5.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 356/60

—

appreciates the strategic approach proposed by the Commission through the Social Investment Package (SIP) to devote more attention to enhancing people's capacities and supporting their participation in society and the labour market in order to increase individuals' prosperity, boost the economy and help the EU emerge from the crisis stronger, more cohesive and more competitive;

—

regrets that the Commission's SIP neglects the role of local and regional authorities. Local and regional authorities have first-hand knowledge of social problems and play a key role in coordinating and implementing actions to address them;

—

notes that many local and regional authorities are already developing and implementing successful programmes to address the challenges mentioned in the SIP. Local and regional authority exchange of best practices should therefore be promoted;

—

calls on the EU to consider the possibility, in agreement with the Member States, of setting out a European social housing framework, as social housing plays a key role in tackling homelessness and in delivering the housing-led and preventative homeless strategies called for by the Commission;

—

points out that ESF should better address citizens' real needs by giving local and regional authorities greater flexibility to establish objectives at local level;

—

calls on the Commission to develop a concrete implementation plan for the SIP. This should include mechanisms for monitoring, coordination, transnational exchange and mutual learning on thematic priorities such as youth unemployment, education, homelessness, child poverty and care for people with disabilities and dependent people.

Rapporteur

Ahmed ABOUTALEB (NL/PES), Mayor of the City of Rotterdam

Reference document

Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Towards Social Investment for Growth and Cohesion — including implementing the European Social Fund 2014-2020

COM(2013) 83 final

1.

appreciates the strategic approach proposed by the Commission through the Social Investment Package (SIP) to devote more attention to enhancing people's capacities and supporting their participation in society and the labour market in order to increase individuals' prosperity, boost the economy and help the EU emerge from the crisis stronger, more cohesive and more competitive;

2.

recalls its opinion on Active Inclusion (2008/C 257/01), which emphasised the importance of local and regional authorities as key actors in active inclusion policies;

3.

believes that sustainable growth, balanced budgets and social cohesion can only be achieved if more efforts are made to create new jobs and to improve social protection and social inclusion. This must be fully reflected in the European Semester by ensuring the incorporation in the surveillance and coordination mechanisms of objectives related in particular to decent jobs and the reduction of inequalities and thus a balance between economic and social objectives and continuous efforts to promote economic, social and territorial cohesion in order to reduce the economic and social gap between regions;

4.

draws attention to the fact that challenges related to poverty and social exclusion are particularly critical in absolute terms in urban areas which account for 80 % of the European population and 85 % of the EU's GDP, while rural areas due to lower income levels and low population density face severe social problems in relative terms. In urban areas, social problems tend to concentrate in certain neighbourhoods, creating pockets of deprivation regardless of a city’s prosperity;

5.

stresses that in the fight against poverty and social exclusion it is essential to guarantee, as enshrined in the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights, equal access for all citizens to basic services of general interest, such as housing, education, health care, employment and access to social services. Solidarity amongst citizens from all layers of society is one of the preconditions for achieving this. The distribution of these basic services requires a comprehensive approach, with both a short-term and long-term focus, that puts citizens at the heart of the process of finding solutions;

6.

calls for a clear commitment from all EU institutions to citizen participation in all phases of policy development, from deliberation to implementation. It is of the utmost importance at this particular moment that we regain trust in our democratic institutions by demonstrating our full responsiveness to citizens’ needs and aspirations. In addition, by looking for answers at community level and capitalising on the energy, willingness to make a difference and knowledge about the real needs on the ground among citizens, we will be better equipped to come up with realistic and effective answers to social challenges. Investing in communities at (sub)local level creates stable neighbourhoods that will have a positive impact on safety perception;

7.

welcomes the fact that the Commission recognises that employment and social policy is primarily the responsibility of Member States and local and regional authorities, and thus that it respects the principle of subsidiarity;

8.

supports the Commission’s view that in the fight against unemployment it is key to put greater stress on measures to create jobs, reduce unemployment and promote lifelong learning, initiatives to boost competitiveness in the labour market, education, training and equal opportunities, in addition to other measures to improve people's skills and opportunities. Enabling the mobility of workers and providing micro-loans to those wishing to set up or expand businesses are among these measures;

9.

regrets that the Commission's Social Investment Package neglects the role of local and regional authorities. Local and regional authorities have a major impact on the lives of a majority of Europe’s citizens, who live, work and study, or receive care, in the case of people with disabilities and dependent people, in the areas managed by them. Local and regional authorities are the level where most social services are provided and most benefits are paid out;

10.

believes that the integrated delivery of active inclusion strategies which has been called for by the European Parliament and the Commission will benefit from a stronger role for local and regional authorities in decision making. Local and regional authorities have first-hand knowledge of social problems and play a key role in coordinating and implementing actions to address them. Experience in dealing with social challenges is crucial to realising the Europe 2020 objectives. For this reason, local and regional authorities need to play a key role in the European semester and in negotiations about NRPs and their implementation;

11.

stresses that work should pay. This means guaranteeing an adequate minimum wage and good quality of jobs. If a person is (temporarily) not (yet) able to work, an adequate livelihood with equal access to basic preventive, capacitating and activating services should be ensured. The CoR therefore calls on the European Commission to address the need for an implementation of the 1992 Council Recommendation on Minimum Income;

12.

notes local authorities need to harness the energies of all the individuals, civil society and businesses flocking to their urban areas. The innovative spirit of social entrepreneurs who can step in with new solutions to meet demand for services and infrastructure should be fostered. Regions and cities should strive for a process of co-creation by forming productive partnerships with the private sector and civil society groups, while simultaneously promoting genuine and profound citizen involvement at all stages of social innovation (ideas, planning, piloting, developing and implementing);

13.

considers that at local and regional level, in social inclusion and integration policies, participation of all residents is crucial; there should be no distinction between third country nationals and EU citizens. Draws attention to the fact that the inflow of newcomers as a result of intra-EU mobility creates challenges in terms of adjustment as regards public services and care provision for citizens in terms of accommodation, work and education. The basic integration requirements for EU citizens are generally no different from those of other newcomers. They need to get to grips with a new language, with new institutions and, sometimes, with different social norms;

14.

regrets that the Commission has only partially taken up the European Parliament’s own-initiative report on social investment (25.7.2012, 2012/2003 INI), which called for better governance to achieve the employment and social targets of the Europe 2020 strategy and is not proposing any additional resources. The SIP should go beyond policy recommendations addressed to the Member States and the announcement of a few legislative initiatives. Particularly in these times of crises, the European budget and national budgets should aim to include employment and social investment programmes;

15.

notes that the SIP presents comprehensive information on social trends in Europe. The data and information used is based on national or regional trends and statistics. Such aggregate information does not sufficiently illustrate the local level challenges or the diverse social needs and deprivation between city and regional or national levels. Collecting evidence of what works and what does not work at local level is essential to ensure that implemented measures are both efficient and effective in meeting the social policy objectives. The CoR encourages the European institutions to collect data and information on social trends at local and regional level and to assess and evaluate social inclusion policies coming from regional and local authorities and in particular from major cities;

16.

would refer to the constant gender discrimination still suffered by people belonging to groups disadvantaged on several levels (e.g. women and single parents); welcomes the fact that the European Commission is aware of this particular challenge and wishes to pay appropriate attention thereto;

17.

acknowledges however that the communication could represent a turning point by defining social policy as an investment in society rather than a cost of market failure. Describing social policy in these terms may promote a shift in policy from corrective measures to preventative measures, thereby tackling issues such as social exclusion before they develop and delaying the onset of dependency by promoting personal autonomy and active ageing;

18.

welcomes the recognition by the European Council of 27-28 June 2013 of the need to strengthen the EMU's social dimension. The challenge is to provide the EU with the tools to sustain the potential for real economic convergence and social progress for all Member States instead of relying of internal devaluation mechanisms only to address asymmetric shocks. Looks forward therefore to the Commission Communication on the social dimension of the EMU planned for early October 2013;

19.

considers that the EMU's social dimension could, as suggested by the European Parliament (1), build on a ‘Social Investment Pact’ based on the model of the ‘Euro Plus Pact’. It would set targets for social investments to be made by Member States in order to meet the employment, social and education objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy; the Social Investment Pact should also be complemented with an Employment and Social policy scoreboard to be introduced in line with article 148 TFEU and under the responsibility of EPSCO in order to detect employment and social imbalances that could threaten the stability of the Economic and Monetary Union;

20.

encourages the European Commission to further explore the feasibility of a European Union unemployment benefit insurance scheme potentially acting as an automatic stabiliser at EMU level;

21.

welcomes the fact that the European Council conclusions (2) stress that ‘the possibilities offered by the EU's existing fiscal framework to balance productive public investment needs with fiscal discipline objectives’ should be further ‘exploited’ in the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact; therefore expects the Commission to address further the issue of the quality of public spending, inter alia by assessing a separation of current spending and investment in the budget deficit calculations so as to avoid public investments with long-term net benefits being impeded;

22.

insists that education (either formal and or informal) should be at the heart of the SIP. Inequalities in access to education — especially high-quality education that prepares young people for employment opportunities in an inclusive information society and helps them become active citizens in complex, democratic societies — are a critical barrier to reducing poverty and increasing economic growth. Member States must show a commitment to investing in education, lifelong learning and training for all by putting special emphasis on early childhood education and access to tertiary education, cooperation between businesses and schools, on-the-job training and special training for sectors with labour shortages (e.g. medical sector, clean tech, ICT) and on cutting school drop-out rates;

23.

welcomes the Commission’s focus on education and training and believes that, in so doing, we should pay greater attention to vocational training and its quality by introducing practical measures at the guidance stage as well as during education and training. We need more craftspeople, engineers and technicians in the EU economy in order to be competitive in a global world. Regrettably, fewer and fewer people within the EU are interested in vocational training, while it offers great opportunities in combating unemployment and for sustainable development of the economy;

24.

insists that ongoing and lifelong vocational training must be highly valued. The European Union should present sufficient long-term measures and reserve sufficient funding from the European Social Fund (ESF) to improve the level of vocational training;

25.

stresses that, in addition to the strong focus on the supply side of employability, more attention is required for the demand side of the labour market. It is a fact that the unemployed are predominantly low-skilled and that vacant jobs require high skills, and, in these times of crisis, we need to complement demand-side measures with supply-side instruments that go beyond the deregulation of labour markets, lowering of labour costs and provision of incentives for the unemployed to take poorly paid jobs. We should improve the skills of the low-skilled and unemployed by providing them with the necessary learning capacities;

26.

urges the Commission, Member States and regional and local authorities to promote better anticipation of future skills needs, develop better matching between skills and labour market needs and bridge the gap between the worlds of education and work. Especially at the lowest segments of the labour market where labour participation must be encouraged, in a flexible and non-bureaucratic manner. In the Netherlands, for example, the government, businesses, and education institutions signed the Technology Pact, which aims to improve the link between education and the labour market in the technology sector and thus reduce the shortage of technical personnel. The Technology Pact has been agreed on at national level, but largely consists of actions to be carried out through a regional and sectoral approach, making use of already existing structures, for example the different local centres of expertise ‘kenniswerkplaatsen’ on talent development, liveable cities and public health in Rotterdam;

27.

stresses that it is important to make the most of all labour potential. For people on the margins of the labour market, support measures can be introduced that fall within the competences of national and/or subnational authorities;

28.

recommends adding (social) participation to the three existing pillars of the Commission’s approach put forward to enhance the active inclusion of people furthest from the labour market: sufficient income support, active integration, and quality services. Social participation and inclusion must be the keys for achieving our social ambitions, developing welfare states and keeping them strong. Citizens should be empowered to reach their full potential and use and further develop their set of skills to the maximum, with economic self-reliance being the objective;

29.

seeks further clarification in the area of conditionality in welfare access. Conditionality may be regarded as acceptable if social transfers are in place to provide individuals with both support and incentives to re-enter employment, education or training;

30.

considering that it is estimated that around 56 million people in the EU above the age of 15 do not have a bank account, the CoR welcomes the Commission's proposal to give every individual in the European Union the right to a basic bank account;

31.

welcomes the Commission's intention to explore the use of new financial instruments and in particular of social return on investment and social investment bonds to increase the leverage of public social investments and calls on the Commission to come forward with more detailed proposals on that matter by making EU procurement rules ‘Social Return on Investment-proof’. Supports in this context the proposed introduction of an EU savings account that could provide the EU with complementary financing to contribute to the Europe 2020 employment and growth objectives at local and regional level;

32.

stresses that Member States, regions and local communities should make use of the diversity of their citizens. An inclusive culture in which it is safe to be unique and to connect with others through that diversity is a prerequisite for innovation;

33.

notes that many local and regional authorities are already developing and implementing successful programmes to address the challenges mentioned in the SIP. Examples include one-stop shops (youth desks), regional Centres for Youth and Family, housing-led and preventative homeless strategies, social return on investment strategies, social impact bonds, talent houses, child friendly neighbourhoods and full engagement. Local and regional authority exchange of best practices should therefore be promoted. Partnership and collaboration between local authorities enable them to tap into a larger pool of resources and experiences while promoting widespread participation in development, with their partners from diverse sectors. We should take full account of these experiences in the building-up of the knowledge bank suggested by the SIP and in supporting these exchanges in the context of Programme for Social Change and Innovation;

34.

points out that both the European Integration Fund (INTI) and the ESF have funded integration programmes. However, too often, the source of funding has limited the scope of service provision. It should be stressed that, considering the ever-growing EU mobility, the next budget programme should dedicate funding to support for mobile EU citizens, amalgamating priorities from both funds and create a funding programme for all nationals, regardless of citizenship. These new funding budgets could be used to include EU citizens in language and orientation programmes, in close cooperation with other stakeholders such as NGOs and particularly with the private sector. The Commission must use its influence to urge some local and regional authorities in the sending countries to use the ESF and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to invest heavily in the social and economic development of their populations;

35.

notes that, although migration within and between Member States has provided one way for individuals to respond to the economic downturn, more comprehensive and long-term social investment in regions and municipalities, which are best placed to understand the specificities of their own regions and communities, may address the crisis in a more sustainable way by mitigating the pressures on individuals to leave their homes, families and communities in search of employment. Furthermore, the ability of individuals to migrate to other Member States in search of employment or educational opportunities, etc., may be compromised by inadequate language skills; renewed efforts may be needed to strengthen language teaching to support short-term migration until more long-term solutions are found. Additionally, this will further promote social inclusion;

36.

supports the Commission’s view on the local impact of demographic change and the ageing population, which is creating new demands on social infrastructures and the accessibility of public areas. The growing phenomenon of poverty in old age is creating a need for sustainable social security systems and services which must be accessible and affordable to all. The corrective model must be replaced with a preventative model, which enables people to enjoy longer periods of functional autonomy and relational integration. Special attention should be devoted to the promotion of active and healthy ageing among European people, making a shift from an institutional approach to a community-based approach;

37.

regrets that the Commission Staff Working Document on Long-Term Care in Ageing Societies does not address the issue of poverty, social exclusion and decent incomes of older people which may lead in return to increased need for long-term care. The CoR also misses a more profound analysis on how structural funds can support investment in long-term care;

38.

considers that the Social Investment Package should go together with an increased recognition of the role of social economy knowing that at EU level social economy enterprises represent 2 million enterprises (i.e. 10 % of all European businesses) and employ over 11 million paid employees (the equivalent of 6 % of the working population of the EU). Reiterates therefore its call for a Statute for a European Mutual Society which was also endorsed in March 2013 by the European Parliament;

39.

stresses the importance of interprofessional cooperation between the health and social care sectors and between formal and informal networks in the community. Knowledge is needed about different types of neighbour support and the complementary roles of volunteers, professionals, and neighbours providing support. Professionals should identify more closely with the local neighbourhood, in which a cooperative and facilitating role may strengthen and mediate neighbour support and volunteer work. This new approach to governance, which is successful in some European cities, should be supported with instruments at the European level in order to disseminate best practices across Europe. A positive approach would be to implement systems which bring together information on the citizen (social and medical history) and access to information regarding the resources and services available (catalogues or portfolios of services and resources, the innovative technologies available, such as advanced telecare systems, remote monitoring etc.);

40.

calls on the EU to consider the possibility, in agreement with the Member States, of setting out a European social housing framework as requested by the CoR in its opinion of October 2011 and by the European Parliament in its resolution of 11 June 2013. While social housing is not among the EU's explicit competence, many EU policies (competition policy, internal market, structural funds, energy efficiency policy, environmental norms…) directly impact on social housing. Therefore a coordination framework in needed in order to ensure consistency with fundamental rights and between EU policies which impact housing. In this context, the CoR recalls that according to the EU Treaty public authorities are free to determine how social housing is organised and which households are eligible. The CoR also believes that social housing is key to cohesion and should not be only limited the disadvantaged in order to promote a social mix;

41.

reminds Member States and the Commission that spending on social housing helps meet urgent social needs as a basis for strategic social investment; it also helps in a sustainable way to provide local jobs that cannot be ‘off-shored’, to stabilise the economy by preventing property bubbles, to counter climate change and to combat energy poverty. The CoR furthermore underlines that social housing plays a key role in tackling homelessness and in delivering the housing-led and preventative homeless strategies called for by the Commission;

42.

welcomes the inclusion of homelessness as a thematic priority in the SIP and the call for Member States to ‘confront homelessness through comprehensive strategies based on prevention, housing-led approaches and reviewing regulations and practices on eviction, taking into account the key findings of the guidance on confronting homelessness provided in this Package’. In this context, the CoR calls on the Commission to develop a concrete EU framework to support stakeholders and particularly relevant national, regional and local authorities to make progress on tackling homelessness, taking into account the Committee of the Regions' own-initiative opinion on the matter;

43.

stresses that, in order to be successful in achieving our social goals, we must reform our approaches so as to improve quality of outcomes for beneficiaries, and achieve effectiveness and efficiency. Social innovation in fighting poverty and social exclusion is needed and should be included in the Structural Funds regulations, but also have a prominent role in HORIZON 2020 and be effectively supported by the European Programme for Social Change and Innovation. To this end, the flagship initiatives of Europe 2020, particularly the European platform against poverty and exclusion, should provide a reference framework in order to better achieve these objectives;

44.

points out that contemporary societies rely on science and technology not only for economic growth, but also for social well-being and progress. However, the interaction between science/research and society/citizens is frequently insufficient and sometimes non-existent. Future European research funding must therefore pay attention not only to technological sciences, but also to social sciences and the humanities in order to develop practically relevant knowledge and research about problems and liveability in urban neighbourhoods and thinly populated areas and disseminate such practically relevant knowledge among those responsible for urban and spatial planning policy. In particular state-of-the-art evaluative research designs are recommended to build up systematic knowledge of the effectiveness of policy interventions, why they ‘work’ and for which social groups and in what circumstances; welcomes the initiatives that the Commission is undertaking to support social innovation and efforts to share information on innovation experiences;

45.

draws attention to the fact that the EU's regional policy has been promoting sustainable urban development since 1989. Through its structural funds, regional policy invests in projects that promote good local governance, ensure a sustainable urban environment, foster social inclusion and equality, regenerate urban areas and boost economic growth and jobs. In light of the proximity of local and regional authorities to their citizens and their expertise in identifying local needs and aspirations, it should be stressed that the current funding structure should be more adaptable to local needs, enabling cities and urban areas to take greater responsibility and leadership in coordinating integrated approaches at the level of the city or metropolitan area. To support territorial cohesion and integrated area based approaches, ESF and ERDF coordination should be improved;

46.

welcomes the proposal to earmark at least 20 % of ESF funding in each Member State to promote social inclusion and tackling poverty. The CoR would like further assurances in this area to ensure that funding is correctly managed and targeted to assist the most in need. This may involve earmarking funds at regional rather than central level in each Member State, on the basis of a set of factors determining the greater need for support (poverty indicators, per capita GDP, employment, education levels, immigration, etc.);

47.

calls for immediate implementation of the Youth Employment initiative (YEI) and the need to include in youth guarantee schemes young people up to the age of 30. Endorses the Commission's Youth Guarantee recommendation, aimed at early intervention for individuals at risk of being out of education, employment or training. Underlines the key role of local and regional authorities in delivering it. Expresses strong concerns about the lack of sufficient funding for the YEI over the entire next programming period (EUR 6 billion) and calls, as a matter of urgency, for a significant frontloading of the new decent YEI budget line in the first years of the Multiannual Financial Framework. The NUTS II eligibility should not only rely on the criterion of 25 % youth unemployment, but take into account significant deviation at the regional level from the average youth unemployment rate at national level;

48.

points out that ESF should therefore better address citizens' real needs by giving local and regional authorities greater flexibility to establish objectives at local level. Local and regional authorities should be involved in shaping ESF priorities and managing ESF funds. In terms of legislation, the regulation governing the future ESF should detail a greater role for local and regional authorities in strategic ESF governance. The CoR also asks for the introduction of an obligation on the part of ESF managing authorities to demonstrate that local and regional authorities have been involved in shaping the priorities of operational programmes and the subsequent strategic management of the ESF;

49.

more specifically, referring to its previous opinions related to the EU's urban agenda and its 2012 Copenhagen Summit, the CoR considers that there are a number of options that would strengthen the practical involvement of cities: operational programmes with a clear urban focus; city participation as Intermediary Bodies and in ESF boards, management committees and advisory groups; and ESF managing authorities working in partnership with cities in designing and delivering the programmes. It may be appropriate for some major cities to have their own operational programmes;

50.

calls for the ESF to promote innovative service models and for the new legal framework to facilitate and finance the development of grassroots community-based services to support labour market measures;

51.

notes that the budget for the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is five times larger than the ESF budget. This is of course linked to the fact that the CAP is solely a common EU policy while the financing of social policy relies to a very large extent on national and sub-national budgets. However, this imbalance could also be interpreted by public opinion as a lack of priority granted to the EU's social policy. The CoR therefore insists that the renewed focus on EU social policies be accompanied by an increase in ESF resources;

52.

welcomes the Integrated Territorial Investment approach of the Commission within the new ESF period for consolidating social, economic and physical development. Given the major importance of cities for social, economic and territorial cohesion, the European support given must go far beyond the proposed minimum target of 5 %;

53.

notes that the strict EU regulations on public procurement and state aid should be better aligned with social policies, allowing the latter to be developed and implemented more effectively; In order to shape this alignment, the COR calls for the European Commission to present a proposal to improve the quality and accessibility of social services of general interest based on Article 14 TFEU;

54.

recommends that the document must be implemented in close synergy with the other Staff Working Documents of the Communication to ensure consistent and more effective implementation. The CoR encourages the Commission to take a holistic approach to this and to engage directly with local and regional authorities in this process;

55.

calls on the Commission to develop a concrete implementation plan for the SIP. This should include mechanisms for monitoring, coordination, transnational exchange and mutual learning on thematic priorities such as youth unemployment, education, homelessness and child poverty and care for people with disabilities and dependent people. In the framework of the European Semester, local and regional authorities should be consulted on drawing up annual growth surveys and play a greater role in monitoring progress. The Member States should be pushed to improve the extent to which local and regional authorities are consulted, informed and involved in decision-making, since much social investment touches the very heart of the local and regional authorities.