8.3.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/1

—

having regard to the Commission report of 18 December 2009 entitled ‘Equality between women and men – 2010’ (COM(2009)0694),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 26 November 2003 entitled ‘Improving quality in work: a review of recent progress’ (COM(2003)0728),

—

having regard to the 2004 Commission report entitled ‘Precarious Employment in Europe: A Comparative Study of Labour Market related Risks in Flexible Economies’,

—

having regard to the proposal for a Council decision on ‘guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States – Part II of the Europe 2020 Integrated Guidelines’ (COM(2010)0193),

—

having regard to the Council Conclusions of 8 June 2009 on ‘Flexicurity in times of crisis’,

—

having regard to Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work (1),

—

having regard to Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (2),

—

having regard to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (3),

—

having regard to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (4),

—

having regard to the 2010 background paper by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions entitled ‘Very atypical work’,

—

having regard to the 2008 report by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions entitled ‘Measures to tackle undeclared work in the European Union’,

—

having regard to the 2007 report by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions entitled ‘Working conditions in the European Union: The gender perspective’,

—

having regard to the 1998 report by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions entitled ‘Precarious Employment and Working Conditions in Europe’,

—

having regard to the October 2007 Eurobarometer report entitled ‘Undeclared Work in the European Union’,

—

having regard to the 2009 report by the European Commission’s Expert Group on Gender and Employment (EGGE) entitled ‘Gender segregation in the labour market’,

—

having regard to the 2006 report by the European Commission’s Expert Group on Gender, Social Inclusion and Employment entitled ‘Gender inequalities in the risks of poverty and social exclusion for disadvantaged groups in thirty European countries’,

—

having regard to the International Labour Office (ILO) report entitled ‘Decent work for domestic workers’, drawn up for the 99th session of the International Labour Conference in June 2010,

—

having regard to the 2009 International Labour Office (ILO) report entitled The Gender Dimension of Domestic Work in Western Europe’,

—

having regard to its resolution of 17 June 2010 on gender aspects of the economic downturn and financial crisis (5),

—

having regard to its resolution of 6 May 2009 on the active inclusion of people excluded from the labour market (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 18 November 2008 with recommendations to the Commission on the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 19 January 2006 on the future of the Lisbon Strategy from the point of view of the gender perspective (8),

—

having regard to its resolution of 18 September 1998 on the role of cooperatives in the growth of women’s employment (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 17 February 1998 on ‘respect for human rights in the European Union (1996)’ (10),

—

having regard to the opinion of the Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship of the European Economic and Social Committee of 12 May 2010 on ‘The professionalisation of domestic work’ (SOC/372 – CESE 336/2010 fin),

—

having regard to Eurostat Statistics in focus No 12/2010, entitled ‘Labour markets in the EU-27 still in crisis’,

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A7-0264/2010),

A.

whereas the individualisation and increasing flexibility of the labour market – resulting in a reduction in collective bargaining – puts employees, and in particular women, who often have to balance family obligations, in a more vulnerable position which can lead to precarious jobs, since it makes it easier for employers to worsen employment conditions,

B.

whereas women are over-represented in precarious employment on the labour market, whereas certain forms of precarious work performed by women, such as paid domestic work and care work, are invisible on the labour market, and whereas, despite the existing legislative framework, there continue to be major differences in the EU for women with regard to employment opportunities, quality of work, living income and equal pay for equal work and work of equal value,

C.

whereas the over-representation of women in precarious work is a key contributing factor to the gender pay gap, which remains at a persistent high level; whereas therefore improving job quality for women will reduce the gender pay gap,

D.

whereas involuntary part-time work is widespread in the services sector, in particular the hotel and restaurant industry, education, health and social work and other community, social and personal care services, where the majority of employees are women,

E.

whereas women's participation in the labour market reflects their role in the household, and women tend to take up jobs that enable them to combine paid and unpaid work,

F.

whereas the economic and financial crisis has had a dual effect on precarious employment, since many companies’ first reaction was to cut down on temporary employment, and whereas, furthermore, it is feared that many of the permanent jobs lost during the recession will not be re-established, but replaced by atypical – if not precarious – employment schemes,

G.

whereas precarious work refers to ‘non-standard’ forms of employment with any of the following characteristics:

H.

whereas precarious employment conditions, such as non-written contracts, involuntary part-time work and the persistent pay gap, have a long-term effect on social security protection and pensions and place workers at greater risk of poverty,

I.

whereas in some contexts women are at risk of being subjected to working conditions which are not decent, and whereas they therefore deserve special attention in this regard, in particular pregnant women and women that are breastfeeding,

J.

whereas globalisation and the current economic background, as well as technological progress, are changing employment relationships and the content of workers’ tasks,

K.

whereas women in precarious employment are less likely to know their rights and are exposed to a greater risk of exclusion from legal protection and/or of wrongful dismissal,

L.

whereas the importance should be emphasised of the right of all workers, including women in precarious employment, to vocational education and training,

M.

whereas defining women as second earners in the family is a wrongful misrepresentation of a large part of the female workforce who are sole earners,

N.

whereas the number of female undeclared workers has been increasing, especially in the domestic sector,

O.

whereas most domestic workers performing duties such as domestic care, cleaning and catering are women; whereas in industrialised countries domestic work accounts for between 5 and 9 % of all employment, whereas such work is mostly precarious, undervalued and informal, and whereas domestic workers’ vulnerability means they are often discriminated against and can easily be subjected to unequal, unfair or abusive treatment,

P.

whereas the de-skilling of high-skilled workers is a common problem in the context of precarious jobs, in particular in the case of workers who are dismissed or migrant workers taking low-skilled jobs in order to stay on the labour market, and whereas this situation, which affects women in particular, is jeopardising career development and the attainment of salary levels corresponding to the skills acquired and possessed,

Q.

whereas migrant women taking low-skilled temporary jobs on the periphery of the labour market or jobs as domestic workers may be exposed to double discrimination since, in addition to the fact that they often work in poor, irregular – if not illegal – conditions, they are more likely to be mistreated or subjected to violence or sexual abuse; whereas, furthermore, they are often unaware of their rights, have restricted access to public services, have limited knowledge of the local language and are unable to form networks, and whereas those in illegal employment do not dare contact the authorities to request protection because they fear being returned to their home country,

R.

whereas the Council of Europe’s agreement of 24 November 1969 on au pair placement is outdated and consequently does not address the problems that can arise in relation to the use of au pairs in many Member States today,

S.

whereas the EU remains committed to gender equality mainstreaming; whereas, within employment policies, equal opportunities for women and men need to be actively promoted,

1.

Points out the gendered nature of precarious employment and recalls the shift in the labour market from standard to non-standard types of employment, making it necessary to prevent non-standard types of employment becoming precarious work; considers that, in order to combat these problems, the Member States and social partners must be asked to align to a large extent their legislative and contractual rules on standard work and atypical work, so as to prevent the most convenient and least expensive forms of work from taking precedence, taking into account however the risks of a possible increase in undeclared work;

2.

Urges the Council and the Commission to identify the characteristics of precarious employment in the guidelines for the Member States’ employment policies and in the new gender equality strategy;

3.

Calls on the Member States to take legislative measures to put an end to zero-hour contracts, which are common in jobs typically occupied by women in sectors such as domestic work, care work, catering and the hotel industry, and to introduce extensive control instruments to regulate all types of attendance at firms and work places which are formally agreed for guidance and training purposes but which in practice are becoming a further source of abuse, concealing actual services which are provided without proper payment or protection;

4.

Asks the Commission and the Member States to develop strategies on precarious work in order to emphasise decent and green jobs and incorporate gender balance;

5.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take action in order to reduce the double burden of work on women, one of the reasons for women's over-representation in precarious employment; calls for the improvement of the work-life balance in regular employment to reduce precarious employment;

6.

Expresses disappointment that the EU employment law package and the aforementioned directives on fixed-term, part-time and temporary agency work do not adequately address the precarious nature of employment; calls, therefore, on the Commission and the Member States to take further specific legislative measures, such as introducing binding minimum social standards for employees and granting all employees equal access to social services and benefits, including maternity leave, health care and retirement pensions, as well as to education and training, regardless of their employment conditions; calls on Member States, in addition, to implement legislation ensuring reasonable limitation of working hours, rest and leisure for workers;

7.

Calls on Member States to ensure that employers who subject female workers to abusive or harmful treatment are brought to justice as early as possible;

8.

Underlines the need to provide women in precarious jobs with the option of protection of entitlements such as decent pay, maternity leave, fair and regular working hours and a non-discriminatory working environment, which are crucial for these women; calls on the Member States to penalise the imposition of obstacles to trade union participation and in general encourages the Member States, moreover, to provide low-threshold advisory services for women who cannot receive support from a works council, for example employees in private households; calls on the social partners to improve gender parity in their bodies at all levels;

9.

Stresses the need for legislative measures in order to secure gender equality and reduce gender segregation on the labour market; recalls, therefore, its aforementioned resolution of 18 November 2008, urges the Commission to submit a proposal relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women, and reminds the Member States to transpose Directive 2006/54/EC without delay;

10.

Calls on the Member States to deliver on the Barcelona childcare targets in order to improve labour market participation and economic independence of women; calls on the Member States to overcome obstacles which keep women from working the number of hours they want, whether in part-time or full-time work;

11.

Stresses the need to break down professional and sectoral segregation on the labour market through awareness-raising and education from an early age, for instance by promoting jobs associated with female skills to men, and vice versa, by motivating girl students towards sciences, and by combating the perception of women as second earners, with the involvement of the European Institute for Gender Equality;

12.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to plan and implement measures to facilitate satisfactory education, training and studies for girls and young women, providing particular support for girls and young women with a migration background; stresses, in addition, the need for women, after stopping work because of the birth of a child, to actively pursue a return to work;

13.

Calls on the Member States to combat undeclared work by transforming it into regular employment, by means of preventive measures such as granting immunity from prosecution to employees who report their illegal employment status and taking dissuasive action against employers; furthermore calls on the Commission and the Member States to improve data collection and monitor progress in this field;

14.

Stresses that social protection is an essential part of flexicurity; stresses that the concept of flexicurity affects men and women differently and tends to reinforce the current gender roles; reminds the Member States and the social partners of the Council Conclusions of 8 June 2009 on ‘Flexicurity in times of crisis’, in particular the application of gender mainstreaming in implementing flexicurity principles;

15.

Considers that the sustainability of pension schemes, loan facilities for self-help projects as well as job creation and alternative income creation schemes can improve conditions for precarious women workers;

16.

Advocates standard jobs being arranged in future in accordance with ‘good work’ principles, and not being converted into precarious jobs; considers that job markets should be better regulated through stringent labour inspections, with the aim of reducing precarious employment;

17.

Calls upon the European Council for clear guidance and concrete measures towards safeguarding employment and creating job opportunities in the framework of the EU 2020 Strategy;

18.

In accordance with results achieved on the ground, calls on the Commission to provide Member States with guidelines on best practices in combating direct and indirect discrimination, mainstreaming gender equality and reducing precarious employment among women;

19.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to adopt legislation regulating the social and legal status of seasonal workers and to provide them with social security cover; understands seasonal workers to be workers who have concluded open-ended or fixed-term employment contracts whose duration and continuation is affected by seasonal factors, such as the climatic cycle, public holidays and/or agricultural harvests;

20.

Points out that studies have shown that precarious employment, in which minimum health and safety standards may be ignored, carries higher injury rates and a greater risk of disease and exposure to hazards; calls, therefore, on the Commission and the Member States to enhance their monitoring of minimum health and safety requirements in the workplace, paying particular attention to the specific risks to female workers;

21.

Calls on the Commission to encourage the Member States to exchange best practices and make full use of the co-financing opportunities offered by the Structural Funds, in particular the European Social Fund, to ensure broader access to affordable, quality childcare and elderly care facilities so that women are not forced to undertake these duties on an informal basis; stresses, in addition, the need to ensure that precarious domestic care jobs are transformed, wherever possible, into decent, long-term jobs;

22.

Calls on the Commission to support the Member States in developing a campaign for a step-by-step transformation of precarious workers into regular workers; calls on the Commission to endorse a programme aiming to educate workers on the effects and impacts of precarious work, including on occupational safety and health;

23.

Calls on the Commission to propose a new European agreement on the rules regarding au pairs, which lowers the age limit from 30 so that adult breadwinners in their late 20s cannot be placed as au pairs, and which emphasises that their role is to help out with day-to-day family duties and to take part in family activities, which must not exceed 30 hours per week, and that the aim is to develop the au pair's cultural understanding and language skills;

24.

Calls on the Commission, in its new gender equality strategy, to strengthen its commitment to promoting gender equality in migration and integration policies, in particular with a view to fully utilising migrant women’s employment potential;

25.

Points out that the social integration of migrant women is even more difficult than that of their male counterparts, given that they are subject to dual discrimination; therefore encourages employers to take specific measures to facilitate the social integration of women migrant workers, for instance by offering them language training and/or support services, and to ensure that migrant workers are registered, so that they are entitled to benefits;

26.

Draws particular attention to the lack of research on the subject of precarious work; calls on the Commission and Eurofound to cooperate with the European Institute for Gender Equality and to initiate targeted research in order to assess, inter alia, the cost of the de-skilling and welfare loss resulting from precarious employment, taking into account the gender aspect; emphasises that future European research programmes should have a greater focus on social issues, such as precarious employment;

27.

Welcomes the overall objectives of the pilot project to encourage conversion of precarious work into work with rights, and underlines the need to pay particular attention to the gendered nature of precarious work in implementing the project;

28.

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

8.3.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/8

—

having regard to Articles 4, 9, 14, 19, 151 and 153 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) adopted in 1979,

—

having regard to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, reconfirmed during the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights, in particular Articles 3, 16, 18, 23, 25, 26, 27 and 29,

—

having regard to the 1966 United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,

—

having regard to the Millennium Development Goals defined by the United Nations in 2000, in particular to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger (Goal 1), achieve universal primary education (Goal 2) and promote gender equality (Goal 3),

—

having regard to International Labour Organization (ILO) Conventions Nos 26 and 131 on minimum wage fixing and Nos 29 and 105 on the abolishment of forced labour,

—

having regard to the ILO Global Jobs Pact,

—

having regard to the Decent Work Agendas of the United Nations and ILO,

—

having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular its provisions on social rights,

—

having regard to Articles 34, 35 and 36 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which specifically define the right to social and housing assistance, a high level of human health protection and access to services of general economic interest,

—

having regard to the ILO report ‘A global alliance against forced labour. Global report under the follow-up to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Report of the Director-General, 2005’,

—

having regard to Council Recommendation 92/441/EEC of 24 June 1992 on common criteria concerning sufficient resources and social assistance in social protection systems (Recommendation on minimum income) (1),

—

having regard to Council Recommendation 92/442/EEC of 27 July 1992 on the convergence of social protection objectives and policies (2),

—

having regard to the conclusions of the EPSCO Council following the 2916th meeting on 16 and 17 December 2008 (3),

—

having regard to Decision No 1098/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion (2010) (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 6 September 2006 on a European Social Model for the future (5),

—

having regard to its resolution of 9 October 2008 on promoting social inclusion and combating poverty, including child poverty, in the EU (6) and the corresponding report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (A6-0364/2008),

—

having regard to its resolution of 6 May 2009 on the renewed social agenda (7),

—

having regard to the Commission recommendation of 3.October 2008 on the active inclusion of people excluded from the labour market and to its resolution of 6 May 2009 on the active inclusion of people excluded from the labour market (8),

—

having regard to its Written Declaration No 0111/2007 of 22 April 2008 on ending street homelessness (9),

—

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

—

having regard to the Commission proposal of 27 April 2010 for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (COM(2010)0193),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A7-0233/2010),

A.

whereas the European Commission’s Social Agenda 2005-2010 proposed to designate 2010 as the ‘European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion’, in order to reaffirm and strengthen the political commitment of the EU at the start of the Lisbon Strategy to making ‘a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty’,

B.

whereas poverty and social exclusion are violations of human dignity and fundamental human rights, and the central objective of income support schemes must be to lift people out of poverty and enable them to live in dignity,

C.

whereas, despite the economic prosperity and all the statements on eliminating poverty, social inequalities have worsened and, at the end of 2008, 17 % of the population (i.e. around 85 million people) were living below the poverty threshold, after social transfers (10), while in 2005 the figure was 16 % and in 2000 it was 15 % in the EU-15,

D.

whereas the at-risk-of-poverty rate for children and young people up to 17 years is higher than for the total population; whereas it reached 20 % in the EU-27 in 2008, with the highest rate being 33 %,

E.

whereas elderly people also face a higher risk of poverty than the general population; whereas the at-risk-of-poverty rate for people aged 65 years and over stood at 19 % in the EU-27 in 2008, against figures of 19 % in 2005 and 17 % in 2000,

F.

whereas the consistently higher rate of precarious employment and low wages in some sectors means that the percentage of workers at risk of poverty is stagnating at a high level; whereas, in 2008, the at-risk-of-poverty rate for those in employment was 8 % on average in the EU-27, while in 2005 the figure was 8 % and in 2000 it was 7 % in the EU-15,

G.

whereas in Recommendation 92/441/EEC of 24 June 1992 the Council recommends Member States to recognise the basic right of a person to sufficient resources and social assistance to live in a manner compatible with human dignity; whereas in Recommendation 92/442/EEC of 27 July 1992 the Council recommends that Member States guarantee a decent standard of living; whereas in the conclusions of 17 December 1999 the Council endorsed promoting social inclusion as one of the objectives of modernising and improving social protection,

H.

whereas women represent an important segment at risk of poverty, due to unemployment, non-shared caring responsibilities, precarious and low-paid jobs, wage discrimination and lower pensions,

I.

whereas the risk of falling into extreme poverty is greater for women than for men; whereas the persistent trend towards feminisation of poverty in European societies demonstrates that the current framework of social protection systems and the wide range of social, economic and employment policies in the Union are not designed to meet women's needs or to address the differences in women's work; whereas poverty among women and their social exclusion in Europe require specific, multiple and gender-specific policy responses,

J.

whereas the risk of falling into extreme poverty is greater for women than for men, particularly in old age, because social security systems are often based on the principle of continuous remunerated employment; whereas an individualised right to a poverty-preventing minimum income should not be conditional on employment-related contributions,

K.

whereas youth unemployment has risen to unprecedented levels, reaching 21,4 % in the European Union, ranging from 7,6 % in the Netherlands to 44,5 % in Spain and 43,8 % in Latvia, and apprenticeships and internships offered to young people are often unpaid or poorly remunerated,

L.

whereas one in five under-25s in the EU are unemployed, while workers aged over 55 are the European citizens most affected by unemployment and also have to face the specific and grave problem of the decreasing likelihood of finding a job as they become older,

M.

whereas the financial and economic crisis has lead to a shrinking supply of jobs, estimates pointing to more than 5 million jobs lost since September 2008, as well as increasing precarity,

N.

whereas there are no official European data on situations of extreme poverty such as homelessness, and it is therefore difficult to follow current trends,

O.

whereas the European Year for Combating Poverty should provide an opportunity to raise awareness of poverty and the resulting social exclusion and improve policy responses to such exclusion, and it should promote active inclusion, an adequate income, access to quality services and supportive approaches for decent work, which requires a fair redistribution of wealth and necessitates measures and policies ensuring effective economic and social cohesion, at European Union level and among European regions, and whereas a minimum income can provide a proper safety net for marginalised and vulnerable people,

P.

whereas the objectives and guiding principles of the European Year for Combating Poverty are recognition of rights, shared responsibility and participation, cohesion, commitment and concrete action,

Q.

whereas the economic and financial climate in the EU-27 has to be correctly assessed in order to encourage Member States in establishing a minimum income threshold, that would help the augmentation of living standards and still foster competitive behaviour,

R.

whereas the European Union has committed to achieving the UN Millennium Development Goals and complying with the Resolution proclaiming the Second United Nations Decade for the Eradication of Poverty (2008-2017),

S.

whereas account should be taken of the multidimensional nature of poverty and social exclusion, the existence of particularly vulnerable and deprived population groups (children, women, elderly people, people with disabilities and others), which also include immigrants, ethnic minorities, large or single-parent families, the chronically ill and the homeless, as well as the need to incorporate, in other European policies, measures and instruments for preventing and combating poverty and social exclusion; whereas guidelines need to be established for Member States with a view to including them in national policies, with a guarantee of quality social security and social protection systems and universal access to accessible public infrastructure and high-quality services of general interest, working conditions and jobs that are decent and high-quality, with rights, and a poverty-preventing guaranteed minimum income that enables people to take part in social, cultural and political life and to live with dignity,

T.

whereas the impact of the extremely high poverty rate is not restricted to social cohesion within Europe but also affects our economy, since excluding large parts of our society on a permanent basis weakens the competitiveness of our economy and increases the pressure on our public budgets,

U.

whereas a global objective needs to be established, particularly in the Europe 2020 strategy, prioritising economic, social and territorial cohesion and the protection of fundamental human rights, which implies a balance between economic, employment, social, regional and environmental policies and a fair redistribution of income and wealth, taking account of dramatic changes in dependency rates, whence the need to draw up social impact studies for all decisions and to apply the horizontal social clause contained in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Article 9),

V.

whereas respect for human dignity is one of the founding principles of the European Union, whose action is intended to promote full employment and social progress, to combat social exclusion and discrimination and to promote justice and social protection,

W.

whereas the application, increase and better use of structural funds needs to be guaranteed in relation to poverty prevention, social inclusion and the creation of high-quality, barrier-free jobs with rights,

X.

whereas the role of social protection systems is to ensure the level of social cohesion needed for development guaranteeing social inclusion and mitigating the social repercussions of the financial crisis, which implies a national poverty-preventing individually guaranteed minimum income, improving the level of skills and education of those people excluded from the labour market due to market competitive pressures, and guaranteeing equal opportunities on the labour market and in the exercise of fundamental rights,

Y.

whereas introducing and strengthening minimum income schemes is an important and effective way to overcome poverty by supporting social integration and access to the labour market and allowing people to have a decent living,

Z.

whereas minimum income schemes are an important tool in order to ensure security for people needing to overcome the consequences of social exclusion and unemployment and support access to the labour market; whereas such minimum income schemes play a relevant role in redistributing wealth and ensuring solidarity and social justice and, especially in times of crisis, they play a counter-cyclical role by providing additional resources to strengthen demand and consumption in the internal market,

AA.

whereas, according to a recent Eurobarometer survey of attitudes of EU citizens to poverty, the vast majority (73 %) consider that poverty is a widespread problem in their country, 89 % want urgent action by their government to tackle the problem and 74 % expect the EU to also play an important role in this context,

AB.

having regard to the painful social effects of the economic crisis, which has caused over 6 million European citizens to lose their jobs in the last two years,

AC.

having regard to the gravity of the economic and social crisis and its impact in terms of growing poverty and exclusion and rising unemployment (from 6,7 % at the beginning of 2008 to 9,5 % at the end of 2009), with one-third of the jobless being affected by long-term unemployment, a situation that is worse in the more economically vulnerable Member States,

AD.

whereas certain Member States are under pressure from the Council and Commission and from international bodies such as the IMF to undertake the short-term reduction of their budget deficits, which have been worsened by the crisis, and to make cuts in spending, including social expenditure, thus undermining the welfare state and exacerbating poverty,

AE.

having regard to increasing social inequality in certain Member States, the result above all of economic inequality in terms of income and wealth distribution, labour market inequalities, social insecurity, and unequal access to the social functions of the state such as welfare, health, education, the legal system, etc,

AF.

having regard to the application of the EU's policy for social inclusion, and in particular the objectives and European programme adopted under the Lisbon strategy at the beginning of the 2000 decade, with the implementation of the open method of coordination and the common objectives to be achieved under the national action plans,

AG.

whereas most of the Member States now have large numbers of homeless, thanks to diverse factors, and this calls for specific measures with a view to those people's social integration,

1.

Highlights the need for concrete measures to eradicate poverty and social exclusion by exploring ways of reintegrating people into the labour market, ensuring a fair redistribution of income and wealth (by guaranteeing an adequate income), thereby giving genuine meaning and content to the European Year for Combating Poverty and also ensuring that the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals leaves a strong political legacy, including guaranteeing throughout the European Union poverty-preventing and socially inclusive minimum income schemes based on the Member States' various practices, collective agreements or legislation, and working actively to promote adequate income and social protection systems; encourages Member States to take a fresh look at policies to guarantee an adequate income, given that combating poverty begins with the creation of decent, sustainable jobs for groups at a disadvantage on the labour market; takes the view that every worker should have a decent living wage; takes the view that welfare policy must therefore go hand-in-hand with an active labour market policy;

2.

Draws attention to the fact that the recent economic slowdown, with rising unemployment and fewer job opportunities, puts many people at risk of poverty and social exclusion, which is particularly the case in some Member States that suffer from long-term unemployment or inactivity;

3.

Demands that real progress be made on the adequacy of minimum income schemes, so as to be capable of lifting every child, adult and older person out of poverty and delivering on their right to have a decent living;

4.

Stresses the differences in various areas (health, housing, education, income and employment) among the social groups living in poverty, calls on the Commission and the Member States to take those differences into consideration in their targeted measures, and emphasises that one of the most effective ways to reduce poverty is to make the labour market accessible to all;

5.

Highlights the need to attach particular importance to lifelong learning programmes as a basic tool with which to combat poverty and social exclusion, by boosting employability and access to knowledge and the labour market; considers it necessary to provide incentives for increased participation in lifelong learning by workers, unemployed people and all vulnerable social groups, and to take effective action against the factors that lead people to drop out, as well as improving the level of professional qualifications and acquisition of new skills, which may lead to faster reintegration in the labour market, increase productivity and help people to find a better job;

6.

Highlights the need for action at Member States level with a view to establishing a threshold for minimum income, based on relevant indicators, that will guarantee social-economic cohesion, reduce the risk of uneven levels of remuneration for the same activities and lower the risk of having poor populations throughout the European Union, and calls for stronger recommendations from the European Union regarding these types of actions;

7.

Emphasises that employment must be viewed as one of the most effective safeguards against poverty and, consequently, that measures should be adopted to encourage the employment of women and the setting of qualitative objectives for the jobs that are offered;

8.

Highlights the need for action at both European and national level to protect citizens and consumers against unfair terms relating to the repayment of loans and credit cards, and to lay down conditions governing access to loans aimed at preventing households from falling into excessive debt and hence into poverty and social exclusion;

9.

Stresses the multidimensional nature of poverty and social exclusion, and highlights the need to ensure the mainstreaming of social objectives and the importance of the social dimension and the social sustainability of macroeconomic policies; points out that social objectives must be an integral part of the crisis exit strategy and of the Europe 2020 strategy and economic, social and territorial cohesion, and that this means ensuring a cross-cutting social guideline and effective social impact assessment which ensure the redefinition of priorities and policies such as monetary, labour, social and macro-economic policies, including the stability and growth pact, competition policies, internal market policies, and budgetary and fiscal policies; points out that those policies must not hinder social cohesion and must ensure the implementation of the relevant measures and the promotion of equal opportunities with the aim of finding a stable way out of the crisis, ensuring a return to fiscal consolidation and undertaking the reforms the economy needs for a return to growth and job creation; calls for the adoption of effective policies to support those Member States whose need is greatest, through the appropriate mechanisms;

10.

Considers that job creation must be a priority for the Commission and the Member State governments, as a first step towards reducing poverty;

11.

Considers that minimum income schemes should be embedded in a strategic approach towards social integration, involving both general policies and targeted measures - in terms of housing, health care, education and training, social services - helping people to recover from poverty and themselves to take action towards social inclusion and access to the labour market; believes that the real objective of minimum income schemes is not simply to assist but mainly to accompany the beneficiaries in moving from situations of social exclusion to active life;

12.

Emphasises the need, when the levels of minimum incomes are determined, for due account to be taken of the fact that workers have dependants, in particular children, the aim being to break the vicious circle of child poverty; takes the view, further, that the Commission should draw up an annual report on progress in the fight against child poverty;

13.

Insists on the need to revise the austerity policies being imposed in some Member States to fight the crisis, and stresses the importance of effective action for solidarity, including reinforcement, mobility, anticipation of transfers and reduction of cofinancing in respect of budgetary funding to create decent jobs, support productive sectors, fight poverty and social exclusion and avoid new forms of dependence and increased debt;

14.

Believes that introducing minimum income schemes in all EU Member States - consisting of specific measures supporting people whose income is insufficient with a funding supply and facilitated access to services - is one of the most effective ways to combat poverty, guarantee an adequate standard of living and foster social integration;

15.

Takes the view that adequate minimum income schemes must set minimum incomes at a level equivalent to at least 60 % of median income in the Member State concerned;

16.

Stresses the need for an evaluation of social inclusion policy, the application of the open method of coordination, fulfilment of the joint objectives and the national action plans in the context of the development of poverty, with a view to more committed action at European and national level and fighting poverty by means of policies that are more inclusive and coherent and better articulated, aimed at eradicating absolute poverty and child poverty by 2015, as well as substantially reducing relative poverty;

17.

Reiterates that, however important, minimum income schemes need to be accompanied by a coordinated strategy at national and European level focusing on broad actions and specific measures such as active labour market policies for those groups furthest away from the labour market, education and training for the least skilled people, minimum salaries, social housing policies and the provision of affordable, accessible and high-quality public services;

18.

Calls for the promotion of social integration and inclusion, in order to guarantee effective protection of fundamental human rights, and clear commitments to draw up EU and national policies to combat poverty and social exclusion; considers it necessary to ensure better access, on a universal basis, which is free from physical and communication barriers, to the labour market, public health services, education (from pre-school education to completion of undergraduate studies), vocational education and training, public housing, energy provision and social protection; takes the view that jobs should be high-quality and barrier-free with rights; believes that wages must be decent and that pensions must include a basic old-age allowance which ensures that people who have worked all their lives enjoy a dignified retirement; states that minimum income schemes for everyone must guarantee freedom from poverty and ensure social, cultural and political inclusion in keeping with national practices, collective bargaining and national legislation; notes, further, that in the long term the more the Member States invest in these various policies the less need there will be for a system based on a minimum household income; points out that such measures should be adopted in strict compliance with the principle of subsidiarity and with different practices, collective bargaining and national law in the Member States; takes the view that only in this way can each individual's right to participate in social, political and cultural life be guaranteed;

19.

Draws attention to the needs of young people who encounter specific problems in finding their place in economic and social life and run the risk of leaving school at an early age; calls on the Member States to ensure that combating youth unemployment is made a specific objective, with its own priorities, involving specific actions and professional training measures, support for Community programmes (Lifelong Learning, Erasmus Mundus) and entrepreneurship incentives;

20.

Points out that the school drop-out rate and restricted access to higher and university-level education are basic factors in the emergence of a high long-term unemployment rate and represent a blight on social cohesion; takes the view that, since these two problems figure among the priority objectives set by the Commission in the 2020 Strategy, a basis will have to be created for the introduction of specific actions and policies on young people's access to education through scholarships, student grants, student loans and initiatives to make school education more dynamic;

21.

Takes the view that the Commission should study the impact which a legislative proposal it might submit concerning the introduction of an adequate minimum income at European level would have in each Member State; suggests, in particular, that any such study should examine the difference between the adequate minimum income and the minimum wage in the Member State concerned and the implications for jobseekers of the introduction of an adequate minimum income;

22.

Emphasises the importance of introducing rules on the level of unemployment benefits which serve to keep recipients out of poverty and of urging the Member States to take measures to encourage people returning to the labour market to take unpopular jobs, for example by facilitating mobility within the European Union;

23.

Stresses that investment in minimum income schemes constitutes a key element in the prevention and reduction of poverty, that even in times of crisis, minimum income schemes should not be regarded as a cost factor but as a core element in combating the crisis, and that early investments to combat poverty bring a major return in reducing long-term costs for society;

24.

Emphasises the role of social protection, in particular in the form of sickness insurance, family allowances, pensions and disability allowances, and calls on the Member States to pay special attention to the most vulnerable members of society by guaranteeing them a minimum set of rights even if they are unemployed;

25.

Maintains that having sufficient resources and benefits to live a decent life is a fundamental human right to be enjoyed within the wider context of comprehensive, coherent measures to combat social exclusion and of an active strategy to promote social inclusion; calls on the Member States to adopt national policies to foster the economic and social integration of the persons concerned;

26.

Points to the increasing number of working poor and to the need to tackle this new challenge by combining different instruments; demands that a living wage must always be above the poverty threshold, and that workers who for multiple reasons remain below the poverty threshold should receive top-ups that are unconditional and easy to take up; points to positive experience in the United States with negative income tax to lift low-wage workers above the poverty threshold;

27.

Notes that, in its communication entitled ‘Europe 2020: a strategy for a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’, the Commission proposes setting five headline targets for the EU, one of which is to reduce the number of people at risk of poverty by 20 million; points out that this target falls short of the initial ambitions of the Lisbon Strategy (to overcome poverty), which, regrettably, have not been achieved; believes that poverty and social exclusion must be eradicated by credible, concrete and binding measures; believes that this target is too low and that the objective of a poverty-free Europe must not be abandoned; takes the view that, in order to achieve this goal, appropriate measures should be taken and this absolute target should be combined with a target for reducing poverty in each Member State, in order to encourage every Member State to contribute to the task of achieving it, and should be made more credible with appropriate measures, particularly as regards the effectiveness of policies targeting those in need; believes that this target should be achieved through concrete and appropriate measures, in particular through the introduction of minimum income schemes by all EU Member States;

28.

Believes that priority should be given to fighting social inequality, especially in the context of economic inequality in terms of income and wealth distribution, labour market inequalities, social insecurity, and unequal access to the social functions of the state such as welfare, health, education, the legal system, etc.;

29.

Calls on the Council and the Member States to base the Europe 2020 strategy headline target to tackle poverty on the relative poverty indicator (60 % of the median income threshold), as endorsed by the Laeken European Council in December 2001, because this indicator sets the reality of poverty within the context of each Member State, since it reflects an understanding of poverty as a relative condition;

30.

Calls upon Member States to translate the EU headline target on poverty in to concrete and achievable national targets on priority issues of the EU social inclusion strategy, such as an end to street homelessness by 2015 in accordance with Written Declaration No 0111/2007;

31.

Believes that particular attention and additional measures are needed for the homeless on the part of both the Member States and the Commission, with a view to their full integration into society by 2015, which will require collecting comparable data and reliable statistics at Community level, as well as their annual publication, together with an account of the progress achieved and the objectives defined in the respective national and Community strategies for fighting poverty and social exclusion;

32.

Regards it as the duty of every Member State to take all appropriate measures to protect their citizens against extreme financial vulnerability by ensuring that they do not take on excessive levels of debt, in particular in the form of bank loans, for example by taxing the banks and financial institutions which agree to lend to persons who are not creditworthy;

33.

Considers that an explicit commitment must be made by Member States to implement active inclusion: reducing conditionality, investing in supportive activation, defending adequate minimum income and preserving social standards by outlawing cuts to key public services so that the poor will not pay for the crisis;

34.

Believes that the various experiments with minimum incomes and with a guaranteed basic income for everyone, accompanied by additional social integration and protection measures, show that these are effective ways of combating poverty and social exclusion and providing a decent life for all; therefore calls on the Commission to prepare an initiative to support further experiments in the Member States, taking into account and promoting best practices, and ensuring various individually guaranteed poverty-preventing adequate minimum and basic income models as a means of fighting to eradicate poverty and guarantee social justice and equal opportunities for every individual whose need can be established on the basis of the relevant regional yardstick, in keeping with the subsidiarity principle, and without calling into question the specific situations in each Member State; takes the view that this Commission initiative should lead to the drawing-up of an action plan, designed to accompany the implementation of a European initiative on minimum income in the Member States, in accordance with different national practices, collective bargaining and Member States' legislation, in order to achieve the following objectives:

35.

Emphasises that an adequate minimum income is fundamental to a dignified life and that without an adequate minimum income and a stake in society individuals cannot develop their potential to the full and participate in the democratic shaping of society; stresses, in addition, that the fact that people earn a living wage serves to boost the economy and thus safeguard prosperity;

36.

Believes that the Commission initiative on a guaranteed minimum income should take account of Recommendation 92/441/EEC, which recognises ‘the fundamental right of the individual to sufficient resources in respect of human dignity’, while insisting that the central objective of income support schemes should be that of taking people out of poverty and allowing them to live a decent life, decent invalidity and retirement pensions being included; with this in view, recommends that the Commission consider establishing a common method for calculating a minimum survival income and a cost-of-living minimum (a ‘shopping-basket’ of goods and services), with a view to ensuring the availability of comparative measurements of poverty levels and establishing means of social intervention;

37.

Calls on Member States to take urgent action to improve take-up of benefits and monitor levels of non-take-up and its causes, recognising that cases of non-take-up account for between 20-40 % of benefits according to the OECD, by increasing transparency, by providing more effective information and advice facilities, by simplifying procedures, and by putting in place effective measures and policies to fight stigma and discrimination associated with minimum income recipients;

38.

Stresses the importance of the existence of unemployment benefit that guarantees a decent standard of living for beneficiaries, and also the need to reduce the length of absences from work, inter alia by making state employment services more efficient;

39.

Stresses the need to adopt rules on insurance so as to establish a link between the minimum pension paid and the corresponding poverty threshold;

40.

Criticises Member States where minimum income schemes do not meet the relative poverty threshold; reaffirms its demand to Member States to remedy this situation as soon as possible; demands that good and bad practices be addressed by the Commission in the evaluation of national action plans;

41.

Points to major age discrimination regarding minimum income schemes, such as setting the minimum income for children below the poverty threshold or excluding young people from minimum income schemes due to a lack of social security contributions; stresses that this undermines the unconditionality and decency of minimum income schemes;

42.

Stresses the urgent need to define and apply appropriate economic and social indicators in various areas, such as health, housing, energy provision, social and cultural inclusion, mobility, education, income (for example the Gini coefficient, which can be used to measure income gap trends), material privation, employment and social assistance services, which will allow the progress made in combating poverty and in social inclusion to be monitored and measured; states that these indicators should be presented annually on International Day for the Eradication of Poverty (17 October), should evolve as necessary and should include gender, age ranges, households, disability situations, immigration, chronic illness and various income levels (60 % of median income, 50 % of median income, 40 % of median income) in order to take account of relative poverty, extreme poverty and the most vulnerable groups; stresses the urgent need to have EU statistical data beyond monetary indicators on situations of extreme poverty such as homelessness which are currently not covered by EU-SILC; calls for details of these socioeconomic indicators to be set out in an annual report forwarded to the Member States and the European Parliament for discussion and with a view to determining the scope for further action;

43.

Insists on the need for specific additional provisions for less-favoured groups (those with disabilities or chronic illnesses, single-parent families and families with large numbers of children) who incur additional costs, in particular related to personal assistance, use of specific facilities, medical care and social support;

44.

Calls on the Commission and the EU Member States to examine how different models of unconditional and poverty-precluding basic incomes for all could contribute to social, cultural and political inclusion, taking especially into account their non-stigmatising character and their ability to prevent cases of concealed poverty;

45.

Takes the view that, in respect of the poverty reduction policies which accompany the establishment of an adequate minimum income in the Member States, the open method of coordination should be revised in order to make for a genuine exchange of best practices among the latter;

46.

Notes that minimum income will only achieve its objective in combating poverty if it is tax-free and recommends to consider attaching the level of the minimum income to the fluctuations in utility charges;

47.

Recalls that the risk of falling into extreme poverty is greater for women than for men, given the shortcomings of the welfare systems and continuing discrimination, especially on the labour market, necessitating a whole range of specific policies which should be both gender-oriented and attentive to circumstances;

48.

Believes that poverty affecting people in employment implies inequitable working conditions and calls for efforts to change this state of affairs, through pay levels in general and minimum wage levels in particular, whether regulated by legislation or by collective bargaining, so that they can ensure a decent standard of living;

49.

Calls for the integration of people experiencing poverty (in respect of whom extra support should be given for measures to foster labour market integration) and calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop a dialogue with people in poverty, their representative organisations and networks, and the social partners; takes the view that it must be ensured that people experiencing poverty and their representative organisations are made stakeholders and provided with the financial and other resources to enable them to participate in the preparation, application and monitoring of policies, measures and indicators at European, national, regional and local levels, particularly in relation to the national reform programmes in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy and the open method of coordination on social protection and social inclusion; stresses furthermore the need to step up action against employers who illegally employ marginalised groups for less than the minimum income;

50.

Considers that sustained and extensive efforts must be made to combat poverty and social exclusion, in order to improve the situation of people at greatest risk of poverty and exclusion, such as people in precarious employment, the unemployed, single-parent families, elderly people living alone, women, disadvantaged children, ethnic minorities and people who are ill or differently-abled;

51.

Deeply regrets that some Member States appear not to have regard to Council Recommendation 92/441/EEC, which recognises the ‘basic right of a person to sufficient resources and social assistance to live in a manner compatible with human dignity’;

52.

Insists that the social partners should be fully involved in drawing up national action plans to combat poverty and setting reference targets at each level of governance;

53.

Stresses the need to plan and implement targeted interventions, through active employment policies at geographical, sectoral and business levels, and with the active involvement of the social partners, in order to boost access to the labour market for people from sectors or geographical regions with particularly high rates of unemployment;

54.

Stresses the need to focus on selected sections of the population (migrants, women, unemployed people of pre-retirement age, etc.) with the aim of improving skills, preventing unemployment and strengthening the fabric of social integration;

55.

Urges the Member States and the Commission to take measures for the integration of younger and older people into the labour market, since these are vulnerable groups that are severely affected by the lack of jobs in the present recession;

56.

Stresses that minimum income schemes must cover fuel costs to allow poor households affected by energy poverty to pay their energy bills; minimum income schemes must be calculated on the basis of realistic assessments of how much it costs to heat a home related to the specific household needs – e.g. family with children, older people and disabled persons;

57.

Points out that, while most Member States in the EU-27 have national minimum income schemes, several do not; calls on the Member States to provide for poverty-preventing guaranteed minimum income schemes for social inclusion, and urges them to exchange best practice; recognises that, where there is provision of social assistance, Member States have a duty to ensure that citizens understand and are able to obtain their entitlements;

58.

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

8.3.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/19

—

having regard to its decision of 7 October 2009 on setting up a special committee on the financial, economic and social crisis, and its powers, numerical composition and term of office (1), adopted under Rule 184 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis (A7-0267/2010),

1.

Notes that the causes of the current crisis are manifold and its effects both immediate and long-term, and that several warning signs were overlooked and the scale of the crisis, as well as its impact and spillover effects, underestimated;

2.

Notes that the crisis that originated in the United States with the subprime bubble had roots that go back a long way;

3.

Notes that global imbalances, regulatory governance (regulation and supervision), and monetary policy - together with specific factors inherent in the financial system, such as the complexity and opacity of financial products, short-term featured remuneration systems and inadequate business models - are the main factors contributing to the current financial crisis;

4.

Considers that the proliferation in the financial sector of conflicts of interest, vested interests and cases of operators who are ‘too close to talk’ has in some cases aggravated the crisis;

5.

Notes that the USA's expansionist monetary policy encouraged an excess of liquidity in search of high returns and the development of domestic demand based on consumer credit, and thus household debt, as well as high government expenses financed through cheap access to capital;

6.

Notes that there has been speculative behaviour in the financial markets, with some investors taking very large risks, which was aggravated by the oligopoly in rating agencies; notes that any market economy works best when accompanied by democratically agreed, transparent, multilevel regulation accompanied by healthy ethics and morality that encourage sound financial and economic systems and do not damage the real economy;

7.

Notes that the proliferation of complex off-balance-sheet products (SPVs, CDOs, CDS, etc.) and securitization arrangements resulting from an unregulated parallel banking system has increased, rather than decreased, systemic risks; notes that establishments that concentrate on savers and financing for SMEs have proved their value;

8.

Believes that the absence of a more sustainable pattern of production, distribution and consumption in the face of climate change, the loss of biodiversity and the depletion of natural resources feeds into the root causes of the crisis;

9.

Considers that the economic and financial governance structures in place at the onset of the crisis, whether at global level, in the USA or within the European Union, lacked coherence and consistency in separating macro- from micro-prudential supervision, focussed excessively on bottom-up micro-prudential supervision of financial institutions and country-level monitoring of macroeconomic indicators, whilst neglecting the system-wide view of the financial and macroeconomic developments that would necessitate monitoring of the interconnectedness among financial institutions and among countries;

10.

Notes that globalisation has developed without the emergence or parallel evolution of global governance structures to accompany market integration, especially as regards global balances or imbalances and financial markets, and sees the G20 process as a step in the right direction, but points out that an effective representation of the EU-position at the G20 is necessary;

11.

Notes that the European Union recognised the free movement of capital as provided for in the EU Treaties in July 1990, which contributed to economic development; notes, however, that the free movement of capital was not accompanied by a harmonisation of taxes on savings, adequate cross-border regulation or supervision on a European level;

12.

Condemns the fact that the principles of the SGP were not always respected in the past and notes that substantial imbalances between the euro-zone economies have occurred;

13.

Notes the absence of proper regulation and robust supervision, and the complete lack of instruments for contingency management in the event of a banking crisis showed how much further the European Union needs to go to have in place mechanisms fit to manage the policy challenges associated with having an internal market and an integrated financial system; notes in particular the absence of a cross-border bankruptcy mechanism;

14.

Notes that the public deficit in the European Union rose from 2,3 % of GDP in 2008 to 7,5 % in 2010, and from 2 % to 6,3 % in the euro zone according to Eurostat, with the public debt-to-GDP ratio rising from 61,6 % of GDP in 2008 to 79,6 % in 2010 in the European Union and from 69,4 % to 84,7 % in the euro zone, brushing aside in two years all the efforts at budgetary consolidation made over almost two decades by some Member States; deplores this setback as it will make responding to unemployment and demographic challenges much more difficult;

15.

Considers that Europe’s public finances were already in a poor state before the crisis: since the 1970s the level of Member States’ public debt has gradually crept upwards under the impact of the various economic downturns the EU has experienced; notes that the cost of recovery plans, falling tax revenues and high welfare expenditure have caused both public debt and the ratio of public debt to GDP to rise in all Member States, although not to a uniform degree across the Union;

16.

Considers that the full effects of the crisis have not yet been unleashed and that a relapse, as in a double-dip recession, cannot be ruled out, particularly as regards the unemployment level;

17.

Notes that the crisis has had an impact on employment throughout the EU, although the jobless rate rose by an average of only 1,9 % across the EU-27, and that the negative impact on employment will continue as a result of the customary delay with which economic trends are mirrored in the job market; underlines that the Commission forecasts point to an EU-wide rate of unemployment of almost 11 % in 2010, which will have serious implications for the EU's labour force.

18.

Notes that the social effects of the crisis are very different depending on the Member State: whereas the unemployment rate is 10 % on average, in some countries it reaches 20 %, escalating to over 40 % of young people, which underlines the extent of the structural improvements needed in some countries;

19.

Considers that while a policy of debt reduction is important, a rapid consolidation of public finances should not be detrimental to the systems of social protection and public services when these have rightly been welcomed for the role they play as automatic stabilisers in mitigating the crisis; notes that fostering efficiency in social protection and public services can simultaneously improve economic efficiency and the quality of services; recognizes that the failure to strike the right balance could lead to sluggish growth over a long period, accompanied by persistent unemployment, and thus the inexorable erosion of Europe's global competitiveness;

20.

Notes that high levels of unemployment carry not just social costs but also high economic costs in that the unemployed cannot contribute much to domestic demand and pay fewer taxes and social security contributions; notes that this increases the burden on those working, in the form of higher taxes, and on future generations through a higher debt burden;

21.

Notes that on the basis of the figures for 2007, which are the last available and thus date back to before the crisis, there were 30 million working poor and, according to recent figures, 79 million people live below the poverty line in the European Union, and that this number has probably risen since then;

22.

Notes that, beyond unemployment, the crisis has had a multifaceted social impact, notably including some erosion of working conditions, increasing difficulties for some people to access basics needs and services, increasing homelessness, over indebtedness and financial exclusion;

23.

Notes that, as with any crisis, the current one is having negative effects on growth and employment, first affecting the most vulnerable, including young people, children and women, as well as ethnic minorities and migrants;

24.

Shares concerns about the pro-cyclical aspects of the regulatory, prudential accounting and taxation rules which amplify the fluctuations that are inherent in the functioning of the market economy;

25.

Notes that the bail-out of the banking sector by governments represents only part of the costs inflicted on society by the financial crisis, while the costs of the recession and the increase in public debt will be substantial, some USD 60 trillion being lost worldwide;

26.

Notes that the crisis has led to a dramatic increase in state aid following the adoption of the temporary framework for state aid, and regrets the damaging effect this may have had on upholding a level playing field in Europe. Calls on the Commission to take a strong lead in fighting protectionism and distortion of competition;

27.

Approves the non-conventional measures put in place by the ECB and national central banks over the last two years to bail out banks in the Member States that that were at risk of bankruptcy because of unprecedented levels of toxic assets; welcomes especially the fact that guarantees on deposits were provided for clients of these banks, but stresses the need to gradually phase out these unconventional measures in order to prevent unfair competition in the banking sector;

28.

Points out that in October 2008 the European Union adopted the European Economic Recovery Plan, amounting to 1,6 % of its GDP, compared to 5 % in China and 6,55 % in the United States;

29.

Welcomes the adoption by the Ecofin Council on 10 May 2010 of the EUR 750 billion stabilisation plan, which established a financial stability mechanism to address the risks of default by sovereign borrowers, partly using Article 122 of the TFEU as the legal basis of this plan; notes the inherent democratic deficit and accountability void of the Council's rescue package decisions, which did not include consultation with the European Parliament; demands that the European Parliament be involved as co-legislator in forthcoming crisis rescue proposals and decisions;

30.

Regrets the modest level of coordination among the different national recovery plans, as the multiplying effect and leveraging potential of EU-level coordination would most probably have exceeded the effect that can be reached through largely national-level planning, which carries the risk of being mutually contradictory; calls for an increase in the European dimension of future recovery plans and large-scale investments;

31.

Calls on the Commission to give a very precise report on the effectiveness of the national bank rescue packages and national and European recovery plans decided over the autumn and winter of 2008-2009 with respect to the Union's long- and short-term objectives, including a thorough analysis of the consequences of the revised state aid mechanisms adopted in response to the crisis and with regard to competition and the upholding of a level playing field in the EU, financial reform and job creation;

32.

Notes that some Member States, particularly those that received the EC balance of payments assistance, do not currently have opportunities to create real national recovery plans with elements allowing growth and employment to be stimulated, since all the options until the year 2012 are limited to public expenditure cuts, tax increases and reduction of GGD;

33.

Deems it unacceptable for the Union to be the only integrated area in which the question of energy, especially the energy mix, is not regarded as a strategic issue both internally and in the context of relations with partner countries; considers that initiatives on energy need to be taken in the EU on a basis of close coordination between the Commission, the Member States and the relevant sectors of the industry in order to safeguard the supply of energy sources, such as oil and gas, to its Member States through a diversified network of energy pipelines, notably by negotiating supply contracts and organising storage capacity, as well as by funding and coordinating research and development on new energy sources as part of all relevant programmes such as the 7th Research Programme 2007-2013 and its subsequent updates;

34.

Proposes that the Commission assume full responsibility for ensuring the steering and financing of projects in the following fields:

35.

Believes that, while there may be agreement on matters of governance and on EU activity in terms of shared competence and supplementary action, the Union requires resources, especially financial resources, to pursue such a strategy;

36.

Points out that the ultimate purpose of the financial system is to provide appropriate instruments for saving and for putting savings to use in the form of investment to provide support to the real economy and to promote economic efficiency, assuming part of the risk of enterprises and private households, to optimise long-term financing of pensions, and to create jobs, as done for example by regional and local retail banks; notes that this function is especially important in a situation where new means of growth are needed, entailing substantial investment in clean technologies;

37.

Emphasises that financial development must also be put to use in the cause of fairness by extending access to credit and insurance – subject to adequate safeguards – to sections of the population currently cut off from it; insists that regulatory reform in the financial sector must not be carried out for the sole purpose of ensuring financial stability, but must also reflect the aims of sustainable development;

38.

Notes that this crisis marks the limits of a system of self-regulation and over-reliance on the capacity of market participants in the financial sector and of rating agencies always to correctly assess and properly manage risks and avoid moral hazard;

39.

Welcomes the present proposals of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) and the role played by the institution as such, but bearing in mind that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach is detrimental to financial institutions in the EU, takes the view that regulation should be timed and proposed on the basis of thorough assessments of its impact on the extent to which financial institutions serve the real economy and society; shares concerns expressed about the right level of capital requirements and the length of transition periods;

40.

Notes that transparency in both corporate and Member State financial statements is required in order to restore confidence; calls upon the Commission, therefore, to investigate the use of off-balance sheet transactions, unfunded liabilities and the proliferation of SPV and SPEs and to consider limiting their use or requiring mandatory declarations in published accounts;

41.

Notes that a major deficiency in the oversight system has become evident as a result of this crisis; calls for opportunities for regulatory arbitrage to be minimised globally through firm agreement at G20 level and within the European Union, and, where possible, to be abolished through the application of a common rule book for financial services;

42.

Believes that loopholes in regulation which allowed subsidiaries of foreign financial services to operate significant unregulated business in the EU need to be closed;

43.

Notes that there is at present insufficient international regulation of crisis management in the financial sector; calls on the Commission to come forward with concrete proposals for an EU framework for cross-border crisis management in the financial sector, taking into account initiatives taken by international bodies, such as the G20 and the IMF, in order to ensure a global level playing field;

44.

Notes that standards, notably when using fair value, are pro-cyclical in their impact on decision making, notably by financial institutions that have been over-reliant on them; notes that this fault can also be observed in some regulatory, prudential and taxation rules;

45.

Is aware of the specific problems associated with the important part of of the banking and insurance sectors held by foreign establishments in many of the New Member States;

46.

Notes that it is necessary to strike a balance between the need to take steps that help preserve financial stability and the need to maintain banks’ ability to provide credit to the economy; it is important that the banking system should be able to fulfil its fundamental tasks in normal times as well as in times of crisis;

47.

Notes that the size of financial institutions and their respective balance sheets have introduced the concept of ‘too big to fail’; calls on the Commission, therefore, to require banks to produce a ‘living will’ detailing their orderly liquidation in the event of a crisis;

48.

Welcomes the European Central Bank's (ECB) strong role in the framework of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB), enabling it to make a major contribution to financial stability in the European Union;

49.

Stresses the need to introduce new standards for statistical data on the financial sector, strengthening the risk-monitoring and surveillance capacity of the European Commission;

50.

Wishes to encourage financial innovation provided that it leads to the development of transparent tools for financing useful technological innovation, long-term investment, pension funds, jobs and the green economy; is looking forward to further EU action in the area of innovative financing with the aim of mobilising long-term savings in favour of sustainable, strategic long-term investments and expanding access to financial services;

51.

Reaffirms the paramount importance of a system of supervision and regulation which leaves no financial transaction and no financial instrument off the record book; insists that hedge funds must be submitted to the same rules as any and every investment fund; stresses that supervision and regulation must target speculative movements on the financial markets in order to curb and rein in speculation against countries, currencies and economies;

52.

Considers that lax corporate governance of financial institutions has contributed to the crisis and needs addressing in order to ensure that risk committees are operational and effective, board members are sufficiently knowledgeable about the institution's products and management and non-executive directors assume responsibility for aligning investor and employee interests with respect to compensation policies;

53.

Notes a lack of values and ethics in the behaviour of some actors in financial markets and institutions; underlines that financial markets and institutions have to take into account, as part of their corporate social responsibility, the interests of all of the parties involved, such as their clients, shareholders and employees;

54.

Takes the view that a sufficiently broad set of criteria for systemic risk needs to be used as the basis for categorising financial institutions, especially within the EU; considers that use of these criteria entails asking how many Member States' institutions operate in and how big they are, and, most importantly, ascertaining the capacity of a given institution to disrupt the internal market – a point underscored when the crisis demonstrated that large size was only one of several factors that posed systemic risk;

55.

Deems it vital that the EU should take into account, in defining new rules, the need to maintain and expand the structural diversity of its financial sector, and believes that the European economy needs a sound network of regional and local banks, such as savings banks and cooperative banks, while recognising that different banks have different areas of expertise and core competencies; notes that plurality has proved its worth in the financial crisis and has added to stability, and that uniformity can lead to systemic fragility;

56.

Calls for a return of the role of the traditional bank manager who, knowing the character, track record and business plan of loan applicants, is in a position to take a calculated risk based on personal knowledge in accordance with EU legislation such as the MIFID and consumer credit directives which provide for consumer information and protection;

57.

Stresses that, in order to revitalise and unblock the flow of credit to companies and individuals, it is essential to find long-term solutions to the difficulties posed by the enormous amount of private debt for both households and businesses;

58.

Calls for increased transparency in the relations between Member States and their relations with leading financial institutions;

59.

Welcomes the Commission’s proposal of 2 June 2010 and considers that the business model of the Credit Rating Agencies may result in a conflict of interests, given that the agencies are used to measure the financial strength of the companies that pay them, and that their model does not enable them to evaluate the macroeconomic aspects of decisions; realizes that the credit rating agencies contributed to the crisis because their incentives were set up in a harmful way largely resulting from a lack of competition; proposes that research be carried out into the reliability of a system whereby investors and savers pay for access to the information they need;

60.

Asks the Commission to launch a feasibility and impact study on the setting up of a public and independent European Credit Rating Agency, and considers that courts of auditors, as independent bodies, ought to contribute actively to the rating of sovereign debt; believes that this development would introduce a welcome plurality of standards; considers that increased competition in the ratings market could improve the quality of ratings;

61.

Calls on the Commission to explore proposals on shareholder voting rights in terms of providing for greater transparency in respect of shareholders' identities and strategies and by encouraging long-term investment;

62.

Considers that at times of economic and social crisis Europeans expect accountability, responsibility and solidarity to be the guiding principles behind European decision making;

63.

Notes that for decades before the crisis, many European countries were experiencing low economic growth and high unemployment owing to a lack of capacity in some Member States to reform their economies towards a knowledge-driven economy and to restore their competitiveness on the international markets, as well as to low domestic demand; notes that Europe needs more transparent and efficient financial markets and higher economic growth that is conducive to high-quality employment and social inclusion;

64.

Notes that the European Union is finding it more difficult than other regions in the world to get out of the crisis, largely on account of inappropriate, insufficient and belated political responses to the crisis and the structural weakness of its governance capacity, and notes the risk that the crisis will seriously and permanently weaken its economic, and thus political, position on the world stage, which perhaps will only be regained in the long term and if the EU is able to consider the sustainability of the concept of the ‘European way of life’ without undermining its core values;

65.

Considers that the Union will need to achieve greater coherence in policy making to rise to the challenge facing it; therefore deems it essential that the policies implemented be consistent; considers that action by the EU institutions will be decisive here;

66.

Notes also the deficient economic governance structures in the European Union, whereby this fragmentation impairs the Union's capacity to impose its weight in discussions on the major macroeconomic imbalances, particularly with the United States and China;

67.

Believes that the crisis has revealed a trend in the economic policies of the last years which left many countries both within and outside the euro area with an alarming rate of public debt;

68.

Points out that the long-term sustainability of public finances is essential to stability and growth; welcomes the Commission proposals to strengthen the management of the euro zone in the medium and long term, which are designed to prevent any repetition of the current currency crisis, and shares its view that the Stability and Growth Pact requires more effective incentive and penalty mechanisms;

69.

Underlines that, in order to restore sound growth rates and achieve the objective of sustainable economic development and social cohesion, priority should be given to dealing with persistent and significant macroeconomic imbalances and disparities in competitiveness; welcomes the recognition of this necessity by the Commission in its communication on economic policy coordination;

70.

Notes that the crisis highlighted structural weaknesses in certain EU Member States and notes that the problems of some Member States in financing their debt on the markets can be attributed to inadequate governance and, as reported by the IMF, to international financial markets sounding false alarms;

71.

Considers that the financial crisis in Greece and other countries within the euro area are a serious matter for the euro area as a whole and that it reflects the euro zone's weaknesses in coping with the spillover effects of the global financial sector;

72.

Considers that any development model based on the universally declared desire not to return to the status quo needs to make the link between sustainability and solidarity; proposes that the Union’s future strategy be sustainable in terms of financial markets, the economy, government expenditure, economic and social impetus, climate and the environment;

73.

Favours the introduction of a tax on financial transactions, the revenue from which would improve the functioning of the market by reducing speculation and help to finance global public goods and reduce public deficits; considers that such a tax ought to be as broadly based as possible or, failing that, that the financial transaction tax should be introduced as a first step at EU level; calls on the Commission swiftly to produce a feasibility study taking into account the global level playing field and to come forward with concrete legislative proposals;

74.

Considers that in order to avoid the risk of structural after-shocks, focusing the exit strategy on long-term sustainable growth should be the leading criterion for policy choices; from this perspective, the content of fiscal packages is essential; policy choices should be made in accordance with medium- to long-term objectives, and public investment must be properly targeted and focus on innovation, research, education and energy efficiency, and new technologies should be considered a priority;

75.

Points out that the Union’s greatest successes have come from the achievement of practical projects and the implementation of substantive policies, such as the internal market, the common commercial policy (CCP), the euro, the launching of structural reforms and the Erasmus programme, which the Commission is working to drive forward;

76.

Considers that solidarity between generations means that neither the young nor senior citizens should be overburdened with debt contracted in the past;

77.

Notes that the crash has shed new light on the demographic challenge and the challenge of funding pensions; considers that the funding of pensions cannot be entirely left up to the public sector, but that reliance should be placed on tripartite systems including public, occupational and private pension schemes duly guaranteed by specific regulation and supervision in order to protect investors; considers, furthermore, that pensions will need to undergo European-wide reform to contribute towards financing solidarity between generations; considers that the increase in life expectancy raises cross-cutting issues regarding the organisation of society that have not been anticipated;

78.

Believes that what Europe needs is a more united and efficient and less bureaucratic Union and not just more coordination; believes that the Commission, whose task it is to define and defend the general European interest, must, as a priority and in line with its right of initiative, commit to action on behalf of the Union in those fields where it has shared competences or competence to coordinate Member States’ actions, while implementing and enforcing common policies and setting boundaries for action by market or state players that would hamper the internal market; considers it vital for the Commission to utilise regulations instead of directives as the legal basis in order to facilitate uniform adoption across the EU and to prevent distortions;

79.

Asks the Commission to organise, where necessary, sector-based round tables so that all the stakeholders in a given market can work together with a view to encouraging the re-launch of a genuine European industrial policy as well as fostering innovation and job creation; recalls that in this endeavour we must bear in mind our commitments on climate change and the potential of certain green technologies; considers that the EU budget needs to be better used, so that it becomes a real catalyst for all national efforts in the areas of research and development, innovation and creation of new businesses and jobs; calls further on the Commission to put forward concrete proposals on how to enhance cooperation between business and research and promote clusters, and to support such a strategy with adequate funds; stresses that one fundamental driving force for development in any market is free and fair competition, where it is easy for newcomers to enter the market and where there are no privileges distorting it;

80.

Invites the Commission to make full use of the letter and spirit of the Framework Agreement with regard to the special partnership with the European Parliament with a view to setting the priorities of the European agenda in the interest of all citizens; calls for an intensified dialogue with the national parliaments, in particular in the areas of budgetary and financial matters; warns against any attempts to create separate institutions on an intergovernmental basis, which would exclude some countries from decision making and would prevent equal weight being given to the views of all Member States;

81.

Believes that effective economic governance implies endowing the Commission with proper, stronger management responsibility, thereby enabling it to use both existing tools and the new tools provided for by the Lisbon Treaty, such as Articles 121, 122, 136, 172, 173 and 194, which confer on the Commission the task of coordinating reform plans and measures and establishing a common strategy;

82.

Believes that strengthening economic governance must go hand in hand with reinforcing the democratic legitimacy of European governance, which must be achieved through the closer and more timely involvement of the European Parliament and of national parliaments throughout the process;

83.

Proposes that responsibility for economic and monetary affairs at the Commission should be given to one of its vice-presidents; proposes that that person be tasked with ensuring that EU economic activity is consistent, with overseeing how the Commission exercises its economic, monetary and financial-market-related responsibilities and with coordinating other aspects of the Union’s economic activity; also suggests that he or she should participate in the work of the European Council, chair the Ecofin Council and the Eurogroup and represent the EU on relevant international bodies;

84.

Considers that the budgetary difficulties currently faced by Member States and the need for considerable investment call, if the strategic objectives of the Union are to be achieved by 2020, for new financial models involving both public and private funds;

85.

Urges the Member States and the Commission to accelerate the creation of conditions for the public and private sectors to cooperate closely including in the form of public-private partnerships, in order to meet the challenge of long-term investment at national and European level, leading to sustainable, inclusive and competitive growth;

86.

Confirms its commitment to the euro; recognises the strategic function and value of a common currency; stresses the transparency and economic benefits the euro has brought to the euro zone; takes the view that, first and foremost, the euro must be a bastion of stability for the European economy;

87.

Notes that the primary objective of the ECB's monetary policy is to maintain price stability; points out that the objective of price stability can be achieved effectively only if the root causes of inflation are properly addressed; recalls that Article 127 of the TFEU also assigns to the ECB the task of supporting the general economic policies of the Union; deems it essential that Member States in the euro area and those with a special status strictly fulfil their obligations and leave no doubt about the common aims of price stability, independence of the ECB, budget discipline and fostering growth, employment and competitiveness;

88.

Commends the ECB on its efforts to control inflation, but calls for the ECB to play a greater role in controlling asset inflation;

89.

Notes that a monetary union needs strong coordination of economic policies to be resilient to economic downturn; regrets that in the Economic and Monetary Union the emphasis has largely been on the ‘monetary’;

90.

Agrees with the IMF that crisis management is not an alternative to the corrective policy actions and fundamental reforms needed to reinforce the foundation of the European Monetary Union;

91.

Underscores the need for the euro zone to increase its resilience by finalising an institutional set-up based on both incentives and sanctions for necessary actions;

92.

Stresses that the SGP is the only existing regulatory instrument that can provide a fundamental regulatory framework for macro-economic policies and public finances in the EU;

93.

Notes that the changeover to the euro, as the report on the first ten years of the euro has shown, has also revealed a widening of divergences in competitiveness between the euro zone economies, thus exacerbating the consequences for the economically weak countries and leading to substantial trade imbalances within the euro zone; notes, however, that the benefits of the euro for the Union as a whole, for example in terms of relative economic stability, price stability and a low inflation rate, have been substantial;

94.

Stresses the need for many countries to put their fiscal house in order and reduce significantly their deficit and debt levels; agrees with the Council on the need to ensure fiscal sustainability and enhanced economic growth and employment in all Member States, and therefore agrees that plans for fiscal consolidation and structural reforms need to be defined and implemented accordingly;

95.

Notes that this could lead to financial consolidation strategies which will greatly constrain the governments' capacity to act; at the same time, warns that these austerity packages should not lead to measures which could dampen economic recovery, employment creation and social cohesion;

96.

Considers that the Stability and Growth Pact is an important tool for putting pressure on the sustainability of public finances, which has contributed to economic responsibility within the euro zone; recognises that it has been hampered by poor enforcement and has not given sufficient leverage for optimising the economic policies of each of the Member States and the euro zone as a whole; considers that this economic policy instrument was not designed to act as a sustainable corrective process to compensate for current imbalances and manage periods of crisis or of very low growth; takes the view that beyond the application of existing rules, Member States should implement internal policies to foster growth, innovation, competitiveness and a qualitative objective whereby the public deficit must not exceed certain benchmarks;

97.

Considers that the Stability and Growth Pact does not take into account other imbalances such as the ones in private debt and in current account, which also have an impact on monetary union;

98.

Notes that, even after it became clear that the accuracy of statistical data reported by some Member States was questionable in some cases, during the previous parliamentary term when the directive on Eurostat was being revised, the Council was opposed to giving Eurostat the power to conduct the on-the-spot checks advocated by the European Parliament;

99.

Considers that the authors of the Maastricht Treaty expected a convergence of competitiveness between Member States in the euro zone and had not anticipated the high degree of divergences, which ultimately led to an increase in the spreads, as fears concerning the solvency of some Member States drove up their risk premium;

100.

Notes that the last months have seen a number of temporary exceptions to the application of European state aid norms, thanks to which the Member States had the opportunity to contain the impact of the crisis; notes that the growth phase, towards which we are heading, requires solid foundations and it is in this context that we need to return gradually to the normal state aid regime, thus ensuring a level playing field in Europe;

101.

Urges that the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact be strengthened, especially its preventive arm, where the means of peer pressure is the strongest instrument presently available to make Member States comply with Council recommendations; calls for the economic surveillance carried out by the Commission to be given more teeth; considers that the possibility of creating incentives for fiscal consolidation has to be explored;

102.

Proposes the setting up of an effective incentive and penalty mechanism to be applied to the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact, which would contribute to preventing any worsening of the current crisis and ensure the prevention of a new crisis in the future;

103.

Believes that multilateral surveillance and requests for adjustment must be directed at situations of both deficit and surplus, taking account of each country’s specific circumstances, in terms of demography for example, and that they must have regard to levels of private debt, trends in wages compared to labour productivity, employment – especially youth employment – and current-account balances; considers that these factors, if they cannot be employed in the same way as the current stability pact criteria, should be used as warning signals; believes more transparency is needed with respect to public finance data, and welcomes the Commission proposal on the quality of statistical data;

104.

Urges the Commission to put in place an enforced European sanctioning mechanism which is under its clear competence within the euro zone in order to force Member States to respect the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact;

105.

Takes the view that the Stability and Growth Pact proved not to be efficient enough in coordinating fiscal policies, that its reliance on individual countries' policies raised problems with enforcement and fairness of information, that it failed to make the link with employment levels and job creation in such a way as to generate a properly balanced economic policy mix, and that it also failed to address the issues of real convergence, competitiveness and creation of euro zone synergies; takes the view, therefore, that there is a need for further coordination among Member States, and the euro zone economies in particular, in order to strengthen the economic balance in the euro zone;

106.

Considers that the broad economic policy guidelines both for stability and growth established jointly with Parliament should be used as a framework for discussion and evaluation of the Member States’ budgets – before their presentation to the respective national parliaments;

107.

Believes that, in addition to having a single currency, the euro zone countries should go a step further by making arrangements for a mutual issue and management of a proportion of Member States’ sovereign debt providing a basis for more complex multilateral surveillance with assistance from the EMF and EFSF, in order to ensure that the euro zone market as a whole is more attractive and for joint debt management;

108.

Considers that the implementation of the structural reforms, especially the adaptation and restructuring of the social distribution systems in the new Member States, needs strong support and solidarity from the Union; regardless of any global financial, economic and social crisis situation, the euro zone and the ERM II have to be further enlarged by new Member States which have fulfilled the Maastricht criteria; such decisions, inter alia, would prove the stability and sustainability of the euro zone itself.

109.

Considers that levelling out the existing major differences in competitiveness within the euro zone by keeping wage increases in line with productivity gains and inflation expectations is key to avoiding the emergence of rifts within the euro zone;

110.

Calls for substantial improvement in the social dialogue on macro-economic issues, which must entail more than merely informing the social partners about guidelines proposed or adopted;

111.

Calls on the Commission and the Council to define broad common guidelines for the EU to implement a sustainable market economy; believes that such guidelines should be defined annually on the basis of an assessment which includes wage/productivity evolution at national and European level through proper social dialogue;

112.

Calls for a common budgetary strategy in order to restore and safeguard the EU as a long-term economic growth area;

113.

Considers that public expenditure used efficiently with a view to the future (on education, training, infrastructure, research, environment etc.) can stabilise the economy by nourishing healthy, sustained growth over time; takes the view that high-quality, responsible public spending combined with fostering the entrepreneurial and innovative potential of the private sector can drive economic and social progress;

114.

Stresses the importance of establishing a stronger link between the Stability and Growth Pact, macroeconomic instruments and the Europe 2020 National Reform Programmes by presenting them in a coherent way, thereby also making for enhanced comparability of national budgets in terms of spending in different categories; believes that Member States should view their respective economic policies not only as a matter of national interest, but also as a matter of common interest, and should formulate their policies accordingly; reminds the Member States of the enhanced role of the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines;

115.

Insists that, if the Europe 2020 strategy is to be credible, greater compatibility and complementarity are needed between the national budgets of the 27 EU Member States and the EU budget; emphasises the greater role the EU budget should play in terms of pooling resources;

116.

Considers that public investment that is targeted smartly can have a major leverage effect on long-term investment; proposes extending the mandate of the EIB to include the ability to issue Eurobonds to invest in major structural projects in accordance with the EU strategic priorities;

117.

Points out that a common currency can only operate if Member States coordinate their budgetary policies and open their books to each other; recognises that this process requires close cooperation with national parliaments;

118.

Calls on the Commission and the Council, with Eurostat's support, to improve the comparability of spending under national budgets in order to identify policy complementarity or convergence;

119.

Believes that the Union and Member States must work towards the introduction of fiscal principles that will cease to encourage indebtedness in the public and private sectors and short-term remuneration in the private sector and which could possibly include bonus/malus mechanisms based on criteria relating to decent work and the environment;

120.

Notes that recovery from the financial, economic and social crisis and an exit from the sovereign debt crisis will require a long-term process which must be well designed and ensure balanced and sustainable development; acknowledges that compromises may have to be made between growth, fairness and financial stability and that such compromises must be the subject of political decision making; asks the Commission to present financial development proposals that take these aims into account, particularly with regard to the EU 2020 strategy, and to explain the types of compromise on which political choices may have to be made; hopes that this will provide a basis on which the Union can facilitate debate and permit policy comparisons, following consultation with all parties that have a stake in financial-market reform (banks, investors, savers and the social partners); calls on the Commission, furthermore, to involve the European Parliament more closely in this process, particularly when devising and then implementing the EU 2020 strategy;

121.

Urges the Union to better equip itself with countercyclical economic policy management instruments;

122.

Considers that the Lisbon Treaty provides all the instruments needed at this stage to put in place real economic governance of the Union and better surveillance of the state of public finances in the Member States;

123.

Highlights calls in the Mario Monti and Louis Grech reports, adopted by the European Parliament on 20 May 2010, for a more holistic approach to the internal market, in terms of both strategy and perception, with a view to making it more effective and restoring public confidence; underlines the importance of the ‘Single Market Act’ initiative of legislative and non-legislative proposals to strengthen and update the internal market, complete the Digital internal market and address and break down remaining barriers;

124.

Considers it essential that the Single Market Act include an ambitious agenda for social and consumer protection in the form of the insertion of a social clause in all legislation related to the internal market, legislation on services of general economic interest, a legislative agenda to strengthen workers' rights, an ambitious legislative package for consumer protection that makes a difference to the daily lives of citizens and better tax coordination by means of harmonisation of the corporate tax base and VAT rates;

125.

Notes that the internal market requires the support of all as a cornerstone of the European project and the foundation of sustainable wealth creation in the EU;

126.

Points out that the internal market is one of the main drivers of European growth; underlines that the EU 2020 strategy should serve as a concrete program for growth and employment with a view to facing the economic crisis and strengthening the internal market;

127.

Takes the view that initiatives by single states cannot be effective without coordinated action at EU level, making it fundamental that the European Union speaks with a strong single voice and implements common actions. Solidarity, on which the European social economy model is based, and the coordination of national responses have been crucial to avoiding protectionist measures of short duration by single Member States; expresses its concern that the re-emergence of economic protectionism at national level would most probably result in fragmentation of the internal market and a reduction in competitiveness, and therefore needs to be avoided; is concerned that the current economic and financial crisis could be used to justify reviving protectionist measures in various Member States, whereas the downturn calls for common safeguard mechanisms instead;

128.

Takes the view that progress in the internal market should not be based on the lowest common denominator. Encourages the Commission, therefore, to take the lead and come forward with bold proposals; encourages the Member States to use the method of enhanced cooperation in areas where the process of reaching an agreement among 27 is not achievable; other countries would be free to join these spearhead initiatives at a later stage;

129.

Warns against the notion that the European economy can somehow develop and grow without free and fair trade with as many other countries in the world as possible, including our leading trade partner today, the US, and emerging economies like China, India and Brazil; considers that the European Union should also rely on its own strengths by making better use of its internal market, especially since the bulk of its growth is also linked to domestic demand;

130.

Stresses the need to unleash the potential of the internal market for business in the era of globalisation, in order to boost job creation and innovation in new technologies in Europe;

131.

Believes that in order to establish an effective internal market, the Commission must produce a clear set of political priorities through the adoption of a ‘Single Market Act’, which should cover both legislative and non-legislative initiatives, with the aim of creating a highly competitive social market economy;

132.

Recognises that within the European Union the construction of the internal market without some tax harmonisation, notably regarding corporate taxes and a definition of the components of social protection, have led to some extent to excessive competition between Member States seeking to attract taxpayers from other Member States; notes, nevertheless, that one of the great advantages of the internal market has been the removal of barriers to mobility and the harmonization of institutional regulations, fostering cultural understanding, integration, economic growth and European solidarity;

133.

Recommends that the Commission conduct an independent exercise to identify the top 20 single-market-related sources of dissatisfaction and frustration which citizens encounter every day, in particular in relation to e-commerce, cross-border medical care, and mutual recognition of professional qualifications;

134.

Calls on the Member States finally to accept correlation tables concerning the implementation of legislation in order to make legislation deficits more transparent;

135.

Stresses that a well-functioning procurement market is essential to the internal market; remains concerned, however, that there are still significant problems for public authorities in achieving their policy objectives within a complex set of rules, as well as in ensuring SME access to the public procurement markets;

136.

Encourages the Commission to come forward with a proposal introducing a ‘sunrise clause’, which would ensure that EU internal market laws automatically enter into force at a given time if Member States do not transpose them in time;

137.

Believes that putting in place sound, effective rules for an economic area, following a crisis on the scale of the one we have experienced, constitutes a significant contribution to competitiveness; considers that the EU authorities have a particular responsibility for ensuring that the reform agenda is adhered to, inter alia by national political authorities;

138.

Takes the view that Europe should once again turn into a favourable location for investments and production, and become a world benchmark for innovation and growth; believes that financial institutions, be they public or private, must do their utmost to ensure that the financial markets work for the benefit of the real economy and of small and medium-sized enterprises;

139.

Asks the Commission to carry out an annual assessment of public and private investment needs and how they are being, or should be, met;

140.

Recognises that in order to further develop the Union's internal market, a coordinated approach is needed at both national and EU level to capitalise on best practices in the fight against tax fraud and evasion, while defining appropriate incentives for tax payers to duly pay their taxes and for the tax authorities in the Member States to adopt effective preventive measures against all types of tax malpractice;

141.

Considers that reducing tax fraud levels would help to reduce public deficits without increasing taxes, while maintaining social spending; is concerned about the distortion created in the internal market as a result of the different levels of tax fraud in the Member States; asks the Commission to draw up an impact assessment to evaluate the different problems caused by tax evasion and the black economy in all the Member States;

142.

Stresses the fact that achieving sustainable public finances requires not just responsible spending, but also adequate and fair taxation, more effective collection of taxes by national tax authorities and a more intensive fight against tax evasion; calls on the Commission to propose a set of measures to help the Member States restore the balance of their public accounts and to finance public investment by tapping innovative financial sources;

143.

Notes, echoing the work carried out by Mario Monti, that increases in public revenue linked to good economic performance have generally led to tax cuts; notes that taxation on labour should be reduced in order to increase European competitiveness; supports Mario Monti’s proposals for the establishment of a Tax Policy Group, which would bring together representatives from the Member States, as an important way of encouraging dialogue between European countries; invites the policy group to discuss primarily the framework for a tax system that would address environmental goals and support resource efficiency; welcomes the proposal for a directive on a common consolidated corporate tax base in the 2011 Commission work programme;

144.

Recognises that a major driving force for institutional improvement and economic growth in the Member States is their sovereignty in choosing how they wish to levy taxes; regards it as essential to reduce taxes on labour, both for the sake of the least fortunate and in order to allow the middle classes to live decently from the fruits of their labours;

145.

Advocates a tax structure geared to easing the burden on labour and encouraging, and creating incentives for, employment, innovation and long-term investment;

146.

Considers that cohesion policy should be regarded as one of the pillars of the Union’s economic policy, contributing to long-term EU investment strategy;

147.

Notes that cohesion policy has become an essential element in the European Economic Recovery Package, being a public policy which can be used to respond to the crisis and address short-term demand stimulation while at the same time investing in long-term growth and competitiveness;

148.

Considers that the strength of cohesion policy in linking recovery to long-term growth comes from its three basic characteristics: it sets strategic guidelines that are conditions for resources to be transferred, which are binding on both Member States and regions; it leaves space for Member States and regions to tailor interventions to local specificities; and it has the capacity to monitor and support in pursuit of goals;

149.

Underscores that the uneven impact of the crisis across Europe’s territory reflects different competitive starting points and varying degrees of recourse to anti-crisis measures, and that it means different long-term outlooks; points out that the effects of the crisis may result in weakened territorial cohesion if it is not countered with policies targeting specific problems in a differentiated manner. Notes that in some of the countries most affected by the crisis, cohesion policy accounted for a major part of total public investment;

150.

Considers that the post-crisis strategy will be more effective if regions and cities are involved in its implementation; multilevel governance offers broader policy space, allowing more effective promotion of economic recovery in the EU, as regional and local levels of European governance have the capacity to translate European general strategic goals into their own territorial specificities and are capable of harnessing the policy tools they have at their disposal and the enthusiasm of all partners – business, academia and civil society;

151.

Points out that today there are many policy tools at the local and regional levels of governance. Both innovation, which can bring productivity gains, and greening, which can create new demands and markets, require a regional and local focus and a place-based integrated approach to investment and growth policies; a region, a city, a town or a rural area can be a place where all partners can be brought together and all the elements needed to arrive at a solution found;

152.

Expresses, therefore, its concerns at the lack of progress in devolving power to communities, given that local and rural communities provide opportunities in terms of the economy, employment and community building, and that providing support for these communities allows exclusion to be reduced by reinforcing the fabric of the community and thus increasing its capacity for absorption;

153.

Points out that, as regions will continue to gain in importance in driving the economic agenda of the EU, local lending needs to be strengthened, and that this can be stimulated through strong regional banks; notes that regulation of the financial services industry should take into account the need to stimulate entrepreneurship and financing for SMEs, and that financial support for SMEs in cohesion policy should move towards venture capital finance, which would allow greater involvement of the banking sector and a more efficient use of structural funds;

154.

Calls for further reform of the current cohesion policy structure to enable funds to be provided more rapidly and efficiently to Member States, regions and cities; points out that more flexibility is required and that the Commission must take this into account when designing future cohesion policy;

155.

Considers it vital that any long-term EU investment strategy supported by the cohesion policy be linked to results in terms of competitiveness, innovation, job creation, green growth, and improvements in economic, social and territorial cohesion at European level, especially between old and new Member States;

156.

Calls for the EU 2020 strategy to pursue a broad political concept of the future of the EU as a competitive, social, sustainable Union which places people and the protection of the environment at the centre of policy making;

157.

Considers that, if these goals are to be achieved, it is time to coordinate our macroeconomic policies closely, aiming as a priority to increase the Union’s growth potential and focusing on a model of inclusive and sustainable development, without which none of our problems can be solved; considers that this should be the focus of the new EU 2020 strategy;

158.

Recognises that, in order to prevent the responses to the euro crisis from resulting in a lengthy period of economic stagnation, the Union should at the same time implement a strategy to accelerate sustainable economic growth alongside reforms aimed at restoring and improving competitiveness;

159.

Notes the five headline targets agreed by the European Council on employment rate, research and development, greenhouse gas emissions, education levels and social inclusion; stresses that these headline targets should be formulated in the framework of a consistent and coherent sustainable development strategy combining the economic, social and environmental policy agendas;

160.

Considers that education should be placed at the very heart of the Union's economic strategy, with the goal of raising the overall quality of all levels of education and training in the EU, combining excellence and equity and reforming the educational model; believes that education should constitute a public good in the eyes of the Union, with investment in all aspects of the education system, in quality of education and in broadening access to higher education; proposes the introduction of a permanent, inclusive European-level system of lifelong learning, under which the Erasmus and Leonardo programmes for education and training mobility would become more generally accessible; points out the need to urgently raise the level of investment in the field of R&D, particularly in view of the 7FP mid-term evaluation and the next EU financial perspectives;

161.

Notes that tackling youth unemployment and fostering an effective matching of skills and market needs should be focal points; believes that public-private partnerships in education need to be developed and cross-border mobility for students and researchers in exchanges and internships should be used to enhance the international attractiveness of Europe's higher-education institutions while retaining the target of spending 3 % of GDP on R&D will boosts innovation through research and higher education;

162.

Considers that the EU 2020 Strategy as proposed by the Commission should concentrate on making the internal market less bureaucratic, by reducing administrative burdens on business by 25 % by 2012, and more efficiency-driven, by using the internet as the backbone of an EU-wide e-market that will generate new services and jobs;

163.

Believes that the governance structure of the Europe 2020 strategy should be strengthened to ensure that it will achieve its objective; considers that a broader use of binding measures is necessary to make the new strategy a success, instead of continued use of the open method of coordination in the field of economic policy; urges the Council and Commission to come forward with an economic strategy for economic recovery based primarily on EU instruments and not mainly on intergovernmental initiatives;

164.

Recognises that good governance or an economic government will not, in itself, be enough to provide the EU with the growth strategy it needs in order to tackle the crisis and square up to global competition; is convinced, however, that 10 years of EMU have demonstrated – in the unique context of the euro – the absolute need for such a strategy;

165.

Insists that the EU 2020 strategy should include a target for reducing poverty in the EU by half, and points out that a majority of Europeans currently living in poverty, or at risk of poverty, are women, in particular older women, migrant women, single mothers and carers; takes the view, moreover, that a life-course perspective should be introduced, as poverty of its parents has a direct impact on a child's life, development and future;

166.

Calls for an ambitious long-term strategy against poverty with the aim of reducing inequalities and social exclusion, with far-reaching targets for poverty reduction and in-work poverty; proposes an EU framework policy on minimum income schemes, taking account of subsidiarity, different practices, collective bargaining and national law in the Member States, and on the basis of European criteria scaled to reflect the standard of living in each Member State; calls also for a child allowance with the above aim of reducing poverty, inequalities and social exclusion;

167.

Considers that the Member States should hold debates in their respective national parliaments prior to adoption of their stability and growth (EU 2020) programmes;

168.

Notes that the Commission's Innovation Scoreboard shows that Europe is still lagging considerably behind Japan and the United States in terms of research and innovation;

169.

Considers that, in addition to funding for small and medium enterprises, the European Union needs to take a proactive and coordinated approach to funding research and innovation and to be at the forefront of new employment sectors and attracting private investment;

170.

Notes that the transition to an energy-efficient economy as a way of increasing the EU's energy security should be one of the priorities of the Commission and the Member States; considers that the EU should encourage innovation in energy generation from renewable resources, putting the emphasis on low-carbon local sources;

171.

Considers that energy network interconnections are crucial to the functioning of the internal market in the energy sector, as well as to more extensive generation of energy from renewable resources; emphasises the importance of smart-grid development;

172.

Points out that SMEs should be the backbone in the development of renewable and energy-efficient technologies; notes that the creation of financial instruments to encourage energy efficiency and innovation in renewable energy use is crucial;

173.

Considers that investment in the renewal of housing stock and public transport needs to be prioritised in order to reduce energy costs and energy poverty and to initiate a virtuous circle;

174.

Advocates a fair and equitable gradual transition to a green economy; believes that the job losses resulting from the transition need to be anticipated with measures to step up training and improve workers’ skills in the new technologies; notes that fuel poverty is a significant and growing concern;

175.

Calls on the Commission to develop and propose a mechanism whereby SMEs and other innovators would be offered risk-softening funding in public-private partnership with private equity funds, where money from the European Investment Bank, together with public money from the Member States, with the support of risk-guarantee mechanisms by the European Investment Fund distributed through the private equity fund, would enable the projects to leverage private investment up to 80 %;

176.

Supports the establishment of financial institutions to provide financing for innovation projects throughout the Union, which are essential for future sustainable growth;

177.

Urges the Commission to work to eliminate administrative hurdles, and to improve the conditions for innovation, for example by creating the single EU patent. Notes that well-intended programmes aimed at boosting competitiveness and shaping a sustainable economy are not working properly, as SMEs, universities and multinationals are discouraged from participating in European programmes;

178.

Notes that fiscal and monetary policies are no substitute for structural reform, which must address the underlying weaknesses of the European economy – sharply growing debts and deficits, an ageing population, the probability of a surge in inflation or a process of deflation, the highly probable new surge in inflation, risks to industries generated by climate-change policies, especially owing to uncertainty about new targets and standards, low productivity and lack of competitiveness; calls for higher efficiency in using public money, at both European and national levels; considers that the differences in the timing and intensity of the crisis, as well as the different ex-ante fiscal and monetary positions of the individual Member States, should be taken into account when adopting coordinated policies and targets; believes that these efforts should lead to faster real convergence among national economies;

179.

Considers that the European winning strategy has to be based on sound fiscal policies fostering innovation, education and workforce employability – the only way to boost productivity, employment and growth in a sustainable way;

180.

Points out that addressing climate change and resource scarcity and halting biodiversity loss are the framework conditions for future European economic growth; notes that this growth must, therefore, be based on decoupling economic growth from resource use, on green innovations and on ecologically sustainable economic progress;

181.

Welcomes the strategy adopted in 2007 by the European Council aimed at increasing the EU’s energy independence and setting out specific commitments to combat climate change; considers that the crisis has further emphasised the relevance of this strategy; considers, however, that for this strategy to be successful, it requires more ambitious action by the Union on top of measures to regulate the internal market;

182.

Considers that one of the great challenges facing the European Union is that of maintaining its competitiveness, increasing growth and combating high unemployment;

183.

Reiterates that high-quality employment should be a key priority in a 2020 strategy and that a stronger focus on properly functioning labour markets and on social conditions is vital to improving employment performance; calls, therefore, for a new agenda to promote decent work, guarantee workers’ rights throughout Europe and improve working conditions;

184.

Believes that the new strategy must put more emphasis on decent work, including the fight against undeclared work, and on ensuring that people who are currently excluded from the labour market can gain access to it;

185.

Believes that the new strategy should encourage labour markets which improve incentives and conditions for people at work while, at the same time, increasing the incentives for employers to recruit and retain staff;

186.

Points out the importance of looking at Europe's diminishing competitiveness on a global scale; bearing the projected long-term labour shortages in mind, it is important to look beyond the crisis and to explore European schemes to allow for knowledge migration and the prevention of a European ‘brain drain’;

187.

Considers that firm and resolute action on employment is all the more necessary as there is a risk that economic recovery in the Union may not be accompanied by sustainable job creation;

188.

Urges the Union to link its actions on employment to measures to combat poverty and social exclusion, together with an effectively functioning internal market for workers within the EU, so that the crisis does not further increase inequalities;

189.

Calls on the Member States and the Commission to achieve a 75 % employment rate for men and women by 2020 by reducing labour-market segmentation and stepping up efforts to facilitate the balance between work, caring responsibilities and family life;

190.

Considers that efforts to support job creation need to be focused on employing the young, which in turn calls for furthering the provision of gender-sensitive programmes to equip young people with the skills needed in the real economy;

191.

Stresses the need to create inclusive and competitive labour markets which provide greater flexibility for employers while at the same time guaranteeing unemployment benefits combined with active support for re-employability in the event of job loss;

192.

Believes that, while education should remain the responsibility of the Member States, EU investments and EU-wide recognition of qualifications are needed in all aspects of the education system, in the quality of education and in broadening access to higher education; proposes the introduction of a permanent and inclusive European-level system of lifelong learning guidelines, under which the Union's Erasmus and Leonardo programmes for education and training mobility would become more generally accessible;

193.

Makes the point that employment is one of the key factors in the economy because it contributes to spending power; considers that the EU should pursue the aim of full, high-quality employment and that the sustainable functioning of the internal market depends on a labour market that offers decent work and furthers the cause of innovation;

194.

Urges the Member States to address, through labour-market-related policy measures, both the cyclical and the long-term dimensions of unemployment;

195.

Takes the view that Europe needs solid growth to sustain its social system, which contributes to the competitiveness of the European social market economy;

196.

Notes that it is important to facilitate mobility, which also makes it easier for companies to find the skills they require and the internal market to function better, including in a crisis; notes that labour mobility needs to go hand in hand with the improvement of working conditions;

197.

Notes that SMEs and entrepreneurs play a significant role in all economies and are the key generators of employment and income, and drivers of innovation and growth; believes that SMEs are crucial to future development, growth and welfare in the EU, and that the EU’s competitiveness vis-à-vis the world can be strengthened by prioritising SMEs;

198.

Believes that it is time to look to the future and learn from the lessons of the past, thereby achieving over time the structural changes that will make our SMEs more competitive and ready to face the additional pressures that will come from the globalised environment and our competitors’ capacity to enter into ever more innovative markets, and in so doing potentially guaranteeing jobs for many of the more vulnerable members of the work force and their families;

199.

Recognises that the current definition of an SME in the EU has to be re-examined and that the criterion regarding the number of employees needs to be lowered in order to allow for more targeted policies aimed at SMEs;

200.

Realises that the ambition to drive industry and SMEs towards innovation will not be achieved solely by improving access to capital in general, but that there should also be an aim to diversify the sources of financing;

201.

Takes the view that, in the context of recovery, particular attention should be paid to the role of SMEs in terms of productivity and the creation of new assets, and that mechanisms should therefore be implemented to avoid the exit of SMEs from the market, increasing unemployment and prolonging economic frailty; considers that efficient distribution of the European Social Fund should also be guaranteed;

202.

Considers that SMEs should be regarded as a motor for smaller investments financed by the cohesion funds; believes that the allocation of funds to universities and the promotion of partnerships with SMEs are key in this regard;

203.

Realises that the EU internal market helps to create a fertile business environment throughout the Union, whilst also benefiting consumers; is aware, nonetheless, that SMEs face numerous challenges in operating in the internal market and often operate below their efficient scale, and that, especially at the micro level, SMEs need to be supported in order to be able to operate throughout the internal market, that their access to information about opportunities needs to be brought up to the level where trans-European platforms can be established, and that only then can SMEs explore business opportunities, find complementarities and, ultimately, find the means to gain access to markets within the Union;

204.

Considers that keeping citizens active and productive after retirement is, among other things, in the economic interest of Europe and that the loss of their expertise can be mitigated by encouraging senior citizens to remain active through looser structures and networks based on their civic engagement and by linking them with economic actors and academia; believes that SMEs could profit most from a network of informal structures such as this, which could be consulted, as most SMEs find it hard to afford these services from the consultancies active in the economy; points out that knowledge accumulated by senior citizens must be circulated for the benefit of all by the establishment of a network at EU level;

205.

Calls on the Union to promote its web of SMEs – which are at the forefront of job creation – by facilitating their access to credit, notably through support for guarantee schemes and the creation of new standard products to combine loans and equity for smaller companies; calls on the Union to create an EU Guarantee Fund for SMEs; also calls for an evaluation of existing funding schemes, especially the CIP programme, and for dedicated efforts to make EU-backed loans accessible to businesses in all Member States and to develop services to SMEs and social dialogue structures;

206.

Calls on the Union to aim for a more balanced composition of financing for SMEs; notes that the share of capital markets in financing SMEs has to be increased; takes the view that the share of financing of SMEs via capital markets, venture capital, ‘angel investors’ and public-private partnerships must be increased and stimulated. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to reduce significantly public procurement bureaucracy for SMEs and to cut red tape, a move which is essential to the wellbeing of SMEs;

207.

Encourages the creation of specialised stock markets which cater exclusively to SMEs and have low barriers of entry, with a view to facilitating the equity process; considers that SMEs should focus more on equity, and against this background proposes the removal of negative tax incentives for both sides of the market, the investors and the market;

208.

Calls for the EU Member States to consider efforts to coordinate taxation relative to SMEs; believes that completing the internal market to provide cross-border financing and business opportunities for SMEs is essential to fostering the EU's recovery;

209.

Stresses that an organic link between industry and innovation, and consequently with education, is highly desirable; innovators, including SMEs, need to be at the forefront of investments at European and national level. Points out that, by definition, innovating start-up SMEs carry a high-risk bankruptcy profile, so that an entire rethink of their financing and corollary activities is needed. Stresses that, since these innovating start-ups are in the most difficult position when it comes to obtaining financing through the banking system, credit guarantee schemes need to be drawn up specifically for this segment;

210.

Proposes that the Commission should establish a ‘One SME – One Job’ project by creating a new financial instrument at EU level to encourage the activities of SMEs in the Union; considers that a more balanced composition of financing of SMEs should be achieved;

211.

Calls for the reform of the Small Business Act document, including binding provisions to be applied by all Member States, and for the establishment of a new Social Small Business Act, which would be a necessary reinforcement of the European social market economy in the post-crisis era;

212.

Recommends the creation of a one-stop shop; one-stop shops are needed in connection with every administrative issue for SMEs. Takes the view that a reduction in the administrative burden borne by SMEs is of great importance, as is the introduction of a social component in SME-relevant European legislation. Believes that Europe needs to become the most SME-friendly region of the world;

213.

Notes that, although some of the emerging and developing countries seem to have escaped the worst effects of the crisis, 40 % of developing countries have nevertheless been highly exposed to the effects of the financial crisis, and an estimated 90 million people will be plunged into poverty as a result;

214.

Calls for a re-affirmation of the pledging of 0,7 % of Member States’ GNI to development aid and for an exploration of additional innovative sources of financing to close the financing gap caused by shrinking economies in the developing world;

215.

Asks European companies, especially multinationals, to ensure that their sub-contracting companies within the production chain are socially responsible;

216.

Recognises the weaknesses and problems caused by the lack of legally binding powers, and the disconnectedness, of the global financial and economic institutions; welcomes in consequence the initiatives to enhance, by means of reform, the effectiveness, global reach and accountability of the IMF and other UN institutions, so that they can be mandated to serve as a platform for overarching economic and financial sector coordination initiatives and, where appropriate, given powers to lay down legally binding rules in the form of international conventions;

217.

Takes the view that the EU's global challenges include matching its economic strength with relevance on the world stage by speaking with one voice; believes that one of the key projects of the EU's foreign policy must be to strive to reform the UN and the UN-related institutions into global institutions with real political leverage over issues of international concern such as climate change, financial supervision and regulation, poverty reduction, and the Millennium Development Goals;

218.

Calls on the European Council to convene a G20 summit devoted solely to the reform required in governance at world level;

219.

Strongly condemns the role played by tax havens in encouraging and profiteering from tax avoidance, tax evasion and capital flight; urges the Member States, therefore, to make the fight against tax havens, tax evasion and illicit capital flight a priority; calls on the EU to step up its action and to take immediate concrete measures – such as sanctions – against tax havens, tax evasion and illicit capital flight; calls on the Council to come up with a plan, in the context of the United Nations and other international bodies in which the European Union and its Member States have a seat, for closing tax havens;

220.

Recommends that, at the same time as improving the governance and operation of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, efforts need to be made to strengthen international governance arrangements for other market segments; proposes that the BCBS rules should come into force in the form of international treaties;

221.

Notes the progress on fiscal governance made by the OECD and in the G20, but advocates urgent and strong action to strengthen the legal and economic consequences of OECD blacklisting of non-cooperative jurisdictions; asks for rapid, practical steps to be taken on automatic, multilateral exchange of information as standard procedure worldwide, with a view to improving fiscal transparency and combating fraud and tax evasion;

222.

Proposes that, following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU should become a direct signatory of the ILO conventions and that it should sign all the conventions adopted by the ILO to date;

223.

Concludes that we need more Europe; considers that there is an urgent need for political and intellectual leadership in order to put the European project back on track; takes the views that the Commission needs to make full use of its initiative rights in the fields of shared competences, notably in energy policies, to empower the EU for challenges ahead; believes that the eco-social-friendly internal market project which underpins the Union needs to be completed; urges that mechanisms for economic governance within the Union be strengthened, especially from the point of view of better accountability, contingency management, and economic and employment policy coordination; Asserts that the financial and supervisory reform agenda must move forward rapidly, addressing not just the shortcomings observed in the crisis but also the need to design a financial system that supports the real economy, is conducive to financial stability and engenders economic growth, long-term investment, job creation, social cohesion and the fight against poverty; Considers it necessary to redesign the taxation systems in a fair manner, in a way that discourages the build-up of excessive leverage and promotes social justice, entrepreneurial spirit and innovation; Calls for a revitalisation of the sustainable social market economy and the values it enshrines;

224.

Is committed, within the framework of the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis, to fulfilling the aims laid down in its mandate in close cooperation with the EU national parliaments, with a view to adopting joint recommendations;

225.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the President of the European Council, the President of the Eurogroup, the European Central Bank, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, the Governments and Parliaments of the Member States and the social partners.

8.3.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/41

—

having regard to Article 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union,

—

having regard to Articles 121, 126, 136, 138 and 352 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Protocols (No 12) on the Excessive Deficit Procedure and (No 14) on the Euro Group, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Commission Communications of 12 May 2010 on Reinforcing economic policy coordination (COM(2010)0250), and 30 June 2010 on Enhancing economic policy coordination for stability, growth and jobs – Tools for stronger EU economic governance (COM(2010)0367),

—

having regard to the Commission recommendation of 27 April 2010 for a Council recommendation on broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and of the Union: Part I of the Europe 2020 Integrated Guidelines (SEC(2010)0488),

—

having regard to the Commission proposal of 27 April 2010 for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States: Part II of the Europe 2020 Integrated Guidelines (COM(2010)0193), and its position of 8 September 2010 (1) in respect thereof,

—

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

—

having regard to the Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (2),

—

having regard to the Council Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 of 18 February 2002 establishing a facility providing medium-term fiscal assistance for Member States' balances of payments (3),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (4),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (5),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3605/93 of 22 November 1993 on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community (6),

—

having regard to the conclusions of the Council meeting on 7 September 2010 approving a stronger monitoring of economic and budgetary policies (the European Semester),

—

having regard to the conclusions of the European Council of 17 June 2010,

—

having regard to the conclusions of the Council meeting on 9 and 10 May 2010,

—

having regard to the Statement of the Heads of State or Government of the Euro Area of 7 May 2010,

—

having regard to the Statement by the Heads of State and Government of the Euro Area of 25 March 2010,

—

having regard to the conclusions of the European Council of 25 and 26 March 2010,

—

having regard to the Statement on the support to Greece by Euro area Members States of 11 April 2010,

—

having regard to the conclusions of the Council meeting on 16 March 2010,

—

having regard to the conclusions of the Euro Group on Surveillance of Intra-Euro-Area Competitiveness and Macroeconomic Imbalances of 15 March 2010,

—

having regard to the Euro Group's Terms of reference on exit strategies and near-term policy priorities in the Europe 2020 strategy: implications for the euro area of 15 March 2010,

—

having regard to the Presidency conclusions of the European Council of 22 and 23 March 2005,

—

having regard to the Presidency conclusions European Council of 23 and 24 March 2000,

—

having regard to the resolution of the European Council on Economic Policy Co-ordination in Stage 3 of EMU and on Treaty Articles 109 and 109b [of the EC Treaty] of 13 December 1997,

—

having regard to the Resolution of the European Council on the Stability and Growth Pact of 17 June 1997 (7),

—

having regard to the Resolution of the European Council on growth and employment of 16 June 1997 (8),

—

having regard the European Central Bank's note on Reinforcing Economic Governance in the Euro Area of 10 June 2010,

—

having regard to its resolution of 17 June 2010 on the quality of statistical data in the Union and enhanced auditing powers by the Commission (Eurostat) (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 June 2010 on economic governance (10),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 March 2010 on the Report on 2009 Annual Statement on the Euro Area and Public Finances (11),

—

having regard to its resolution of 10 March 2010 on EU 2020 (12),

—

having regard to its resolution of 18 November 2008 on EMU@10: The first 10 years of Economic and Monetary Union and future challenges (13),

—

having regard to Rules 42 and 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (A7-0282/2010),

A.

whereas recent economic developments have shown clearly that economic policy coordination within the Union, and in particular in the euro area, has not worked sufficiently well and that, despite their obligations under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Member States have failed to regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern and to coordinate them within the Council in accordance with the relevant Treaty provisions, while respecting the key role of the Commission in the surveillance procedure,

B.

whereas both the current framework for economic governance and surveillance and the regulatory framework for financial services have not provided enough stability and growth,

C.

whereas it is crucial to go beyond the temporary measures aiming at stabilizing the euro area,

D.

whereas economic coordination and surveillance need to be strengthened at Union level, while respecting the principle of subsidiarity and taking into account the particular requirements of the euro area and the lessons that need to be drawn from the recent economic crisis, without hampering the integrity of the European Union and with the need to ensure the equal treatment of Member States,

E.

whereas economic coordination should be strengthened throughout the Union, given that the Union’s economic stability may depend on the economic situation of one of its members, that there is very great economic interdependence between all Member States in the context of the internal market, and that we must prepare for enlargement of the euro area,

F.

whereas, as far as possible, all 27 Member States should follow to the maximum all the economic governance proposals, recognising that, for non-euro-area Member States, this will in part be a voluntary process,

G.

whereas the Treaty of Lisbon transforms the former ‘Community method’, adapting and strengthening it, into a ‘Union method’ in which, in essence:

H.

whereas the new enhanced economic governance should fully integrate and reinforce the EU principle of solidarity, as a prerequisite of the euro area's capacity to respond to asymmetric shocks and speculative attacks,

I.

whereas the current economic crisis in the Union is a solvency crisis that initially manifested itself as a liquidity crisis which cannot be resolved in the long term by simply pouring new debt into highly indebted countries in combination with accelerated plans for fiscal consolidation,

J.

whereas employment policies have a central role to play in stimulating growth and competitiveness in the European social market economy by preventing macroeconomic imbalances and ensuring social inclusion and income redistribution,

K.

whereas the role of the Commission and the European Central Bank (ECB) under the TFEU has to be respected,

L.

whereas a fully independent ECB is a necessary requirement for a stable euro, low inflation and favourable financing conditions for growth and jobs,

M.

whereas more attention must be given to implicit liabilities and off-balance sheet operations which may increase public debt in the medium- and long-term and reduce transparency,

N.

whereas policy makers have to identify and tackle the common economic and social challenges the EU economies are facing in a coordinated manner,

O.

whereas a stronger involvement of the social partners at national and European level will contribute to better ownership of the implementation of economic governance and the overall Europe 2020 Strategy,

P.

whereas a permanent crises resolution mechanism, including procedures for debt restructuring or orderly default, should be established in order to safeguard financial stability in the event of a sovereign- and private-debt crisis, while protecting the ECB's independence,

Q.

whereas the current rules of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), combined with poor enforcement, have not been enough to ensure sound fiscal and more-broadly macroeconomic policies; whereas there is a need to strengthen the EU fiscal and macroeconomic framework through a more rigorous rules-based application of preventive measures, sanctions and incentives,

R.

whereas the objective of restoring a balance in public finances is a necessity for over-indebted states, but it will not alone solve the problem of economic imbalances between countries of the euro area and more broadly of the Union,

S.

whereas the European social model is an asset for world competition, which has been weakened by the economic competitiveness divergences between Member States,

T.

whereas knowledge, capital and innovations, and to a lesser extent labour have a tendency to migrate to certain regions, EU financial solidarity mechanisms need to be further developed in line with the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, in particular, on research and development, on training, on existing cooperative initiatives in the field of education; and on a green and low-carbon economy aiming at fostering innovation, territorial and social cohesion, and economic growth,

U.

whereas, since the Union is facing fierce competition from emerging economies, stable public finances are essential in order to foster opportunities, new innovations, economic growth and thus the creation of a European knowledge society,

V.

whereas budget consolidation is likely to be to the detriment of public services and social protection,

W.

whereas economic growth and sustainable public finances are a precondition for economic and social stability, long-term fiscal consolidation and well-being,

X.

whereas, since the fiscal policy of many Member States has often been pro-cyclical and country-specific, the medium-term budgetary objectives of the SGP have seldom been strictly enforced or implemented,

Y.

whereas employment policies play a key role in ensuring labour intensive growth and the competitiveness of the European economy, especially in the context of an ageing population,

Z.

whereas it is essential for proper European economic governance that the internal market is completed as envisaged in the Monti Report (14),

AA.

whereas the unsustainable finances as well as the excessive aggregated (public and private) debt of an individual Member State have the potential to impact on the whole Union; whereas an appropriate balance between investments in sustainable- and job-creating growth and the prevention of excessive imbalances over the course of the economic cycle, in line with Union-level commitments and guidelines, needs to be pursued, whilst taking into account social cohesion and the interests of future generations, so as to restore confidence in European public finances,

AB.

whereas the process of reducing long-term deficits must be combined with other efforts stimulating the economy, such as improved preconditions for investments and an improved and developed internal market, providing greater opportunities and increased competitiveness,

AC.

whereas the significance of the policies financed from the EU budget, including cohesion policy, for economic growth and increased competitiveness of the Union should be recognised,

AD.

whereas the recent economic crisis has made it clear that excessive macroeconomic and competitiveness divergences and fiscal and current-account imbalances within the euro area, and more broadly in the Union, have increased steadily during the pre-crisis years due inter alia to absence of enhanced economic coordination and surveillance and need to be fully addressed,

AE.

whereas the European Parliament has for years urged improvements in economic governance both inside the Union and as regards the EU's external representation in international economic and monetary forums,

AF.

whereas, since the strengthening of economic governance must go hand in hand with reinforcing the democratic legitimacy of European governance, which must be achieved through a stronger and more timely involvement of the European Parliament and of national parliaments throughout the process, further coordination, in a spirit of mutual respect, between the European Parliament and national parliaments is needed,

AG.

whereas the decisions taken during Spring 2010 to safeguard the stability of the euro are only temporary solutions and will need to be supported by policy measures at national level and a stronger economic governance framework at the EU level, particularly among the euro area Member States,

AH.

whereas any improvement in economic surveillance and governance must rely upon accurate and comparable statistics in respect of the relevant economic policies and positions of the Member States concerned,

AI.

whereas, to make Europe a leading global actor and the most competitive knowledge society, long-term growth-oriented measures must be established as soon as possible,

AJ.

whereas the TFEU gives the Union enhanced power to strengthen economic governance within the Union, and its provisions should be fully used, while in the longer term changes to the provisions of the TFEU, whilst likely to be sensitive, should not be excluded,

AK.

whereas any potential penalties associated with the breach of SGP targets must result from either insufficient will to comply or fraud and never from incapacity to comply due to reasons beyond the Member State's capacity,

AL.

whereas the institutions must prepare for the possible need to revise the Treaties,

AM.

whereas Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union grants the European Parliament the right to submit proposals for the amendment of the Treaties,

AN.

whereas comprehensive secondary legislation needs to be established and implemented in order to attain the Union objectives in this area; whereas enhanced economic governance for the Union, based on the provisions of the TFEU, is essential, the Union method should be used to its full extent and the key role of the European Parliament and the Commission should be respected in order to promote mutually reinforcing polices,

AO.

whereas any legislative proposal should support strong incentives for sustainable ‘growth-enhancing’ economic policies, avoid moral hazard, be in line with other EU instruments and rules, maximise the benefits of the euro as a common currency for the euro area and restore confidence in European economies and the euro,

AP.

whereas coherence between short-, medium- and long-term public investments needs to be strengthened and whereas those investments, in particular those regarding infrastructure, need to be used efficiently and allocated, taking into account the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy, in particular regarding research and development, innovation and education in order to increase resource efficiency and competitiveness, enhance productivity, create employment and reinforce the internal market,

AQ.

whereas, to foster economic growth, businesses and entrepreneurs must be given a real possibility to scale up and make use of the Union's 500 million consumers; whereas, consequently, the internal market for services needs to be fully developed,

AR.

whereas different competitiveness models in the Union should respect country-specific priorities and needs, while taking into account the obligations under the TFEU,

AS.

whereas the Union needs to be represented with a common position in the international monetary system, international financial institutions and fora; whereas, in the spirit of the TFEU, the Council needs to consult the European Parliament before adopting a decision under Article 138 TFEU and needs Parliament's consent before establishing common positions which cover fields to which, internally, the ordinary legislative procedure applies,

AT.

whereas the SGP's targets must be compatible not only with the Europe 2020 strategy, but also with other compromises concerning expenditure on development aid, R&D, the environment, education and poverty eradication,

AU.

whereas, in order to avoid further widening the existing competitiveness divergences in EU and undermining the success of the new strengthened European economic governance as well as the EU 2020 targets on job creation and sustainable growth, the European fiscal consolidation strategy should fully take into account each Member State's particularities and avoid a simplistic ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach,

AV.

whereas any new proposed measures should not have a disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable Member States, hampering their economic growth and cohesion efforts,

AW.

whereas the economic crisis which led to the urgent adoption of the European financial stabilisation mechanism in May 2010 via Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010, with Article 122(2) TFEU as its legal basis, was not consulted with Parliament,

AX.

whereas Amending budget No 5 of the European Union for the financial year 2010 covers the necessary modifications concerning the creation of a new budget item 01 04 01 03 in Heading 1 A for the guarantee, for loans up to EUR 60 billion provided by the European Union in accordance with the provisions of Article 122(2) TFEU and, correspondingly, a new Article 8 0 2 on the revenue side,

AY.

whereas some Member States may have to use the rescue package, while at the same time being obliged to take into account its different measures, which will be specifically made for each beneficiary country,

AZ.

whereas the Commission adopted, on 29 September 2010, legislative proposals on economic governance which partly meet the need for measures on improving economic governance as set out in this resolution; whereas Parliament will deal with those legislative proposals under the appropriate provisions of the TFEU; whereas this resolution does not limit any future positions to be taken by Parliament in this respect,

1.

Requests the Commission to submit to Parliament as soon as possible after the consultation of all interested parties, and on the basis of the appropriate provisions of the TFEU, legislative proposals in order to improve the economic governance framework of the Union, in particular within the euro area, and following the detailed recommendations set out in the Annex, to the extent that those recommendations are not yet addressed by the Commission's legislative proposals of 29 September 2010 on economic governance;

2.

Confirms that the recommendations set out in the Annex respect the principle of subsidiarity and the fundamental rights of citizens of the European Union;

3.

Calls on the Commission, in addition to the measures which can and must be taken swiftly under the existing Treaties, to begin to consider the institutional developments which may prove necessary in order to implement coherent, effective economic governance;

4.

Considers that the financial implications of the requested proposal should be covered by appropriate budgetary allocations taking into account the current deficit positions and austerity measures in Member States;

5.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution and the detailed recommendations set out in the Annex to the Commission, the European Council, the Council, the European Central Bank, the President of the Euro Group and the parliaments and governments of the Member States.