogus self-employment, particularly in the construction and meat processing sector, including under arrangements for the posting of workers; calls on the Member States to introduce appropriate inspection measures to combat bogus self-employment, for example by laying down criteria to determine what constitutes employment, so that labour inspectors can distinguish between bogus and legitimate self-employment; states that, with a view to preventing bogus self-employment, measures should be taken to allow Member States to introduce more far-reaching requirements or control measures;

28.

Calls on national labour inspectorates and other relevant authorities to draw up action plans to combat undeclared work, covering all forms of abuse pertaining to employment and self-employment; underlines that undeclared work, if not properly dealt with, threatens to undermine the EU’s ability to meet its employment targets for more and better jobs, and stronger growth;

29.

Expresses great concern at the extreme vulnerability of migrant workers with irregular or unauthorised status, as they risk being exploited in undeclared work of low standards, with low wages and long working hours in unsafe working environments; underlines that any cooperation between labour inspectors and immigration authorities should be limited to identifying abusive employers, and should not give rise to sanctions against, or expulsions of, the migrant workers concerned, as this would actually undermine the efforts to address undeclared work;

30.

Considers that where national labour inspectorates are responsible for dealing with migrant and posted workers, training programmes for labour inspectors should include specific modules on such issues as well as on undeclared work and human trafficking, as these issues are strongly linked, and should also contain language modules, where relevant;

31.

Considers that penalties will be effective only if employers cannot gain from employing undeclared workers because, in doing so, they would stand to lose substantially more than the cost of taking on registered employees;

32.

Recognises that there is a growing trend towards bogus self-employment, outsourcing and subcontracting, which may lead to an increase in precarious jobs and a further deterioration of the already low protection levels for undeclared workers; believes that systems of general contractor liability could serve as useful tools for increasing compliance with labour standards throughout the whole production process, and that consideration should be given to the introduction of such systems in all Member States, while acknowledging that checks by labour inspectors remain essential;

33.

Draws attention to the problem of implementing workplace health and safety rules in instances where employees do undeclared work; stresses that the right to health and safety protection in the workplace applies to every employee and to every self-employed person, and that improved implementation of the existing rules will give substance to that right; suggests that the Member States look into the possibility of offering confidential medical check-ups for all workers, conducted free of charge once a year or once per contract, in order to give them basic protection;

34.

Advocates stiffer penalties for companies that fail to meet their obligations in relation to employees’ basic rights, and considers that such penalties must have a sufficiently deterrent and dissuasive effect to ensure that employers shall by no means profit from circumventing the existing rules on employment and health protection; calls on Member States to consider in their sanction-setting systems to make the level of fine proportionate to the damage as well as to ensure that it is above the profit gained from the circumvention;

35.

Points out that the Europe 2020 strategy draws attention to the need for more women on the labour market, and considers that workplace inspectors should have knowledge of the working conditions of both women and men;

36.

Calls for these penalties to apply as well to companies found to be blacklisting workers for their activities as trade union or health and safety representatives;

37.

Calls for national trade supervisory authorities to be supported in implementing an efficient system of labour protection at company level, especially in small and medium-sized enterprises; urges the Member States to ensure that inspections are more closely geared to identifying practical and feasible solutions to workplace health and safety shortcomings;

38.

Endorses the useful work which the Senior Labour Inspectors’ Committee (SLIC) is doing to bring national cultures closer together; calls for the committee’s resources and powers to be strengthened; calls for closer cooperation between the SLIC and the Luxembourg Advisory Committee; takes the view that the Commission’s Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work should regularly be updated on developments in the Member States in the field of labour inspectorates and health and safety at work;

39.

Takes the view that these health and safety aspects should also be taken into account in the forthcoming EU strategy on safety and health at work; calls on labour inspections to intensify well-targeted prevention and education initiatives aimed at increasing the awareness of health and safety rules and procedures among citizens; calls on the Commission and the Member States to speed up implementation of REACH, in particular the substitution of the most worrying chemicals; considers that work-related diseases should be taken into account in the prioritisation of these substances;

40.

Considers effective cooperation between national authorities and the social partners to be important in the effort to end social dumping and ensure that competition in the single market is fair; welcomes the Commission’s initiative to create a European Platform for labour inspectors; calls, in this regard, on the Commission to establish a European Platform for labour inspectors on undeclared work within Eurofound, with a remit — as an additional task for the agency — to organise the work of the Platform and facilitate the exchange of experiences and good practices, to provide up-to-date, objective, reliable and comparative information, to enhance cross-border cooperation and to identify and keep a record of letter-box companies and similar operations;

41.

Calls on the Commission, in cooperation with the social partners and relevant national authorities, without prejudice to the principle of subsidiarity, to devote adequate human resources for cross-border matters concerning the abuse of employment protection rules and undeclared work — with a remit including, inter alia, the identification of letter-box companies and the control of transnational service providers — and to develop EU-wide further-training programmes for inspectorates that address challenges such as bogus self-employment and posting, the identification of new ways of circumventing the rules and the organisation of cross-border controls; recommends, in addition, that national inspectorates carry out occasional, joint cross-border inspections, particularly in areas close to border zones;

42.

Calls on the Commission to investigate the benefits of introducing, and — if appropriate — to make available, a forgery-proof European social security card or other EU-wide electronic document, on which could be stored all the data needed to verify the bearer’s employment relationship, such as details on his or her social security status and working hours, and which would be subject to strict data-protection rules, particularly where privacy-sensitive personal data is processed; stresses, therefore, the importance of carefully examining, before and during the development of such a card, the impact it would have on privacy;

43.

Calls on the Commission to carry out a pilot project for a European early-warning system aimed at signalling breaches of employment protection rules and instances of undeclared work that would promote the rapid exchange of information between Member States, and that would be accompanied by a blacklist so that breaches of employment protection rules could more effectively be nipped in the bud; points out that such an early-warning system could be modelled on the existing European consumer-protection early-warning system (RAPEX); stresses that breaches of the rules must be documented accurately, through a systematic recording of inspection findings, so that targeted action can be taken against abuses;

44.

Considers that increased cooperation, and sharing of information, among Member States in combating undeclared work can offer significant European added value; emphasises that this would underpin EU legal initiatives on undeclared employment in a useful way, promote the exchange of best practices and improve coordination between labour inspectorates from different countries;

45.

Points out that in certain cross-border situations the right of national inspection authorities to carry out inspections within non-national companies has been severely restricted, and that this has endangered both the protection of the worker and the level playing field; calls for employee posting information, such as A1 posting certificates, not to be retroactive, and for them to be entered into an EU-wide register that should complement existing national registers and be made available to authorities throughout the EU in order to facilitate the control, at national level, of employment relationships among posted workers on a multilingual basis; states that, in this connection, more efficient cross-border exchange of information between the various competent authorities is of major importance; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that labour inspections can make full use of their right to non-discriminatory independent inspections in cross-border situations, regardless of the place of establishment of the company;

46.

Points out, in connection with the enforcement directive on the posting of workers, that documents must be translated, irrespective of their length, where this is called for during an inspection;

47.

Highlights the lack of emphasis, in existing social security and employment directives, on improved implementation and on the role of labour inspectorates; considers that the existing directives need to be thoroughly reviewed and revised, where necessary, and that the matter of enforcement must be addressed in a better way in European labour law; welcomes, in this context, the Commission’s proposed minimum standards of inspection in directives relating to certain groups of workers; stresses that the role of labour inspectorates, and of the social partners, needs to be taken into account in social security- and employment-related matters in such a way as to permit effective protection;

48.

Calls on the Member States and the Commission to promote the voluntary introduction of higher labour standards by companies through the establishment of a system of free-of-charge ‘social labels’ that are recognised at national or EU level;

49.

Points out that in some Member States there are children under 14 years of age that have jobs; considers that the role of labour inspectors must be strengthened and that campaigns against child labour must be stepped up; calls on the Commission to put in place specific EU-level control and monitoring campaigns focusing on the working conditions of young persons, in particular young migrants;

50.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that procedural rights and enforcement rights, such as those indicated in the proposal for a directive on measures on facilitating the exercise of rights conferred on workers in the context of freedom of movement for workers, are available to all workers;

51.

Considers it important, in relation to mobile workers, that national labour inspectorates — and, where applicable, employee organisations — should be able to conduct inspections in every instance in which they deem it needful to do so; observes that the Member States must ensure that effective checks and monitoring mechanisms are introduced in their territory in order to control and monitor compliance with the provisions and rules laid down in relevant directives;

52.

Calls on the Commission to design and provide the Member States with guidelines on best practices, and to facilitate cooperation and the exchange of information among them, so that they are able to scrutinise and control the activities of temporary work agencies more effectively; stresses that the Member States should increase their comprehensive inspections of temporary work agencies, and should consider introducing measures whereby such companies could be made subject to certification and reporting obligations;

53.

Calls on the Commission, without prejudice to the principle of subsidiarity, to propose a green book underpinning the role of labour inspectors and laying down EU labour-inspection standards and uniform training requirements in this area, while taking into account the differences between national labour markets;

54.

Calls on the Commission to identify better ways of tackling instances of social dumping in the EU and to propose appropriate instruments in this regard;

55.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments of the Member States.

23.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 482/41

—

having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular Article 3(3) thereof,

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 3 March 2010 entitled ‘Europe 2020: a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (COM(2010)2020),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 12 December 2012 entitled ‘Action Plan: European company law and corporate governance — a modern legal framework for more engaged shareholders and sustainable companies’ (COM(2012)0740),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 5 July 2002 on a framework for the promotion of employee financial participation (COM(2002)0364) and Parliament’s resolution of 5 June 2003 thereon (1),

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) of 21 October 2010 on Employee financial participation in Europe (2),

—

having regard to the study requested by Parliament’s Committee on Employment and Social Affairs on ‘Employee financial participation in companies’ proceeds’ (3), which was published in September 2012,

—

having regard to the PEPPER IV Report, entitled ‘Benchmarking of employee participation in profits and enterprise results in the member and candidate Countries of the European Union’, which was published in October 2009 by the Free University of Berlin,

—

having regard to the PEPPER III Report, entitled ‘Promotion of employee participation in profits and enterprise results in the New Member and Candidate Countries of the European Union’, which was published in June 2006 by the Free University of Berlin,

—

having regard to the Commission’s PEPPER II Report of 8 January 1997 entitled ‘Promotion of participation by employed persons in profits and enterprise results (including equity participation) in Member States’ (COM(1996)0697),

—

having regard to the PEPPER I Report, entitled ‘Promotion of employee participation in profits and enterprise results’, which was published in March 1991 by the Commission and the European University Institute,

—

having regard to the Commission’s pilot project on the Promotion of employee ownership and participation (4),

—

having regard to the Report of 18 December 2003 of the high-level group of independent experts on transnational obstacles to the growth of employee financial participation in transnational enterprises,

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 3 October 2012, entitled ‘Single Market Act II– Together for new growth’, (COM(2012)0573),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 14 March 2006‘Implementing the Lisbon Community Programme for Growth and Jobs: Transfer of Businesses — Continuity through a new beginning’ (COM(2006)0117),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 January 2013 on information and consultation of workers, anticipation and management of restructuring (5),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0465/2013),

A.

whereas employee financial participation (EFP) schemes can offer direct financial benefits above and beyond agreed basic remuneration structures through:

B.

whereas employees face a double risk when the employer is affected by a crisis: on the one hand, the risk of losing their job and income and, on the other, the risk of losing capital invested in the company;

C.

whereas there are three main EFP models for a company to choose from: profit sharing (cash-based, deferred or in shares), individual employee share ownership (employee shares or stock options) and employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs); whereas EFP can be in the form of shares or cash;

D.

whereas the most appropriate EFP model will often depend on the size and status of the company, notably whether it is listed or unlisted;

E.

whereas EFP, particularly in the form of ESOPs or partial ownership, can act as a shock absorber, allowing bonuses or other forms of supplementary pay or reward to be managed in trusts by third parties, spreading the investment risk among the company’s principal shareholders and ensuring that workers have a portfolio of saved shares;

F.

whereas financial participation by employees in their undertaking entails a number of potential risks for workers; whereas financial participation should not be used to avoid compliance with labour law, or as a means of reducing acquired social and labour rights or applying pressure to increase labour market flexibility;

G.

whereas if employees obtain from their company’s owners a priority buy-out right, and are thus able to take over companies in financial difficulty, they may seek to safeguard their own jobs and this procedure may reduce uncertainty about their continued employment when there is the possibility of buyouts by other companies; whereas employee ownership may address company succession problems, as a company is often closed down or sold off for possible rationalisation or closure when succession is not possible; whereas this procedure may be helpful in particular for SMEs and micro enterprises in securing the continuation of sustainable commercial operations; whereas these advantages can only be secured in combination with the participation of workers;

H.

whereas the ESOP is an example of an effective employee buy-out model for non-listed companies where an intermediate entity is used to acquire the shares on behalf of the employees; whereas employees are not exposed to additional risk as the acquisition is financed by a profit-share, or a loan which is repaid by profit-shares, which is additional to the employees' salaries;

I.

whereas the Spanish sociedades laborales concept is a best-practice example of an EFP scheme for micro-enterprises; whereas it also allows the unemployed to choose to receive their unemployment benefits as a lump sum in order to start a new company or to recapitalise an existing one;

J.

whereas EFP reduces short-termism, promotes sustainability and long-termism in strategic decision-making by managers and may increase employees’ interest in long-term commitment and in seeking innovative solutions in the production process; whereas EFP can thus bring stability, development and growth while reducing risks of over-expansion leading to job losses; considers that these effects can be enhanced by stable and functioning of worker involvement institutions;

K.

whereas financial participation schemes encourage investment in training, as they increase the likelihood of companies retaining skilled workers in the long term;

L.

whereas workers’ financial participation in their company’s proceeds and, where appropriate, the associated participation of workers in decision making, can contribute to improvements in employees’ job satisfaction and overall performance and motivation; whereas it can also encourage employees to develop a sense of ownership and a better understanding of their company as well as enhance mutual respect between employers and employees;

M.

whereas encouraging employees to develop a sense of ownership and responsibility increases their feeling of inclusion and the likelihood that their employers will engage with them and understand their concerns, perspectives and ideas;

N.

whereas the establishment of EFPs can help to boost productivity, improve performance, support the alignment of employees’ and shareholders’ interests and attract and retain key personnel;

O.

whereas employee participation in management through voting rights, the right to be present or other forms of governance can improve management and the flow of information and help employees to have a better understanding of the situation when their company faces challenges and a greater ability to access rewards when the company is doing well;

P.

whereas in EFP models that use an intermediate entity, this entity can exercise voting rights or other forms of governance on behalf of employees, allowing for collective representation;

Q.

whereas EFP schemes can play a significant role in additionally involving workers in information, consultation and decision-making processes during restructuring;

R.

whereas EFP is affected by national taxation rules, and whereas it is not appropriate to develop a comprehensive ‘one size fits all’ model for EFP at EU level; whereas EFP must be carefully decided upon by the individual company and its workers, taking due account of the wider national and sectoral context; whereas a set of basic guidelines could achieve public confidence and help EFP deliver on its objectives;

S.

whereas EFP may not be suitable for all companies or employees and therefore very careful consideration should be undertaken before undertaking such a scheme;

1.

Calls on the Member States to consider the transnational obstacles facing both companies offering schemes to employees in several Member States, and employees, for whom double taxation may represent an infringement of the right to freedom of movement;

2.

Points out the differences between the Member States as regards compulsory social security contributions on income for financial participation;

3.

Emphasises that in some cases it might be useful to bring about the gradual convergence of existing financial participation schemes and the related national legislation so as to enable employers in future to offer schemes in the same or a similar form in all Member States where they have employees;

4.

Insists that the lack of information about existing financial participation schemes could be offset by increasing the quantity of information lending itself to comparison at international level, which would reduce costs for both larger companies and SMEs, enabling them to offer employee participation schemes that meet their particular needs;

5.

Highlights the lack of national legislative measures favouring the development of EFP schemes; notes, in this connection, the differences between EU-15 (6) and EU-13 (7) countries as regards their levels of participation in EFP schemes; recognises the link between the introduction of legislative measures at national level in favour of EFP schemes and the number of employees participating in such schemes; (8)

6.

Stresses that further transparency is needed in national employee ownership schemes and especially in calculating the effective tax burden across the EU-28 in order to prevent double taxation and discrimination;

7.

Notes that a framework for a European model of employee ownership should not override national taxation rules;

8.

Calls on the Member States to provide tax incentives, in line with best practice principles, when promoting employee ownership schemes;

9.

Points out that precisely targeted tax incentives could increase employee financial ownership in various Member States and even add to economic growth;

10.

Is of the view, therefore, that the Commission should present guidelines on the taxation of EFP;

11.

Calls on the Commission and on Member States to consider appropriate measures to encourage companies, acting voluntarily, to develop and offer EFP schemes, open to all employees on a non-discriminatory basis, taking into account the specific situation of SMEs and micro-enterprises; calls on the Member States to step up exchanges of best practice in this regard;

12.

Is of the view that Employee Financial Participation (EFP) can also be a form of bonus for the employee, through capital participation or specific bonds, depending on the financial product used and the type of company in question;

13.

Believes that any measure relating to the financial participation of employees in company income should be sustainable in the long term and be based on the principles of voluntary participation, equality among workers and due diligence, especially for SMEs; emphasises the fact that, despite the EU’s recognition of the utility of EFP schemes, this area is not a Union competence;

14.

Calls on the Commission and on Member States to engage social partners, in accordance with national law and practices, employee ownership organisations and stakeholders more closely in dialogue between policy makers, employers and workers’ representatives, at the respective levels while respecting the autonomy of social partners in collective bargaining, so that existing examples of best practice can be taken into account in the development of policies to facilitate the implementation of EFP by businesses;

15.

Anticipates the results of the pilot project, notably the development of a Virtual EFP Centre and the CETREPS Effective Tax Rate Calculator; asks the Commission to offer ideas to Member States on participation mechanisms in light of this pilot project;

16.

Views with interest a potential opt-in 29th regime as an optional single legal framework open to employers throughout the EU, which would respect areas of Member State competence on fiscal and labour law, in terms of:

17.

Believes that, an impact assessment on a 29th regime would help to assess possibilities of how to create a level playing field and to avoid hampering the internationalisation of enterprises;

18.

Points out that employee ownership fosters much-needed social cohesion and serves as an important addition to sustainable corporate governance; stresses, nonetheless, the need to take precautions when promoting ownership schemes so as not to substitute wages with profit-sharing systems;

19.

Asks the Commission and the relevant stakeholders, therefore, to continue to advocate adherence to the ‘building-block approach’;

20.

Encourages the Commission to present an independent impact assessment on such a ‘29th regime’ for EFP, anticipates the inclusion of information thereon in the Commission’s interim report;

21.

Calls on the Commission, following the publication of the independent impact assessment and in cooperation with employee ownership organisations, the Member States and, where appropriate, the social partners, to consider developing a set of basic guidelines for successful EFP schemes encompassing the following elements:

22.

Notes that, as indicated before the financial crisis, remuneration policies that encourage excessively risky behaviour by employees can undermine the sound and efficient management of credit institutions and investment funds and other undertakings in the financial sector;

23.

Encourages social partners to continue working together to develop new opportunities and innovations for EFP at the relevant levels;

24.

Believes that, in order to promote financial participation for the purpose of creating a new form of company financing and enabling employees to be more connected to the company that employs them, employers should be given the opportunity to offer employees share capital subscriptions or specific debt securities (bonds); takes the view that the capital subscriptions should be voluntary for the employees, acting either as individuals or as a group, as well as for the company;

25.

Acknowledges that business succession, additional funding, staff retention and other problems characteristic of SMEs can be alleviated by employee share ownership plans; is of the opinion that employee ownership schemes in small and micro enterprises can be combined with labour market measures, such as unemployment benefits, and thus help to reinstate the unemployed;

26.

Notes that there is a lack of information and education about possible employee ownership schemes, especially among SMEs; calls on the Commission and the Member States in this regard to better organise information campaigns and to encourage the cross-border transferability of best practice schemes among Member States.

27.

Encourages Member States, in cooperation with social partners, employee ownership organisations and the Commission, to use existing single information portals — one stop shops — accessible to employers and employees, or to develop new ones, in order to explain the benefits and advantages as well as risks of EFP, the national incentives available and the different models which exist, with a view to allowing employers and workers to make informed judgements concerning EFP schemes and find the best option for agreements at company level and better assessing the options available to them and the challenges of entering into an EFP scheme; suggests that these single information portals should be attached to or included in existing competent bodies or authorities at national level;

28.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

23.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 482/48

—

having regard to Articles 3(3) and 6(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),

—

having regard to Articles 9, 53 and 151 to 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to Articles 5, 15, 16, 27, 31, 34 and 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—

having regard to Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 19 and 23 of the (Revised) European Social Charter,

—

having regard to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention No 102 (1952) concerning Minimum Standards of Social Security,

—

having regard to ILO Convention No 117 (1962) on Social Policy (basic aims and standards),

—

having regard to the ILO Convention No 121 (1964) concerning Benefits in the Case of Employment Injury; Convention No 128 (1967) concerning Invalidity, Old-Age and Survivors’ Benefits; Convention No 130 (1969) concerning Medical Care and Sickness Benefits; Convention No 168 (1988) concerning Employment Promotion and Protection against Unemployment; and Convention No 183 (2000) concerning the revision of the Maternity Protection Convention,

—

having regard to the 2012 ILO recommendation concerning National Floors of Social Protection,

—

having regard to the ILO World Social Security Report (2010/11) on ‘Providing coverage in times of crisis and beyond’ (1),

—

having regard to the ILO report of November 2003 on ‘Social protection: A life cycle continuum investment for social justice, poverty reduction and development’ (2),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (3),

—

having regard to Directive 2010/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity and repealing Council Directive 86/613/EEC (4),

—

having regard to Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (5),

—

having regard to the Council Recommendation of 24 June 1992 on common criteria concerning sufficient resources and social assistance in social protection systems (92/441/EEC) (6),

—

having regard to the Council Recommendation of 27 July 1992 on the convergence of social protection objectives and policies (92/442/EEC) (7),

—

having regard to the Council Conclusions of 17 December 1999 on the strengthening of cooperation for modernising and improving social protection (8),

—

having regard to the report of the Social Protection Committee of 10 February 2011 entitled ‘SPC Assessment of the social dimension of the Europe 2020 Strategy’ (9),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 3 March 2010 entitled ‘Europe 2020: a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (COM(2010)2020),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 16 February 2012 entitled ‘White Paper — an Agenda for Adequate, Safe and Sustainable Pensions’ (COM(2012)0055),

—

having regard to the Commission Review of 8 January 2013 on ‘Employment and Social Developments in Europe 2012’ (10),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 20 August 2012 entitled ‘Social Protection in European Union Development Cooperation’ (COM(2012)0446),

—

having regard to the Commission Green Paper of 22 November 2006 on modernising labour law to meet the challenges of the 21st century (COM(2006)0708),

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 29 April 2010 on ‘New trends in self-employed work: the specific case of economically dependent self-employed work’ (11),

—

having regard to the opinion of European Economic and Social Committee of 21 March 2013 on ‘Abuse of the status of self-employed’ (12),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 3 October 2008 on a Commission recommendation on the active inclusion of people excluded from the labour market (COM(2008)0639) and its resolution of 6 May 2009 on the active inclusion of people excluded from the labour market (13),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 14 October 2009 (COM(2009)0545) and its resolution of 20 May 2010 on the long-term sustainability of public finances for a recovering economy (14),

—

having regard to its resolution of 6 July 2010 on atypical contracts, secured professional paths, flexicurity and new forms of social dialogue (15),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 March 2006 on social protection and social inclusion (16),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 October 2010 on the role of minimum income in combating poverty and promoting an inclusive society in Europe (17),

—

having regard to its resolution of 11 September 2013 on tackling youth unemployment: possible ways out (18),

—

having regard to its resolution of 9 October 2008 on stepping up the fight against undeclared work (19),

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 May 2007 on promoting decent work for all (20),

—

having regard to its resolution of 11 July 2007 on modernising labour law to meet the challenges of the 21st century (21),

—

having regard to its resolution of 5 July 2011 on the future of social services of general interest (22),

—

having regard its resolution of 15 November 2011 on the European Platform against poverty and social exclusion (23),

—

having regard its resolution of 21 May 2013 on an Agenda for Adequate, Safe and Sustainable Pensions (24),

—

having regard to its resolution of 12 June 2013 on the Commission communication entitled ‘Towards Social Investment for Growth and Cohesion — including implementing the European Social Fund 2014-2020’ (25),

—

having regard to the study by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs of May 2013 on ‘Social protection rights of economically dependent self-employed workers’ (26),

—

having regard to the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) customised report of 2013 on ‘Self-employed or not self-employed? Working conditions of “economically dependent workers” (27),

—

having regard to the Eurofound report of 2 March 2009 on “Self-employed workers: industrial relations and working conditions” (28),

—

having regard to the Eurofound comparative report of April 2013 on “Social partners” involvement in unemployment benefit regimes in Europe’ (29),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and to the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A7-0459/2013),

A.

whereas access to social security is a fundamental right which, in accordance with Community law, national laws and practices, is a key element of the European social model; whereas the International Labour Organisation (ILO) has adopted recommendations on ‘national floors of social protection’ with the aim of safeguarding the right of every individual to social security and a decent standard of living;

B.

whereas social security is a national competence, coordinated at EU level;

C.

whereas social protection facilitates adaptation to changes in the labour market, combats poverty and social exclusion, secures labour market integration and invests in human resources; whereas social security has a stabilising effect on the economy and an anticyclical function which can boost domestic demand and consumption;

D.

whereas, to tackle the crisis, certain Member States have made severe cuts in public expenditure at the same time as demand for social protection has increased in response to the rise in unemployment; whereas national budget allocations for social security cover have been further stretched as contributions have fallen in the wake of wide-scale job losses or wage cuts, thus placing the European social model at a real risk;

E.

whereas social protection coverage in certain Member States is inadequate and could be improved; whereas cases of vulnerable workers being abused in the EU still exist;

F.

whereas while most traditional social protection models, in particular social security and labour law systems, are designed to safeguard the social and employment rights of people in employment, there is a risk that with the new forms of employment which are emerging and with an increasing number of self-employed workers, new groups of workers may be faced with decreased social protection;

G.

whereas women who choose to become entrepreneurs cite, more often than men, a better work-life balance and/or economic necessity as the main motivation for their decision;

H.

whereas self-employed women are in the minority among self-employed workers, but are more likely to fall into poverty;

I.

whereas a lack of access to adequate pension rights, sick pay, paid leave and other forms of social security for the self-employed aggravates the gender pay gap for self-employed women, especially following retirement;

J.

whereas an increasing number of those who are self-employed or faced with little or badly paid work, in particular women, are falling below the poverty line but are not officially registered as unemployed;

K.

whereas it could be useful to lay down a clear definition of bogus self-employment and to prevent abuses in this regard so as to avoid violations of workers’ social rights, distortions of competition and the risk of social dumping;

L.

whereas false self-employment is basically a form of partial contribution evasion that is difficult to detect and undermines the sustainability and adequacy of pension schemes, depriving them of vital resources;

M.

whereas the particularly high unemployment levels in many Member States, compounded by the constant pressure to reduce (unit) labour costs are leading to national labour market trends and practices which encourage the further development and growth of false self-employment;

N.

whereas, given that the working conditions of those self-employed people who are not economically independent are not radically different from those of salaried workers, their social security and employment rights ought to resemble more closely those of salaried workers where appropriate;

O.

whereas there is a lack of reliable, accurate and comparable information and data on the situation, working conditions and social security arrangements for combining work and care as regards the self-employed;

P.

whereas in 2012, self-employment represented more than 15 % of total employment in the EU, while in some cases it is not the preferred option of the person concerned, but rather a necessity owing to a lack of other job opportunities or sufficiently flexible working arrangements to combine work and care for dependents; whereas in many Member States it is difficult for the self-employed to acquire sufficient pension rights, thereby increasing the risk of future poverty for those concerned; whereas economically dependent self-employed workers are rarely organised in or represented by trade unions, even if they are more likely to be victims of working time and other abuses;

1.

Stresses that it is necessary to constantly optimise and modernise social protection systems at Member States level in order to ensure sound, sustainable and adequate social protection for all, based on the principles of universal access and non-discrimination, as well as the capacity to respond in a flexible manner to demographic changes and labour market developments;

2.

Calls on the Member States to ensure responsible and sustainable long-term financing of social security systems, particularly in periods of economic crisis, as well as to develop the preventive arm of social security systems and place greater emphasis on activating measures, while not overlooking the fact that one of the most important aspects of social investments is the fact that they enable the reconciliation of social and economic goals and may contribute in the long term to retaining and developing the economy; considers, in this connection, that social investments should be viewed as just that — investments, rather than expenditure;

3.

Draws attention to the fact that in some Member States ageing populations, low birth rates and changing labour markets may increase the urgency of the need for reforming social security systems, including pensions, so as to guarantee their sustainability; emphasises the fact that women more frequently take career breaks and assume part-time employment than men for the purpose of caring for children and other dependents, which may have a negative impact on their pensions and place them at a greater risk of poverty; calls on the Member States, in this connection, to view these career-break periods as insured periods when establishing and calculating pension entitlements; stresses that reforms should involve social partners, in accordance with national law and practices, as well as relevant stakeholders, and be properly communicated to citizens;

4.

Calls on the Member States to ensure national social protection which will safeguard a decent income established by each country and guarantee access to basic social benefits, particularly in the event of illness, unemployment, maternity, disability and retirement, etc., in order to combat poverty and social exclusion in the Member States; encourages the Member States to draw up strategies for the development of social security in line with the ILO proposals;

5.

Emphasises the fact that effective social protection of a sufficiently high quality should be based on measures to promote participation in employment, which contributes to the improvement of health and safety at work and the enhancement of productivity, which is a major competitive advantage; stresses that lowering the level of social protection should not be seen as a solution paving the way to increased levels of employment;

6.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that all workers and self-employed persons have access to lifelong learning by redistributing existing EU and national funding from workers with permanent contracts only to all workers — including the self-employed — irrespective of their contract type;

7.

Calls on the Member States to make greater efforts to implement structural reforms and measures in order to create jobs for young people and ensure that young workers are not discriminated against through the restriction of their social security entitlements; calls also on the Member States, in cooperation with the Commission, to ensure adequate social protection for young people in traineeship and apprenticeship schemes designed to provide them with work experience;

8.

Stresses that older people are not an economic and social burden but, on the contrary, their experience acquired over a lifetime and their knowledge are an asset; suggests that, in the context of intergenerational solidarity, employees over 60 should be encouraged to remain available on the labour market with a view to transmitting their knowledge and experience to successive generations;