Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-05-18-Speech-2-520"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100518.35.2-520"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, the question put forward by the honourable Members falls into three parts. The first: whether the Commission is of the opinion that there should be one single definition of social housing in the EU. The second: the question on the principles of subsidiarity and universality. The third: a question of income limits for access to social housing. Before replying to these questions, I would like to underline that the Commission attaches great importance to social housing. Social housing is a key tool for active social and economic inclusion policies in the European Union.
In reply to question 3, in which the honourable Members ask why access to social housing is limited to households with an income of less than EUR 33 000, I would like, here again, to be very clear. There is no income limit set at EU level for access to social housing.
This amount concerns one Member State – the Netherlands. It was part of the changes introduced by the Dutch authorities to bring the national social housing system in line with the European State aid rules. The Dutch authorities set such a limit to identify the target group for social housing in the Netherlands. The Commission did not identify any errors with that definition of social housing and therefore approved the Dutch State aid scheme. I would add that the target group defined by the Dutch authorities is very wide and covers 43% of the Dutch population.
In reply to questions 1 and 2, I would like to be very clear. The Commission imposes no single definition of social housing at EU level and fully respects the principle of subsidiarity. The honourable Members rightly refer to the Commission’s 2005 decision on State aid for services of general economic interest. This decision provides legal certainty in the provision of the services and reduces the administrative burden on the public authorities which finance them.
According to this decision, aid to social housing which meets the conditions set by the decision receives preferential treatment, as it is exempted from notification – irrespective of the amounts involved. According to this decision, that exemption applies when social housing is qualified as a service of general economic interest by the Member State concerned. It is for each Member State to define the scope of social housing in line with its traditions, culture and state intervention.
I would also like to refer to the Commission communications of 2006 and 2007, which clearly highlighted the Member States’ responsibility and wide discretion as regards social services of general interest. Furthermore, this point was emphasised more recently in the Protocol on Services of General Interest. However, as the term ‘social housing’ suggests, what is involved here is not housing in general, but housing provided on the basis of social criteria.
This is why the recitals in the 2005 decision refer to housing for disadvantaged citizens or socially less advantaged groups which, due to solvency constraints, are unable to obtain housing at market conditions. The Member States must therefore define a target group for social housing to allow social housing to be allocated in a transparent way and to prevent those most in need from being excluded.
The Member States have wide scope for manoeuvre in determining the size of the target group and in applying the social housing systems. The Commission’s role is limited to checking that there is no manifest error in the definition.
This approach was confirmed in a Commission decision adopted in December 2009 on social housing in the Netherlands. This approach is also fully in line with Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which refers to social and housing assistance for all those who lack sufficient resources.
A clear definition of social housing also ensures that State aid cannot be channelled into financing commercial activities outside the scope of services of general economic interest.
Question 2 also refers to a universal right to housing. However, as I have already said, housing in general is not the same as social housing. Clear-cut, transparent eligibility and allocation criteria for social housing are in the interest of the beneficiaries and ensure the proper use of public funds."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples