This transcript was automatically generated and may contain errors.

Thank you very much for your structured and clear overview of the package.

Just to compliment from my side, apologies from Commissioner Lahbib, she's right now on her way to Cyprus,

where she will present this enhanced disability strategy and she will engage with the stakeholders.

That's all from me, and now it's up to you. We have time for your questions. Maria. Good morning, Maria Vasliu Tanea.

I would like to ask you a very concrete question regarding the new approach at home exclusion prevention that you mentioned.

And, and I will refer to an example, if somebody cannot pay his mortgage and that the bank bangs at his door and says,

I have to take over your house, this better support at not losing.

A house, how, I mean, this strategy, how concretely is going to help these people? Thank you.

On housing exclusion, we put forward a legal tool, it's a soft legal tool, which is a Council recommendation. How does it concretely help?

Council recommendations like the Child Guarantee do push Member States to adapt their legislation, their policies,

their approach to a number of topics where they have the competence, because indeed it is not the Commission that can directly intervene.

So when you see in the Council recommendation proposal on housing exclusion,

That we address this topic about evictions, about mortgages.

It is a political direction that we set and of course after it will be also agreed with the Council that is going to be implemented by member states,

by governments, so that they are able to better protect citizens, consumers.

Looking of course in the realm of financial legislation that is relevant to the topic, but what we do is set a political direction with this Council recommendation,

and I want our citizens to trust that although it is not legally binding because we are inside the Limits of EU competence,

it has worked in the past. Recommendations do work.

They have strength and they do shape the policies and the behaviors of governments in member states.

So we want them to be protective of consumers in such situations, and we do set this direction.

Let's go to the other side of the room, Gabrielle. Mr. Gabriela Rosen Italy.

Two questions if I may 1st, on the Child Guarantee, you said we must go further.

You also assessed some shortcomings, and that's the reason why you must go further.

Looking at the numbers though, if we look at the proposed MFF by this European Commission, you are going, if one can say so,

backwards, meaning that there is no more the ring-fencing of 5% of the ESF for the child guarantee.

So I would like to know if that's something, since you are not the commissioner for Budget, you are, the Commissioner for, for, Social affairs, employment, jobs, if that's something that you personally would like to see changed at the end of the very long negotiation,

so having again this time perhaps on the NRRP's sort of earmarking ringfencing for the child guarantee and The second question is,

for the first time you have adopted an anti-poverty strategy.

On 3 June, in less than one month, when the European Semester recommendations will come in, shall we expect that you will formulate recommendations for the Member States to make more concrete Adjustments,

reforms for the anti-poverty strategy to come into life, and how do you see that also, coherent with the,

the fiscal rigor in a way that is being spearheaded by other officials in this house. Thank you. Yes, thank you.

Well, answering to your first question, I always mention that I think that after just 5 years, the Council recommendation on the European Child Guarantee backed, yes,

by earmarked EU funding,

is showing the success that it can continue to deliver in terms of kids having access to hot meals, for example.

So, with the next MFF, the approach of flexibility, I think could work, but, and I will give you a bit my insight on how we can definitely continue to back significantly the efforts of Member States to fight child poverty,

but also I will say that I facilitate with data, with our, all the explanations,

the dialogue between Parliament and Council, so that the outcome is in the end the best for our children.

But flexibility in the next MFF in the national regional partnership plans should not be understood as just the 14% target for social investment out of the envelope that a Member State will receive.

It is a minimum, so each member state has the space, according to the challenges,

challenges related to school leave, to child poverty, to allocate much more.

And indeed to allocate much more in a simpler way because it's not just ESF pure resources purely dedicated to paying human resources,

staff, teachers, meals, but it can combine very easily with interventions on,

on a social infrastructure if it's necessary in some cases. Now, is the money enough?

I will, of course, always say that we need to invest more, more, more, and that is why.

In the communication, you see that beyond the MFF,

we say that we have all have a responsibility to fight poverty, also the business sector, also the philanthropy sector.

That's why I mentioned this coalition that we will launch to fight poverty.

That's why you will see in the text our direction of travel with the institutional financial,

international financial institutions like the European Investment Bank, like the Council of Europe Development Bank.

So a number of Of tools that we want to use so that we mobilize other financial resources beyond the MFF because having implemented for a while the Child Guarantee,

I can definitely tell you, ESF is an amazing resource, but it will never be enough.

Systemic continuous change means systemic continuous prioritization of investment and budget in, in social,

in social objectives and investing in our children is not, it makes sense morally and economically for sure.

And that takes me to the second question.

In the European Semester, if you look at the the country specific recommendations in the past two years, on the social side, because we have a social component in the CSRs, for some 2/3 of the Member States, a big part of the recommendations already are connected with the topic of fighting poverty,

but I do expect and you will see this mentioned in the text as well,

that the European Semester will be a tool that will reinforce even more the social ambitions with the fiscal and economic ambitions being connected and not combating each other.

We have the social convergence framework in the European Semester. It's a tremendously important tool.

So yes, we look at Member States' fiscal and economic adjustments and trajectories, but at the same time,

with the filter of the social convergence framework, we make sure that Member States do not deviate from a social perspective.

Fighting poverty is one example, so I have full confidence that the mechanism of the The European Semester, combined with the ambitions in the new social package,

in the anti-poverty package,

will help Member States design even better their budgetary and economic policies in a way that doesn't harm the social dimension but it empowers people. Sylvia, another question.

It's a great idea and it's a great line for journalists to say Europe wants to eradicate poverty by 2050, but in the explanations you've been giving also in the background briefing,

we've acknowledged that we haven't even, we're very,

very far from reaching the 50 million person reduction by 2030 in four years.

So my question is a bit more open, isn't it a bit counterproductive to set such an ambitious goal when we're, when we.

When the Commission doesn't have really the teeth to really impact, it can do the recommendations.

I understand that it's very good and it's a push towards the governments, but I'm wondering if it's not.

I mean,

it's a bit naive and wouldn't it be better trying to concentrate on very concrete measures to reduce numbers but not setting such a high standard or such high expectations?

Well, this is, it is a good question. I will, I will give you that.

Two elements I would like to emphasize though.

First, that without ambition, there is no action, and the EU is setting the direction of travel, the ambition on many topics where of course it doesn't have competence,

but with the willingness of Member States, it does set the tone,

the direction and it helps with financing, sometimes with minimum standards through legislation.

This is quite important, and on fighting poverty, you are right, our 2030 targets on social ambition,

which are connected with our European Pillar of Social Rights, show that we are far from there.

But what would the situation be without those targets?

So one thing is important that Member States committed voluntarily to the 2030 targets,

one of them being to take 15 million people out of poverty at EU level, and they have their own national targets as well.

We are not there, no we are not.

3.7 million have been lifted out of poverty.

Having in mind also the pandemic, the war of aggression in Ukraine, all the consequences of the energy shocks,

yes, but still we are still far from the 2030 target, which is in just a few years.

But establishing even more ambitious objectives does drive political, institutional,

in the end action more than not having these targets. So this is one thing.

On the other thing, talking about teeth, I do want you to look into more, if you can, on, on this proposal that is in the anti-poverty package,

and that is the potential directive on the activation of people that are inactive, that are outside of the labor market.

And we are talking potentially about millions, maybe tens of millions of people in Europe that Due to different barriers to their specific circumstances or to the fact that their member states do not have the specialized support services tailored,

integrated in a way that they can reach these people and give them the support they need, they don't have the opportunity to access a job,

a job that can take them out of poverty because again,

the focus is jobs take people out of poverty and quality jobs are, are our ambition.

So this proposal will be subjected to consultations with European social partners, but this potential directive, what could it do?

It would set minimum standards in all Member states.

That are related to the support services that a single mother or households that are single parent support support people I would say,

or other types of vulnerable categories would receive in a minimum standard, I,

I repeat, the adequate services to, mm to find employment, to skill.

To train combined with the access to social support, income benefit,

other types of resources that would motivate these people and that would elevate these people into employment with the right incentives and the right support. One very concrete example is about women.

So 75% of women that are inactive, not looking for a job, and have have small children.

Obviously, would be helped by having childcare facilities available.

Such a potential directive would be an incentivizer,

a trigger for developing in member states sufficient.

Childcare facilities, a right in the end to childcare assistance for all those that could work but that need to be at home to take care of their children,

and this is just one example.

It can be taking care of a person with a disability, an elderly. It can be.

Migrants,

young people in different kinds of challenging situations that would be able to get employment but do not have a secure pathway with all the services and support that they will need to be connected with the companies that are looking for their talent.

So it's a directive that would help deliver minimum standard support for these kind of,

for these people and it would also make sure that we have integrated personalized tailored services for categories that are outside of the labor market.

And I mentioned again this, we are talking about millions of people that are not unemployed. They are outside of the labor market. They are not looking for a job.

So of course here we have the Situations of people who are retired or students,

but there is an important category of people that are in neither of these situations that don't have a medical condition and still are not looking for a job.

So for this we want member states to be able to deliver minimum support beyond what is already done,

and that would contribute a lot to our anti-poverty ambition, and that would be really strong teeth on the EU side. Thank you for your exhaustive.

Alexandra, and then I have one question online and then we will need to wrap up. Thank you, Eva, for the opportunity. Commissioner Alexandr Vondra with Catharina.

Do you have any assessment of why Member States that are performing well in microeconomic terms,

their population remains at high risk of poverty, like in the case of Greece,

which unfortunately is ranking 2nd in the European Union?

How do you intend to measure and assess how Member States will use all the available funding tools,

because it's not only the MFF or the cohesion funds that are available to combat poverty? Thank you so much.

To your first question, and of course we always look at the list of member states and how they,

and I don't just look at the number in the current year, where they are with their indicator, for example, on poverty and, and social exclusion.

I always go back 5 years ago, 10 years ago.

We always need to also assess the specific conditions of each member state, where did they start,

what was their progress and understand a bit the connections with the different.

Geopolitical, economic, social specificities in the history or in the evolution of each Member State.

Of course,

each Member State designs their policies and combines the different sets of interventions according to the political choices of that Member State.

What the Commission can do and does do is, first, with the European Semester, in the country specific recommendation.

Tells the member states, look in this topic or these topics who leave access of people with disabilities in the labor market,

the gender employment gap, you have an issue, you have a problem, you need to address it.

Then we support with EU funds and especially when there are social challenges identified in the country specific recommendation we especially Support this kind of solutions to these kind of topics with EU funds.

So this is the kind of, the kind of partnership that we have with member states, especially those that are evolving from high numbers, I would say, on, on from,

from a situation that is concerning on, on social indicators and then looking at the RRF and the future,

potentially future architecture of the budget with the national plans, this combination of reform.

And investment is very important, and I need to emphasize it.

If it's well tailored and well suited and its Member states that propose what reforms and what investments,

then we optimize the chance to improve certain indicators.

Sometimes just investing a lot of money in a policy without the legislative or the human resources or the capacity,

the administrative capacity, doesn't generate the improvement that we want.

This is a general comment, so obviously I wouldn't.

It depends on each member state, and you had a second question as well on on the monitoring on the monitoring.

Beyond the European Semester process,

I want to emphasize that we propose a governance architecture for the anti-poverty efforts of our member states with a national coordinator on the anti-poverty work.

We suggest that it set this coordination somewhere in the center of government, the highest level as possible so that it has the,

the, the strength to, to mobilize all the resources of of that member state towards fighting poverty.

So in this context, our collaboration,

cooperation with the Member States is much facilitated and it helps us beyond what we already do in terms of monitoring indicators and the European Semester process to be able to support and to be able to have a closer perspective on the evolution of every Member State.

Thank you very much and as I said, one question comes online. Bogdan, maybe.

Bogdan, would you like to pose your question and maybe before you do that, I would also like to point your attention to our great interpreters.

As you can see, this presser is interpreted to all the official EU languages,

so we invite to use the service of our interpreters. And Bogdan, now over to you. So can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you and see you. All is good.

So I would like to ask my question in Romania. Is it possible?

Can you give us a warning and we can put on the headsets. Thanks.

Ma, I'm sorry for not being there in person.

My question is related to the last question that was asked,

and it starts from the fact that in countries such as Romania, Greece or Bulgaria, the risk of poverty is highest.

And precisely in such countries, such as Romania or Bulgaria, citizens lose their confidence, their trust in government and state institutions,

and they expect some sort of coordination from Brussels within this new common joint strategy.

Is adapted to different situations in different countries,

which is the role of Brussels and which is the role of the Member State?

How can Brussels ensure that the same strategy will be implemented differently in different Member States?

As I said at the beginning of this press conference, we are looking at an anti-poverty package that requires the involvement of all decision makers the European Commission,

the European Parliament, the Council of the EU, governments, regional and local authorities.

Civil society organizations and we have also introduced this dimension of corporate private responsibility.

The private environment also needs to fight poverty from a moral point of view,

from a cohesion and social point of view, but also economically speaking, that's important. So all the contents of this package. Represents a set of measures.

Which,

Will be implemented with both a European contribution and national involvement from the governments.

The strategy points out towards a series of objectives and a political direction,

but the Member States will implement everything. What we also offer a legal tool.

Related to minimal standards for support for persons not looking for a job, but who could work in active persons,

and in countries such as Romania,

there are such people and they could be helped by services that could help them find a job. And also offer different incentives. More often than not, people.

Facing poverty and being granted social assistance are not motivated to look for a job because if they do find a job,

perhaps their wages will be lower or not high enough to ensure to cover for transport,

for childcare, and everything else they would need because they are taking up a job.

There are recommendations and guidelines in this proposal for a directive,

and they are all meant to help Member States to identify these services for inactive people and think about a system that will work.

Perhaps the social benefits will not always be the answer.

And a job is not always the best answer if it's not paid well enough,

so we need to combine different interventions. We can provide training and childcare facilities.

We need to incentivize the employers and perhaps subsidize part of the wages for a certain period of time.

There are plenty of elements that require involvement of the governments,

but the political ambition starts from the European level.

Moving beyond the strategy and the policies, we are talking about the cohesion fund, the European Social Fund for Romania.

We are talking about EUR €6 billion for the Pier 21 to 27.

These are essential resources provided to employers, employment services,

social service providers who can all implement what we will put in the strategy with European resources,

but not only with those. Thank you very much EVP.

If you allow one more question, I thought, I said that this was the last one, but I can still see Tommaso.

Tommaso, we are, we are, close to the end of the presser,

but if you, if you can be brief, yes, I will be brief.

Many thanks for the floor and for the opportunity to ask a question to the vice president.

It's just, since you are a socialist,

do you think that the economic policy imposed by the European Union in the last, let's say 15 years.

Help to enhance, to reduce poverty in the EU or Was it counterproductive? Many thanks.

I think that we have a European social model that of course started in different times and different ages of our European project,

and this European social model.

Navigated and survived different challenges, different crises like the financial crisis in 2008, and now the recent shocks that we see on the energy market that are really,

or the housing situation that are really testing, how should I say, the efficiency of the European social model, and what does that mean?

That means that wherever on this planet, people want to come in Europe and and and set a family and have a child and raise a child,

to live in Europe and to to imagine a life in Europe.

The European dream is the, the essence of this European social model and it is now being tested indeed, but it's not tested just now,

it's been tested by the different economic and financial shocks that we, that we have seen throughout the past decades.

So I think that the European Commission, as I mentioned, good tools that applied in a balanced way, and balance is always, in my personal opinion, the key, can make sure that both the economic, budgetary and fiscal trajectories of Member States remain solid for the benefit of jobs, for the benefit of the well functioning of those Member States and,

essentially, at the same time, That these directions of efficiency are not at the cost of social harm, so that we also have social convergence,

and I do continue to express my trust in the tool of the European Semester,

which has just recently introduced the social convergence framework.

This helps us each year talk to Member States, not just about their fiscal and budgetary and economic objectives and alignment,

but also about their social convergence objectives and what they need to do so that they make sure that workers,

people who are in vulnerable situations. We continue to have sufficient protection.

The EU has always had to act in a balanced way, but I think now we are more balanced than ever with such a tool that is not focused only on the economy but has a social dimension, and it is my personal belief that the measure in which the EU Succeeds or not,

manages to navigate these transformations and transitions or not,

and land safely into the legitimacy of the future generations depends on how well we are and credible we are able to be in front of our citizens to show that we also take care of.

Their access to basic rights that are in the pillar education, healthcare, decent job.

So these are not obviously marginal and my entire work and our college, that's why today we adopted this big package.

Our entire college's work is to keep this balance, and it's not an easy balance, I know, but we are committed to it.

Thank you very much, Vice President, for all your answers.

Thank you for your question, thank you for your attention.

I just want to draw your attention also to our press materials.

They are now online, together with the documents related to this first ever EU anti poverty strategy.

Thanks and I wish you a nice afternoon.