Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion DG
Social Market Economy in Member States I: ESF
ESF Legislation and Policy, Financial Engineering
Brussels, 5 October 2012
ESF Committee - Plenary Session
14 June 2012
MINUTES
Hotel Metropole- Brussels
Chairperson:Zoltan Kazatsay, Deputy Director General
Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion DG, European Commission
The Chair opened the second plenary session of the European Social Fund Committee in 2012. He referred to the financial and economic crisis and its social consequences for the EU citizens, which call for a strong ESF.
A draft opinion of the ESF Committee on the future ESF was distributed to the members on 13 June, with comments from the MS.
1. ADOPTION OF DRAFT AGENDA
The draft agenda was adopted.
2. ADOPTION OF THE DRAFT MINUTES OF 9 FEBRUARY 2012
The draft minutes of the ESF Committee meeting of 9 February 2012 were adopted, with one correction (see point 4).
3. DEBRIEFING ON INFORMAL TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP 12-13 JUNE
COM informed the Committee about the topics discussed at the ESF TWG meeting held on 12-13 June. Further details can be found in the minutes of the TWG meeting.
4. AMENDED RULES OF REIMBURSEMENT
COM noted that the EC side had already mentioned in the February ESF meeting that there would be changes in the reimbursement of costs: only travel expenses would be reimbursed to government experts. The amendment of the `Rules of procedures of the Committee of the ESF` had been distributed on Circa last week. The discussions between services led us to the above conclusions. The grace period given by COM in 2007 was expired. All reimbursement requests beyond 30th March 2012 would be handled accordingly. MS did not comment the change.
5. OPINION
The Chair mentioned that COM had received 14 comments on the draft opinion of the ESF Committee. COM presented all changes to the draft opinion taking into account the written comments.
The Member States and the social partners welcomed the corrections and decided to adopt the opinion, provided that the following comments were included in the minutes of the meeting.
- UK said that paragraph 26 went too far and that it should be clear in paragraph 33 on the Joint action Plan (JAP) that it would be optional rather than obligatory.
- ETUC mentioned that the changes to paragraphs 8, 11 and 12 were acceptable. However ETUC regretted that paragraph 12 still mentioned CSRs as they were not all supported by ETUC and CSRs could not be an obligation to the trade unions because they were specifically addressed to the Member States. ETUC would have preferred that paragraph 18, referring to the capacity building of social partners covered all regions and not just the less developed regions. As mentioned in paragraph 1, ETUC was strongly in favour of the draft Code of Conduct and deeply regretted the MS` lack of support for that.
- SE indicated that whilst initially they were not in favour to prepare this opinion during the negotiations, they now accepted the revised text.
- Business Europe expressed their support for the text, even though they would have liked in paragraph 1 a stronger focus on added value, rather than on increase of budget. With regard to paragraph 17, social partners should be involved in the development of dual learning systems. They also regretted that the MS did not support the Code of Conduct.
- UEAPME indicated that the opinion was a compromise text and that they appreciated the effort made. They support the previous remarks made by ETUC and Business Europe. They supported the Code of Conduct which should be part of the new regulation. They did not insist on the dual system.
- MT accepted this opinion but noted that it had an unfortunate timing as negotiations were still going on. They had doubts on how the common indicators would be implemented.
- BE mentioned that it was a compromise text, to which they agreed.
COM indicated that JAPs were optional and this point was explicitly stated in paragraph 33. Referring to the MT question on indicators, the COM stressed that the common indicators were limited in number, included many indicators listed under the current annex 23 and had been intensively discussed in the evaluation network between COM and the Member States.
The Chair concluded that the opinion came at a very good moment (i.e. during the negotiation process). He concluded that the revised text was adopted.
The final version of the opinion would be put on Circa and sent to the Council and the European Parliament. (Note that it was sent after the meeting to the EP and the Council).
6. CODE OF CONDUCT ON PARTNERSHIP
COM delivered a presentation on the Code of Conduct and the Partnership principle.
Article 5 of the draft Common Provisions Regulation strengthened the partnership principle and foresaw in particular the adoption by the COM of a European Code of Conduct on Partnership (ECCP) by means of a Delegated Act. COM prepared the staff working document on "The partnership principle in the implementation of the CSF funds – elements for a European Code of Conduct". It was published in April. It had a double purpose:
- First, to help MS to shape their partnership appropriately in the preparatory phase before the adoption of the Regulations;
- Secondly, to outline the main requirements that could be included in the future Delegated Act on the ECCP.
The SWD was sent to the Council and the Parliament and was made widely available to all interested stakeholders (on Europa website). The latter might send comments to the COM via a functional mailbox. COM would take into account these comments to refine the contents of the future Delegated Act.
The participants made the following comments and questions:
- Business Europe expressed its support for the content of the Code of Conduct.
- ETUC voiced its overall support for the principles and the contents of the Staff Working Document. It pointed out the need to set up a proper and structured method of consultation on the current document and on the future Delegated Act.
- UEAPME also expressed its wish for a formal consultation on the ECCP.
- IT Trade Union thanked COM for the Staff Working Document and informed the Committee that Mr Barca, minister in charge of regional policy, agreed to take at the end of the month several initiatives to launch the process of partnership for the next programming period.
- IT recalled that it was favourable to the principle of partnership and social dialogue, but that it was, however, opposed to the idea of a Code of Conduct which would entail more complexities for the management of the funds. The concrete impact of the new requirements contained in the COM's proposal was still difficult to assess, in particular in view of the relations between the national and regional levels.
- MT welcomed the inclusion of SMEs but pointed out that Universities and Research Institutes, which were covered in the Staff Working Document under economic and social partners, were often dependant on public authorities.
- ES – Trade Union voiced its appreciation of the COM's work. In particular, the document rightly emphasized the importance of the partners' involvement in the programming phase where the strategic orientations were decided.
The Chair concluded the exchange of views by stressing that the COM intended, as demonstrated in the Staff Working Document, to propose a Delegated Act which strengthened the implementation of the partnership principle while maintaining ample flexibility for Member States to organise their partnership in practical terms.
COM stressed the importance of good practices which demonstrated that partnership should not be seen as an administrative burden, but as a valuable tool to improve the effectiveness of the funds. It would therefore be useful to publish such good practices as an annex of the final Code of Conduct.
7. EMPLOYMENT PACKAGE
COM delivered a presentation on the Employment Package (uploaded in Circa). The Employment Package was adopted on 18 April 2012, in a context of high unemployment, and fiscal consolidation. The target was to increase the employment rate to 75%, by the creation of 17 million new jobs by 2020. Job creation should be achieved by tax reform, self-employment, transformation of undeclared work, lifelong learning, decent wages, free movement of workers and others. The package called for investing in skills: there was a clear mismatch of skills on the labour market: there were many unemployed and many vacancies. The package also called for enhancing EU governance (National Job Plans, CSRs, peer reviews).
The participants raised the following comments and questions:
- Business Europe welcomed the package. It stressed that greater focus should be given on single market, on the digital market, job security and matching skills.
- ETUC indicated that the skills` map already exists. A social dialogue on this topic was currently going on. New competencies were needed.
- AT mentioned that some tools of the Employment Package were already available, but problems were increasing. What about youth unemployment? The Commission replied that youth was not forgotten in the package. There was a Youth Package on traineeship, youth guarantees and apprenticeship.
- UEAPME said that there was nothing really new in the Employment Package, but that it emphasized the tools. They welcomed the better involvement of social partners. Vocational training, education should had been more emphasized. Apprenticeship was also a key issue. It should be taken into consideration when the existing youth package was expiring (in July) to be replaced by its successor.
- UK stressed that social security was also an important element.
8. EUROPEAN SEMESTER
COM delivered a presentation on the European Semester, concluded on 30 May, in the specific context of the on-going financial and economic crisis. Reinforced governance was crucial. 12 Member States were identified as having serious budgetary imbalances. The Commission presented the structure of the 30 May package. The presentation was uploaded after the meeting.
The participants raised the following comments and questions:
- PL asked what the intentions of COM were for the future. COM replied that the future ESF programmes would be based on the EU2020 Strategy and the related CSRs and NRPs.
- ES mentioned that it conducted a thorough analysis of ESF programmes for re-programming purposes. It would speed up implementation in general and address youth employment in particular. IT asked if re-allocation of funds between the ERDF and the ESF was possible.
- AT indicated that the CSRs would be sent out in July. A re-allocation could follow afterwards.
- PL informed the participants of a conference to be held on 3-4 July in Gdansk on regional OPs.
9. AOB: none.
10. CONCLUSIONS
The Chair closed the meeting and declared that the next ESF committee meeting would take place on 25 October in Cyprus.
1