Strasbourg, 07/09/2006 (Agence Europe) - On 6 September, the European Parliament adopted by a very large majority (507 votes to 113 and 42 abstentions) the report by José Silva Peneda (EPP-ED, Portugal) and Proinsias de Rossa (PES, Ireland) on the “European social model for the future” (see EUROPE 9257). With this vote, the Parliament backs the concept of a European social model that reflects a series of common values implemented in different ways in different Member States, a model that “cannot be regarded as a cost but, instead, as a positive factor in EU economic growth”. Urgent reform is needed to reform to preserve the model, while renewing the EU's commitment to a Social Europe. During the debate, many MEPs spoke of subsidiarity and national competence.
During plenary, Paula Lehtomäki, Finnish External Trade and Development Minister, said: “To safeguard the future of a social Europe, we must work assiduously to implement the Lisbon strategy, with its focus on growth and employment”. She believes that the social model, of which social dialogue is an essential component, should be kept constantly updated. The extraordinary Tripartite Social Summit in Lahti on 20 October will, moreover, be devoted to a discussion on the management of structural changes in Europe, the minister confirmed. To safeguard social Europe, a new balance must also be struck between flexibility and security in the workplace, investing more in know-how, increasing citizens' adjustability to change, reconciling family and professional life, and promoting decent work for all - which would increase labour productivity in the least developed countries also. “Europe can be both competitive and socially strong”, the minister concluded.
Vladimir Spidla said the European social model is based on European integration. “If there were no European integration, there would be no European social model! I agree with this report when it states that social policies should be considered as elements of cohesion and not as cost generating policies! We need social health and good social protection”, he went on to say, adding: “If we want to safeguard our systems of education, health protection and pensions, then we must modernise and improve them”.
During the debate, Emine Bozkurt (PES, NL) noted that women are essential on the labour market although they are often the first victims of a social model that works badly. “I do not want a social model dictated by Brussels. I am all for solidarity!”, she exclaimed. Ria Oomen-Ruijten (EPP-ED, NL) spoke of the fears of citizens who wonder whether their pensions and their social security systems can be maintained at the current level. Miloslav Roensdorf (GUE/NGL, Czech) said that the European social model must be understood as an option: “It is a matter of safeguarding different ways of life”, he noted. “The European social model has been a victory by workers for decades”, retorted Ilda Figueiredo of Portugal (GUE/NGL). For Patrizia Toia (ALDE, Italy), “Europe must define its objectives” but the competence and responsibility for social policy comes under national States. “My State must decide what social welfare I need”, she said. Brian Crowley (UEN, Ireland) called for greater flexibility in the European social model. Recalling the question raised one year ago at the EP by Tony Blair (“What European social model results in 20 million unemployed in Europe?”), Roger Helmer (NA, UK) was somewhat sceptical. Csaba Öry (EPP-ED, Hungarian) said that the “key question is the creation of jobs: SMEs must be helped as they create jobs”. “I am in favour of harmonising European policies in the context of an open method of coordination and with the active involvement of the EP. We need a common European line tailor-made to Member States”, Mr Öry said. “The European social model is not unique. If there is a European social model, it is a continental phenomenon”, exclaimed British Labour member Stephen Hugues, who called for the development of values to accompany this model. Bernard Lehideux (ALDE, France) said that the “social Europe is a priority. It must be modern and guarantee a high level of social standards”. To the four social models found (Scandinavian, continental, Anglo-Saxon, Mediterranean), Masiel Tadeusz (NA, Poland) adds a fifth: the post-Communist model, “which is in fact the absence of any social model”. He went on to conclude: “Poland has the worst social welfare system in Europe”. Thomas Mann (EPP-ED, Germany) called for more flexible social protection systems. “We want new globalisation without social dumping”, Alejandro Cercas (PES, Spain) put in, saying: “Economic Europe will only be a success if it respects the European social model”. “Common social objectives, yes. A common social model, no!” warned Elizabeth Lynne (ALDE, UK), welcoming the fact that the report speaks of “subsidiarity and calls on Member States to act, not on the EU”. Marylin McDonald (GUE/NGL/Ireland) asked what impact liberalisation and privatisation would have on those who are marginalised. And, she asked, what would happen if there were no Welfare State? Jana Bobisokova (NA, Czech Republic) said “the European social model is over generous and does not motivate people to take on new responsibilities”. “There is a real, proteiform European social model”, Jan Jerzy Kulakowski (ALDe, Poland) said for his part.
Concluding the debates, Vladimir Spidla stressed that the European social model is very complex and cannot be reduced to something very simple. He went on to assert that, after the vote on this report, the Commission will develop a proposal fully in tune with what was said in plenary.