This publication - COFACE

European Family Conference
14 - 15 October 2010
SOcial incluSiOn
Of familieS and eu pOlicieS :
Where dO We Stand ?
prOceedingS

Proceedings of the European Family Conference
14-15 OctOber 2010, Palais d’egmOnt, 31 bOulevard de WaterlOO, 1000 brussels
Social inclusion of families and EU policies :
Where do we stand ?
The following texts have been adapted from the oral presentations delivered during the Conference.
For official reference, please check against delivery.

table of contents
02 | Preamble Yves Roland-Gosselin
04 | Words of welcome Yves Roland-Gosselin
06 | Opening address Mechior Wathelet
08 | Opening speeches Roger Pauly
12 | Opening speeches Dominique Plasman
14 | Opening speeches László Andor
16 | Opening speeches Françoise Castex
18 | Opening speeches Staffan Nilsson
20 | Keynote speeches Jérôme Vignon
26 | Keynote speeches Ludo Horemans
Workshop 1 – family and social policies in a changing europe
30 | Workshop 1 Katja Forssen
32 | Workshop 1 Sarah Hibo
34 | Workshop 1 Elvira Méndez
Workshop 2 – the importance of a specific family approach
to consumer and health policy
36 | Workshop 2 Beata Swiecka
38 | Workshop 2 Christel Verhas
39 | Workshop 2 Chantal Van den Bossche
39 | Workshop 2 Nicolas Revenu
Workshop 3 – the long road to inclusive europe-progress
and prospects for people with disabilities and care needs
40 | Workshop 3 Carlotta Besozzi
42 | Workshop 3 Jesús M. Rodrigo
43 | Workshop 3 Fiammetta Basuyau &
Aliette Gambrelle
Workshop 4 – making education and information
and communication technologies work for social inclusion
46 | Workshop 4 Ellen Helsper
48 | Workshop 4 Dimitrios Stamoulis
50 | Workshop 4 Marie de Blic
52 | Workshop 4 Olivier Gérard
54 | Panel Jørgen Rønnest
56 | panel Henri Lourdelle
58 | panel Conny Reuter
60 | panel Anna Záborská
62 | panel Emmanuela Tassa
64 | panel Uwe Uhlendorff
66 | Closing speeches Yves Roland-Gosselin
70 | closing speeches Melchior Wathelet
72 | closing speeches Miklós Soltész
74 | Press Release 18 October 2010
75 | Participants List
table of contents
1

2
preamble > Yves roland-gosselin
preamble
Yves Roland-Gosselin
President of COFACE
dear readers,
You have in your hands the proceedings of the 5 th European Family Conference, held in Brussels on
14-15 October 2010.
It was a milestone event in the history of the Confederation of Family Organisations in the European
Union (COFACE), resuming a series of similar conferences which had started in 1987, but for the first time
formed part of the official programme of the rotating Presidency of the EU – Belgium in this case – with
support from the European Commission.
Graced with the presence of Her Majesty Queen Paola at the opening session, the Conference was attended
by nearly 200 participants who came to hear about and discuss the various issues addressed by
our Confederation in its working groups over the last three years under the EU’s Progress Programme.
It was an undisputed success.
This publication contains all the speeches and papers given to the plenary session and the four workshops
which made up the conference programme.
a number of conclusions can be drawn from the event :
❙ This kind of periodic event is very important in the life of an organisation like COFACE. It raises the
profile of its activities and by bringing member organisations together to tackle common issues, it gives
them the sense of pulling together in the same direction. This encourages identification with the joint
undertaking of getting the family dimension mainstreamed across European policies and initiatives.
❙ As the focus was on social inclusion of families and the relevant key role of family policies, all the topics
discussed explored that aspect more deeply. It was the focal point of our input to the European Year
for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion.
❙ It is important to work closely with the European institutions, and especially with the successive
presidencies of the European Union. It was clear to see that Belgium and Hungary which took over from
it, – both very prominent at our Conference – set great store by giving their respective presidencies a
strong family dimension.

❙ It was the perfect platform from which to launch our idea to have 2014 made the European Year for
the Well-being of Families to celebrate the 20 th anniversary of the International Year of the Family. I am
delighted to say that this idea was immediately taken up in a declaration signed by Spain, Belgium and
Hungary, as well as Poland, which takes over the EU Presidency next July. The European Economic and
Social Committee, as well as a number of MEPs and several NGOs have also assured us of their backing
for such an initiative.
❙ These Proceedings are an invaluable means of promoting COFACE’s activities and will be used in
all future contacts with policymakers and other decision-takers. They can also assist our member
organisations in their efforts nationally and/or regionally to press home the European dimension of
family policies.
❙ The active support and involvement of high-level representatives of the main EU institutions means that
our conference has helped give the future of European family policy – taken as the family dimension of
EU policies – a new momentum. In this way, COFACE is doing its job properly as a European organisation
that speaks for families to the Union to advance their cause in the forums where policies are increasingly
being decided.
It remains for me to once again thank the Belgian State Secretariat for Family Policy for its sterling support
and cooperation in our Conference preparations and arrangements. And also to thank all those from
COFACE organisations and elsewhere who spoke at the two-day event for letting us benefit from their
expertise and helping to make it such a resounding success.
And finally, an acknowledgement of COFACE’s Director and its Secretariat staff: not only for their admirable
efficiency in organising our big event, but also their consistent helpfulness and attentiveness to the
members, and all the speakers and participants. My warmest thanks to one and all.
Yves Roland-Gosselin
preamble > Yves roland-gosselin
3

4
Your Majesty,
Minister,
Commissioner,
Ladies and gentlemen,
Friends,
Words of welcome > Yves roland-gosselin
Words of welcome
Yves Roland-Gosselin
President of COFACE
As we embark on the day and a half’s work of the European Family
Conference 2010, may I say, Ma’am, on behalf of the members of the
Confederation of Family Organisations in the European Union, how
greatly honoured we are by your presence here today.
We are deeply touched that you have managed to find time for us in
your very full diary, especially at a time when the Kingdom of Belgium
is holding the Presidency of the European Union.
And I might add for those of our members who may not be aware,
how deeply you are involved, Ma’am, in child welfare. Specifically, the
high-level meeting arranged between a dozen wives of heads of state
some years ago in Paris was your doing, an occasion when yourself
and Mrs Chirac provided the focal points for each of them to talk about
a concern close to her heart.
For this discreet but resolute action, and your presence here today,
please accept our deepest gratitude, Ma’am.
Friends, today, we get back in touch with a tradition. The first European
Family Conference was held in Brussels in June 1987, graced by the
presence of King Baudouin and Queen Fabiola. Three subsequent conferences
(Rome 1990, Brussels 1993, Dublin 1996) attended by the
Family Ministers of Member States enabled COFACE to take stock of
the measures that had been taken or needed taking to defend and
promote families in the European Union.
That defence and promotion had already been the focus of a vital,
fundamental development in 1983 when the European Parliament,
newly elected by universal suffrage, adopted its resolution on family
policy in the European Community.
Our predecessors had worked with the Member States, MEPs, the
Commission and Council, because ground-breaking instruments
come onto the books only as the culmination of repeated, tightly
argued, not to say bothersome and even irritating representations.
I should like in this regard to pay tribute to the longest-serving organisations
present here, our Founding President Joseph Gilles, who
passed away five years ago, and to the successive teams both among
the elected officers of organisations and their permanent staff.
This congregation of goodwill, and the vast body of work, varying with
the sectors where many Community policies have a family dimension,
is what is called “ the voluntary sector ”.
We currently stand at sixty organisations from 22 of the 27 Member
States, all with the shared commitment of getting the Community
authorities to do more to address the difficulties, lack of confidence
in the future, and hopes of the millions of families of all shapes, sizes
and backgrounds.
2010 – the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion –
comes at the right time to support our approach, for it is our belief
that policies to support families make up a policy to prevent poverty
and social exclusion.
It is now time to hand over to Mr Wathelet to get our work under way,
and I should like to take this opportunity to thank him most sincerely
for the excellent cooperation between our respective staff in preparing
this Conference.

Before that, however, let me run you briefly through our programme.
We shall first hear from two of the big organisations in the Kingdom
of Belgium, one French-speaking and one Dutch-speaking, which
have been designated to speak for the Belgian members of COFACE.
After that, we shall hear addresses from the highest level of the big
European institutions, for which I offer my thanks.
We shall then we have the pleasure of welcoming two outstanding
personalities from among COFACE’s friends, Mr Jérôme Vignon, and
Mr Ludo Horemans.
Tomorrow, the broadly-themed working groups will give accounts of
each action in progress or in the making, with most of the input here
coming from the organisations themselves.
A diverse panel of speakers will be moderated by the Director of
COFACE, to whom thanks are due for putting in so much to prepare
this Conference along with the young and efficient team that supports
him.
After that, I shall endeavour to outline the broad directions and developments
that are likely to be the driving forces in the years to come.
I hope that each and every one of you will find it an informative, interactive,
and tolerant, in a word constructive, conference.
And now let me hand over to the Secretary of State whose portfolio
includes family policy, Mr Melchior Wathelet.
Yves Roland-Gosselin
Words of welcome > Yves roland-gosselin
5

6
Opening address > melchior Wathelet
Opening address
Melchior Wathelet
Belgian Secretary of State for Family Policy
Your Majesty,
Distinguished Ministers,
Colleagues,
Mr Commissioner,
Mr President,
Ladies and Gentlemen in your various capacities,
Let me first bid you all – all of you activists and committed supporters
of the important cause that we are championing today : that of
families – welcome to the Palais d’Egmont. Its superb surroundings
are a key venue for the European Presidency where meeting follows
meeting in quick succession, and each time we endeavour to accommodate
you in the best conditions during this particularly active
Belgian Presidency.
As President Roland-Gosselin has said, we are obviously particularly
honoured and graced by your presence here this afternoon, Ma’am,
and we well know your commitment to the rights of children and
childhood in the broadest sense, and your unfailing presence again
here today is a reaffirmation of that commitment and we wish today
simply to pay tribute to and thank you for that.
As Secretary of State for Family Policy, I am deeply gratified to welcome
so many of you to the European Family Conference here in the
Palais d’Egmont.
It will be taking place this afternoon and all day tomorrow, and I would
also like to thank European Commissioner László Andor for joining us
as well as my colleague, the Hungarian Minister of Social Affairs Miklós
Soltész, for both doing us the honour of being actively involved in
this event.
I myself was in Budapest yesterday. Today, my Hungarian colleague is
in Brussels. That is what the Presidency of the European Union is also
about, and what the European Union is also about.
This event is also taking place in the wake of another interdepartmental
event that we have had this morning in the same context in these
same premises on international child abduction. While it is true that
that meeting was more focused on family disputes and their resolution,
it was not a million miles from what we will be dealing with this
afternoon and tomorrow.
In fact, you know, and we all know only too well, that poverty, health,
housing, social welfare, are always difficult interpersonal issues that
can be even more vexed when families are in crisis or dispute.
I should also like to thank COFACE for its commitment and efficiency.
Organising a conference such as this takes energy, enthusiasm and
more, and once again, you have delivered. The preparatory work done
was huge, and I wanted to emphasize yet again how good your cooperation
has been.
From the very outset – and that is over a year now – I firmly believed
in this conference. I wanted to support it for many reasons. Let me
just mention a couple.
Firstly, your knowledge of European and family affairs. COFACE has developed
special experience that we have to play up in this Presidency.
Then, its context within the Belgian Presidency. It allows us to give
real added value to this joint conference and also holds out good
prospects for the future, and the presence of my Hungarian colleague
is a fresh reminder of that. This commitment to be in it for the long
haul in the Trio of Presidencies with the collaboration of the European
institutions shows that these issues transcend the domestic sphere
and that we are in a genuinely long-term approach.

The question asked in the theme chosen “ Social inclusion of families
and EU Policies : Where do we stand ? ” could not be more timely,
especially in 2010, which as you mentioned is the European Year for
Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion… including among families !
But whatever the European Year may be about, social inclusion of
families has in recent years sadly become an even more acute and
pressing issue.
I shall, both today and tomorrow, be keeping a watchful eye on the
discussions held and proposals made in the different workshops : family
and social policy; families and consumption; families and health;
families and people with care needs; families and education and ICTs…
all relevant and increasingly “ now ” issues which we deal with in our
daily work.
We felt it was really important, not to say essential, to come together
to discuss all these issues which we want to put on the agenda for
the coming years.
Finally, I would also like to stress – and this is something I am personally
keen on – the cross-cutting approach behind this project, this
conference. It is an approach that I believe we will first encounter
in Mr Vignon’s speech which we shall have the pleasure of hearing
shortly. The cross-cutting dimension of family policy and the point
of taking families into account in other European and national policies,
like social and economic, fiscal and environmental policies, and
many more besides !
This in my view really is an objective to be achieved in the months
and years ahead. I call it ‘thinking families’ in all the policies pursued.
In that context, I see the attendance at this major conference of family
organisations, academia, the social partners, European institutions,
and the Hungarian and Belgian Presidencies as the first step in the
right direction, something which I have particularly focused on since
having the good fortune to hold the family portfolio in the federal
government.
I shall obviously pay close attention to the different views and turns in
the debate that come out of these three half-days. I am sure that with
your front-line experience, know-how, knowledge, ideas and thoughts
we shall be able to come up with different points of view and make
these works deliver for all of us, and most importantly, for families.
I truly wish you an excellent conference.
MelchioR Wathelet
Opening address > melchior Wathelet
7

8
Mevrouw,
Dames en Heren,
Opening speeches > roger pauly
Opening speeches
Roger Pauly
President of Gezinsbond
Het is goed dat er tijdens het Belgisch voorzitterschap
van de EU, ook aandacht voor het
gezin mag zijn. Ik zeg “ mag ” zijn, omdat dit
vandaag niet zo vanzelfsprekend is. Europa
is in de ban van bezuinigingen en spaarplannen,
om begrotingen bij te sturen. Die
zijn ontspoord door de investeringen om de
gevolgen van de crisis in te dijken.
We denken dat met begrotingen in evenwicht
alles opgelost is. We krabbelen recht
en kunnen opnieuw naar de winkel hollen,
tot de consumptieketel weer overkookt.
We hebben ons zeer eenzijdig ontwikkeld en
kijken door een bril die sterk gekleurd is door
wat maatschappelijk dominant aanwezig is.
Wat is vandaag dominant aanwezig ?
Ik geef vier themavoorbeelden :
❙ Hoe zien wij vooruitgang ? We zien
vooruitgang als een budgettair
economisch verhaal, toegespitst op
de ontwikkeling, de productie en de
consumptie van welvaartsgoederen.
❙ Hoe zien we de toekomst ? Wat is
bepalend ?Wat zijn de drijvende
krachten ? Dat zijn arbeid en technologie.
❙ Hoe kijken we naar de crisis ? We zien de
crisis als een financiële struikeling die
zich overgezet heeft op de economie.
❙ Hoe kijken wij naar het leven ? We zien
het leven als biologisch-materieel
gebeuren dat we met onze zintuigen en
ons verstand kunnen vatten en begrijpen.
Madam,
Ladies and gentlemen,
It is good that attention may also be paid
to the family during the Belgian Presidency
of the EU. I say “ may ”, since today this of
course is not so self-evident. Europe is
under the spell of austerity and moneysaving
measures to bring budgets under
control. These budgets were derailed by
the investments needed to deal with the
banking crisis.
The thinking is that all will be solved once
budgets are brought into balance. We
will pick ourselves up and can again head
to the shops, until the consumption pot
again boils over.
We have developed very one-sidedly, and
tend to see things through glasses that
are strongly coloured by dominant societal
trends.
What is dominant today ?
I will give four thematic examples :
❙ How do we view progress ? We view
progress as a budgetary-economic
story, concentrated on developing,
producing and consuming the fruits
of prosperity.
❙ How do we view the future ?
What is determinative ?
What are the driving forces ?
These are labour and technology.
❙ How do we view the crisis ? We see the
crisis as a financial blunder that has
infected to the entire economy.
Dat is viermaal dezelfde, eenzijdige, concreet-materiële
kijk. Daarbij ontbreekt het
niet- materiële, de bezieling, het geestelijke,
het zingevingskader. Eigenlijk laat zo’n eenzijdige
visie, de helft van de menselijke belevenisruimte
onbenut.
Heel de samenleving zit gevangen in die stroming
en wordt gestuurd door de markt en reclame.
Wij worden overspoeld door beelden,
trends en leefstijlen die zij ons aanprijzen.
Precies hier liggen de wortels van de crisis.
Wie denkt dat door de begrotingen op orde
te brengen alles weer in orde is, heeft het niet
begrepen. De crisis is een draak met zeven
koppen. Kijk naar ecologie en milieu. Kijk
naar de industriële vervuiling, de broeikasgassen,
de klimaatveranderingen, de overstromingen,
de stormen met orkaankracht,
het fijn stof, de smog in de lucht. Kijk naar
ons chemisch ingrijpen op groenten, granen,
fruit en dieren. Kijk naar het groeiend aantal
kinderen met problemen aan de luchtwegen.
Als wij de natuur ziek maken, verliest die ook
haar heilzame werking op de mens. We
moeten ons afvragen of gezond zijn straks
nog de normale toestand is, dan wel of die
moet geproduceerd worden door dokters en
therapeuten in ziekenhuizen en instellingen.
❙ How do we view life ? We see life as a
biological-material happening that we
grasp and understand with our senses
and our reason.
This represents the same, one-sided, concrete-material
view, repeated four times.
Missing from this is the non-material, the
inspiration, the spiritual, the meaning giving
framework. In fact, such a one-sided
vision leaves half of all human capacities
unused.
All of society is caught up in this trend, and
is guided by the market and advertising.
We are inundated by the images, trends
and lifestyles they recommend to us. And
here lie the roots of the crisis. Those who
believe that everything will be OK once
again we bring budgets under control,
have not understood this. The crisis is a
dragon with seven heads. Look at ecology
and the environment. Look at industrial
pollution, greenhouse gases, climate
change, floods, hurricane force storms,
particulate matter, the smog in the air.
Look at our chemical interventions in raising
vegetables, grains, fruit and animals.
Look at the growing number of children
with breathing problems. When we injure
nature, nature loses its ability to heal the
person. We need to ask ourselves whether
being healthy will still be the normal state,
or whether this will need to be induced
by doctors and therapists in hospitals and
institutions.

Er is een crisis op het vlak van sociale samenhang
en gemeenschapzin. Als mensen denken
dat ze alleen voor zichzelf moeten leven
en met elkaar niets te maken hebben, dan is
de samenleving een verzameling van losse
burgers. Dan ontstaat er een mentaliteit van
ieder voor zich. Dat tast de levenskwaliteit
aan en zorgt voor achterdocht, wantrouwen
en vereenzaming.
Er is een crisis inzake waarden en moreel
besef. Dan is er geen reden tot moreel handelen
en moet fatsoenlijk gedrag afgedwongen
worden door regels, wetten en controles.
Dan zie je alsmaar meer: alarminstallaties,
inbraakbeveiligingssystemen en onbewaakte
camera’s.
Er is een crisis in de media die gedreven zijn
door concurrentie, commercie en verkoopcijfers.
Zij spelen in op emoties en amusement.
Zij zoeken naar breekpunten, onenigheid en
conflicten. Ze koesteren controverse.
Er is een crisis inzake zingeving en levensoriëntering.
Heel wat mensen hebben geen
antwoord op de vragen waarom en waarvoor
ze leven.
There is a crisis related to social cohesion
and sense of community. Once people
believe they must live only for themselves
and have nothing to do with each other,
society is reduced to a collection of disparate
citizens. This gives rise to a mentality
of “ every man for himself ”, which in turn
affects the quality of life and leads to suspicion,
distrust and social isolation.
There is a crisis concerning values and
moral understanding. Hence, there is no
reason to act morally, and reputable behaviour
needs to be compelled by rules,
laws and controls. Leading in turn to ever
more alarm installations, security systems
and unmanned cameras.
There is a crisis in the media driven by
competition, commerce and sales figures.
It plays on emotions and provides entertainment.
It is in search of breaking points,
disagreement and conflicts. It fosters
controversy.
There is a crisis in meaning and life orientation.
Many people simply have no answer
to the questions why and for what purpose
they are living.
Mevrouw,
Dames en Heren,
het is duidelijk dat onze manier van welvaart
produceren en de plaats die we daaraan
geven, ons doen inleveren inzake milieu en
ecologie, op het vlak van gemeenschapzin
en waardenbesef en inzake zingeving.
De grote uitdagingen vandaag zijn niet de
concurrentiekracht van ondernemingen,
niet de loonlasten, noch fiscale maatregelen
en evenmin de delokalisatie van ondernemingen.
De grootste uitdagingen hebben
te maken met de prijs die we betalen voor
een reeks pijnpunten die de welvaartsstaat
voortbrengt en ook voedt: drugs, depressies,
zelfmoorden, ontwrichte gezinsrelaties,
gezags- en gezinsproblemen, de groeiende
lijsten van jongeren met problemen in de
biezondere jeugdzorg. Er zijn de kinderpsychiaters
die niet weten waar beginnen en de
jeugdrechters die machteloos de armen in de
hoogte steken.
Ondanks de welvaart waren mensen nooit
voorheen meer onzeker over hun toekomst,
hun geloof, over hun job, hun relatie en de
opvoeding van hun kinderen.
Madam,
Ladies and gentlemen,
It is clear that our approach to generating
prosperity and the place we give to it requires
sacrifices with respect to the environment
and ecology, with respect to our
sense of community and values, and with
respect to our ability to give meaning.
The major challenges of today are not the
competitiveness of companies, labour
costs, tax measures or the delocalisation of
businesses. The greatest challenges have
to do with the price we are paying for a
series of difficulties brought about and fed
by the welfare state: drugs, depressions,
suicides, disjointed family relationships,
problems with authority and family, the
increasing number of youth with special
care problems. There are child psychiatrists
who don’t know where to start, and
juvenile court judges who throw up their
arms in despair.
Despite the prosperity, never before have
people been more uncertain of their future,
their faith, their job, their relationships
and the parenting of their children.
Never before have parents had more distress
and concern regarding their children
with respect to horror and violence on TV,
pornographic sites on the Internet, or with
respect to physical threats to children and
paedophilia, drugs, depression and suicide.
Opening speeches > roger pauly
9

10
Opening speeches > roger pauly
Opening speeches
Roger Pauly
President of Gezinsbond
Nooit voorheen hadden ouders meer kommer
en zorg ten aanzien van hun kinderen
inzake horror en geweld op Tv, pornosites op
het internet, inzake fysieke bedreiging van
kinderen en pedofilie, op het vlak van drugs,
depressies en zelfmoorden.
Nooit voorheen was er zoveel hulpvoorziening,
zoveel wachtlijsten en 30 procent jongeren
met psychische aandoeningen.
Nooit voorheen waren er zoveel pillen nodig
om dat allemaal te dragen. In 2008 7,5 miljard
en dat waren er 450 miljoen meer dan
in 2007. 25 procent van de ziekten in de rijke
Westerse landen, zijn ziekten van de ziel.
We hoeven niet mee te gaan met die trends
en die eenzijdige kijk op vooruitgang, op
leven en op toekomst. Welzijn van mensen
en levenstevredenheid wordt in belangrijke
mate bepaald door de kwaliteit van relaties.
Ik zie drie niveaus.
Het eerste niveau heeft betrekking op sociale
samenhang en de band die mensen hebben
met vrienden, kennissen, collega’s, de omgeving,
de samenleving en uiteindelijk met
alles wat leeft. Het is het relatieniveau dat
zich afspeelt met de wereld buiten ons, aan
onze buitenkant.
Never before was there so much help provided,
so many waiting lists and 30 percent
of youth with psychological disorders.
Never before were so many pills needed to
deal with all of this. In 2008, 7.5 billion, and
that was 450 million more than in 2007. 25
percent of illnesses in rich Western countries
are sicknesses of the soul.
We do not need to go along with these
trends and this one-sided view on
progress, on life and on the future. The
welfare of people and satisfaction with
life are largely determined by the quality
of relationships. I see three levels.
The first level concerns social cohesion
and the bond people have with friends,
acquaintances, colleagues, surroundings,
society and, ultimately, with all that
lives. It is the relationship level that takes
place with the world outside of us, on our
outside.
Things are the opposite in the second relationship
level. It is oriented inward, the
relationship with oneself. It has to do with
a vision on one’s life orientation and questions
such as : Where do we come from ?
What are we doing here ? Where are we
going ? It has to do with a meaning that
transcends our life and self-interest. It is
a spiritual awareness that is able to bear,
inspire and drive human activity.
Bij het tweede relatieniveau is dat omgekeerd.
Het is naar binnen gekeerd, de relatie
met jezelf. Het heeft te maken met een visie
op levensoriëntering en vragen: vanwaar komen
we ? Wat doen we hier ? Waar gaan we
naartoe ? Het heeft te maken met een zingeving
die ons leven en eigenbelang overstijgt.
Het is een spiritueel besef dat menselijk handelen
kan dragen, bezielen en drijven.
Het derde relatieniveau is gemengd. Het handelt
over de relatie met personen buiten ons,
maar waarvan de beleving sterk naar binnen
is gekeerd. Het gaat daarbij over fundamentele
waarden als: liefde, geborgenheid, affectie
en genegenheid. Dat zijn waarden die
doorheen heel de geschiedenis gekoesterd
worden en die tot ontwikkeling komen in
diepgaande menselijke relaties, zoals tussen
partners, ouders en kinderen. Natuurlijk is
het gezin door maatschappelijke ontwikkelingen
getekend in zijn rol, betekenis en verschijningsvorm.
De samenleving wentelt heel
wat problemen op het gezin af. Kinderen komen
in contact met wansmakelijke vertoningen
en ontsporingen. Met fenomenen waar
ze niet rijp voor zijn. Wie vangt hen op ? Wie
stuurt hen emotioneel bij ? Er zijn de problemen
rond de combinatie gezin en arbeid. Er
is de teloorgang van een aantal waarden die
nodig zijn om een relatie duurzaam in stand
te houden : verantwoordelijkheid, solidariteit,
plichtsbesef en belangloze inzet. Er is de wegwerp
en consumptiecultuur en de buitensporige
aandacht voor seksualiteit zonder liefde.
The third relationship level is mixed. It concerns
the relationship with people outside
of us, but the experience is turned strongly
inward. It is about fundamental values
such as love, security, affection and affinity.
These are values that have been fostered
throughout history and that reach
development in in-depth human relationships,
such as with partners, parents and
children. Of course, the role, meaning and
form of the family is marked by societal developments.
Society shifts many problems
to the family. Children come in contact
with tasteless spectacles and deviations.
With phenomena they are not yet ready
to handle. Who is there to cushion the effects
? Who can help them adjust emotionally
? Then there are the problems related
to combining family and work. There is the
decline in a number of values required to
sustainably maintain a relationship : responsibility,
solidarity, sense of duty and
selfless commitment. There is the throwaway
and consumption culture, and the excessive
attention to sexuality without love.
But the values developed in the family are
for all times. In a family, it is impossible to
live only for yourself, the common good
is foremost and you feel how strongly
connected and dependent you are. In the
family, care, dedication and disinterested
love are the order of the day, and as child
you experience what safety, security and
affection are and how you are protected
and nourished in all situations. You learn
what it feels like when others altruistically

Maar de waarden die in het gezin worden
ontwikkeld zijn van alle tijden. In een gezin
kan je onmogelijk alleen voor jezelf leven,
staat het algemeen belang voorop en voel
je hoe sterk je verbonden en afhankelijk bent.
In het gezin zijn zorg, toewijding en belangeloze
liefde aan de orde en kan je als kind
ervaren wat veiligheid, geborgenheid en
affectie is en hoe je in alle omstandigheden
beschermd en gekoesterd wordt. Je leert er
hoe het voelt wanneer anderen belangeloos
en algeheel van je houden. Het gezin vervult
bovendien de belangrijkste opdracht in de
samenleving: het doorgeven van het leven,
het klaarmaken van de nieuwe generatie en
het ontwikkelen van een aantal waarden die
de samenleving nodig heeft om stabiel te
functioneren: solidariteit, belangeloze inzet
en gemeenschapzin. Het gezin is een groot
collectief goed dat door de samenleving
moet gekoesterd, beschermd en gesteund
worden. Daarom moet er, op het Europees
politiek forum, aandacht zijn voor de gezinsdimensie
in elk beleidsdomein. Het is aan de
gezinsbeweging om dit uit te dragen, aan te
kaarten en te bepleiten. Als dat niet van ons
komt, zal het van nergens komen.
and completely love you. Moreover, the
family fulfils society’s most important task:
the transmission of life, preparing the next
generation and developing a number of
values that society needs to function in a
stable manner: solidarity, selfless commitment
and sense of community. The family
is a large collective good that needs to
be nourished, protected and supported
by society. That is why attention should
be paid in the European political forum
to the family dimension present in every
policy domain. It is up to family movement
to propagate, identify and argue for this. If
we don’t do it, no one will.
Mevrouw,
Dames en Heren,
in wat vooraf ging heb ik geen doemscenario
willen schetsen, ook niet voor de toekomst.
Het uitgesproken technologisch tijdvak dat
we nu meemaken, is wellicht een noodzakelijke
episode in de opgang naar een nieuwe
fase in de ontwikkeling. Wetenschap en technologie
zijn geroepen om eerst de levensomstandigheden
van de mens te verbeteren en
daarna de mens zelf. Wat is moet verdwijnen
om plaats te maken voor nieuwe ontwikkelingen.
We gaan naar een postmoderne
samenleving met meer aandacht voor geestelijke
verruiming, van de rede naar meer
gevoel. Van analyse naar synthese, globaal
kijken, samenhang zien, verbanden leggen,
zachte krachten, vrouwelijke eigenschappen :
invoeling en uitstraling. Alles verschuift van
het materiële naar het immateriële, van de
buitenkant naar de binnenkant naar een
groeiende vergeestelijking.
RogeR Pauly
Madam,
Ladies and gentlemen,
It was not my intention in the preceding to
sketch a doomsday scenario, also not with
respect to the future. The markedly technological
period that we are now experiencing
is probably a necessary episode in
the transition to a new phase of development.
Science and technology are called
upon first to improve the living conditions
of the human person and subsequently
humanity itself. What is, must disappear
to make way for new developments. We
are entering a postmodern society with
greater attention to spiritual growth,
from reason to more feeling. From analysis
to synthesis, viewing things globally,
seeing coherence, making connections,
gentle forces, female qualities: empathy
and character. Everything is shifting from
the material to the immaterial, from the
outside to the inside, toward a growing
spiritualisation.
RoGeR PaulY
Opening speeches > roger pauly
11

12
Your Majesty,
Your Excellencies,
Mr President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Before beginning what I have to say on behalf of the
five French-speaking Belgian member organisations of
COFACE, let me first thank the conference organisers for
inviting me to speak. I should like to outline to you the
family policy objectives that we feel most strongly about
and try to explain the difficulties they pose.
Family policy has long ceased being the straightforward
matter it was when the institution of marriage and the
breadwinner father model were the template of family
realities. Families have now become multifaceted with
divergent needs, and so policy responses have become
more complex. It is now no longer enough to simply
demand that the family dimension be given weight in
all policies apt to impact on the lives and well-being of
families – what is known as family mainstreaming. It
must now be done in strict observance not only of life
choices, but also family members’ own individual rights.
Self-evidently, therefore, all policies that affect families
– especially employment and housing policies – must not
in any way discriminate including on the basis of people’s
– actual or potential – family circumstances. While it is still
mainly women who lose out from this sort of discrimination
in employment at present, it also affects most of
the men who take up their parental leave entitlements.
It is not just the Member States that must take the family
so-defined into account in policy design, but also
the European Union. While the EU technically has no
responsibility for family policy, most policies, action
programmes and strategies adopted by it – especially
Opening speeches > dominique plasman
Opening speeches
Dominique Plasman
General Secretary of the Femmes prévoyantes socialistes
in the spheres of employment, training, social protection
and active inclusion – do play into national policies,
programmes and plans.
Research has shown that the success of an employment
policy aimed at increasing chiefly female participation
rates by promoting active inclusion for people often
very out of touch with the labour market depends largely
on how much focus is put on preserving a balance
between work and private life, which includes family
life. Employment policy must therefore necessarily be
supported at all points by a strong, well-crafted policy
to balance work and family life.
In this area, we have high expectations of the European
Union to give a new impetus to this policy, which
COFACE has for many years argued is essential to the
well-being of families. We expect initiatives from it as
regards services, flexible career and working hours arrangements
to address the needs of families, and especially
the most vulnerable families.
Need it be said, where services for families are concerned,
that preschool childcare is not enough? Need
it be pointed out that in just this area alone, the 2002
Barcelona targets are distinctly lacking ? Lacking first as
regards the Convention on the Rights of the Child which
lays down a de facto right for any child with a working
parent or parents to a place in a quality childcare service
(Article 18). Lacking again in terms of the employment
policy objective of active inclusion. Lacking finally with
regard to the principle of equal opportunities between
children as Eurochild again pointed out at the recent
European Conference on Child Poverty. These latter
two facts require that the right of a child to a place in
a quality childcare service be extended to all children
regardless of whether their parents work or not.
We therefore expect the European Union to write this
unconditional right into the European children’s rights
strategy and the Recommendation of the European
Union on Child Poverty and Child Well-Being that the
Council of Ministers is set to adopt in December 2010.
We also want the European Commission to draw up a
timetable setting intermediate targets, the first stage
of which would be delivering the Barcelona targets.
Delivery of the intermediate targets should be systematically
evaluated at each stage in the context of the Europe
2020 Strategy for Growth and Jobs and the evaluation
of the follow-up of the Roadmap for equality between
women and men which should incorporate them.
Need it be pointed out that the lack of childcare places
geographically accessible and affordable or appropriate
to the special needs of disabled children is often what
forces mostly women workers, mothers, temporarily or
permanently out of the labour force ? This is something
that is particularly prevalent among the women targeted
by active inclusion policies, which arguably makes
the lack of childcare places a factor that widens existing
social inequalities between families.
Where flexible career and working hours arrangements
are concerned, we are not primarily looking for the
European Commission to encourage Member States to
strengthen the provision already in place, apart from
where paternity leave is concerned. What we want from
it is to make a firm request to the social partners to conclude
a meaningful framework agreement on paternity
leave by a set date, failing which it would itself take an
initiative in the matter. But what we want most of all
from the European Commission is for it to take decisive
action to restructure the organisation of work. Leave and
flexible working arrangements for family reasons should
be included in it as normal stages in working life giving

ise to full social/employment rights for every worker
whether male or female, as recommended back in 1998
in Alain Supiot’s Madrid Report.
This is the only way to change attitudes – starting with
those of employers – so that involvement in family responsibilities
to any degree whatsoever no longer harms
the career and pay development of those men and
women who bear that responsibility. It is also the only
way to reduce if not wipe out the gender inequalities in
employment which are known to be a real obstacle to
the balanced division of labour within the family.
Persistent gender inequalities in employment and within
families leave women and children more vulnerable
to poverty in the event of relationship breakdown, especially
where women have stopped work to raise their
children. And the poverty risk rises further where maintenance
payments go unpaid. We are therefore calling
on the European authorities to press forward with efforts
to see that solutions are also found to make it easier to
recover maintenance payments within the European
Union where the payment debtor disputes the amount.
We also want it to see that a system of unconditional advances
on maintenance payments in the event of even
short-term defaults is implemented in all Member States.
Finally – and I will end here given the limited time allowed
to me – if the aim is also to promote active inclusion
of women and mothers who are not employed or
are underemployed, the European Commission should
invite those Member States where social/employment
rights are still largely familialised to inquire into the appropriateness
of their social protection policy, which is,
by-the-by, not compliant with European directives on
the matter. There is evidence from a series of studies that
familialisation of social/employment rights is against the
interests of all families, especially the most vulnerable,
by deterring especially low-skilled or unskilled women
from engaging with the labour market. And yet it is now
a well-chronicled fact that having only one income in
the family is a major cause of poverty. Would it not therefore
be a sound move in tackling poverty to strengthen
the directives that individualise social rights ? This is an
avenue that we would like the Commission to explore
particulary in the discussions it has started on the adequacy
and sustainability of pension systems in Europe.
Thank you for your attention.
doMinique PlasMan
Opening speeches > dominique plasman
13

14
Your Majesty,
Excellencies,
Distinguished guests,
Ladies and gentlemen,
I wish to thank the Confederation of Family Organisations
in the EU for inviting me to this conference and I congratulate
them on their choice of subject.
Social inclusion is all the more crucial as the situation is
dramatic. In today’s European Union, 84 million people
are at risk of poverty. That is 16 per cent of the population.
And 10 million of them are children. That is simply
unacceptable in 21 st century Europe !
What is more, those figures do not take account of the
full impact of the crisis. When the new figures come out,
they are likely to be much higher. Some put the number
of people living at risk of poverty as much as 10 million
or higher.
The reality behind the figures is often much worse
because poverty is something we tend to hide. Yet in
Europe today, foodbanks are becoming an ever more
common means of getting by for people.
As the effects of the economic crisis begin to bite and
the recession tightens its grip, we are discovering that
Europe’s families and children are paying a very high price.
National budget cuts are affecting schools, healthcare
and child protection, while unemployment and job insecurity
are undermining parents’ livelihoods.
But if Europeans are to have confidence in their future,
their children must grow up in healthy, happy, welleducated
families.
Opening speeches > lászló andor
Opening speeches
László Andor
EU Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
In our new strategy for building the Europe we want
to live in by 2020 – the Europe 2020 Strategy – the
Commission proposed an EU target to reduce the
number of people living at risk of poverty and social
exclusion by at least 20 million by 2020. That EU target
is to be followed up at national level.
Setting targets for reducing poverty is crucial to ensuring
the strategy succeeds and that everyone can enjoy
the social benefits of growth.
The poverty reduction target takes account of the multidimensional
character of poverty and covers three key
areas :
❙ People living below the poverty line;
❙ Material deprivation;
❙ The percentage of those living in jobless households.
Targets are our key instrument for spurring the Member
States to action, but we need to go further. We need
to look at what needs doing in practice and at policy
measures that can have a decisive impact on poverty
and social exclusion.
First, we need jobs with decent wages, decent working
conditions, and flexible working arrangements that allow
people to combine work and family life, especially
given the ageing of our population and the need for
more care for the elderly.
Secondly, we need to implement an integrated active
inclusion strategy based on three pillars :
❙ Adequate income support,
including for those who cannot work;
❙ Inclusive labour markets;
❙ Access to quality social services.
This active inclusion approach, which the Commission
spelled out in a Recommendation back in 2008, is also
important for tackling population change and promoting
solidarity between the generations.
To give it a further boost, the Commission is working to
have 2012 designated European Year for Active Ageing
and Intergenerational Solidarity.
Thirdly, policy to foster integration calls for efforts to
combat discrimination and inequality, including gender
and income inequality. The well-being of children and
respect for the dignity of the elderly must be central to
these efforts.
Fourthly, we need to give backing to networks – like the
European Alliance for Families – in their efforts to support
families.
Many Member States were – and still are – worried about
their low birth rates. The reason seems less to be a desire
for fewer children than the difficulty of bringing up a
family in today's world. And a major challenge here is
reconciling work and private life.
The fact is that many women still have to choose between
having a career and having a family. Being forced
to make a choice typically results in lower employment
rates for women and lower birth rates too.
The countries with the highest birth rates in the EU today
are those which grant most support for a sound workfamily
life balance through the provision of childcare
and, increasingly, care for the elderly, family-friendly
leave and flexible working-time arrangements.

We should remember that women account for the vast
majority of part-time workers in the EU. 31.5% of women
work part-time compared with only 8.3% of men. And
women’s less linear careers are reflected in their generally
lower pensions and their higher exposure to the risk
of poverty.
The Commission intends to assess the areas where there
are still gaps in entitlement to family-related leave, and
in particular paternity leave and leave for family carers.
It will also pay special attention to the availability of
affordable high-quality care facilities, report on the
Member States’ performance with respect to childcare
facilities and, where necessary, make specific
recommendations.
Lastly, we need to encourage full use to be made of existing
possibilities of financial support.
Over the period from 2007 to 2013, an estimated half a
billion euros will be available from the Structural Funds
to develop childcare facilities, and another 2.4 billion
euros to fund measures to facilitate women’s access to
employment and to reconcile work and family life, including
access to childcare.
As part of our Europe 2020 Strategy, the Commission
recently proposed setting up a Platform against Poverty
and Social Exclusion.
The Platform is to facilitate, inform and encourage further
progress, capitalising on the results of 2010 – European
Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion.
The European Year has helped to generate political momentum.
I want to preserve its legacy and build on it to
strengthen Europe’s social dimension.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Eurobarometer polls repeatedly show there is widespread
public concern at poverty, with some 70 per cent
looking to the Union to do something about it.
We cannot and should not ignore such messages. That
means seeing how we can make the best use of all the
instruments, methods and resources available to combat
poverty.
As I said earlier, I am in favour of a strong social dimension
in the EU’s policies. That principle guides my work,
because I believe political action is not just about juggling
abstract ideas.
It is about responding to the expectations of our fellow
Europeans – the men, women and children who are feeling
the rough edge of the crisis, directly or indirectly.
It is about easing the situation of employees who are
worried about their working conditions, who live in fear
of being made redundant or have already lost their jobs.
It is about facilitating the transition to the labour market
for young people whose career prospects seem slimmer
by the day.
It is about helping fathers and mothers to balance their
family responsibilities and their professional obligations.
It is about giving greater security to the elderly or those
approaching retirement, and who are worried about
their pensions and their health care.
I know that all members of COFACE share my concern
and I am confident we can do much to improve things
together.
Thank you.
lászló andoR
Opening speeches > lászló andor
15

16
Thank you Mr President.
Your Majesty,
Minister,
Commissioner,
Chairs,
Ladies and gentlemen,
I should first like to thank COFACE for inviting the
European Parliament as one of the key EU institutions
and the President for pointing out that the first
resolution on family policy came out of the European
Parliament not long after it was established. Vice-
President Ms Kratsa Tsagaroupoulo sends her apologies,
so I am addressing you today as the rapporteur of
a European Parliament resolution on the demographic
challenge in the EU adopted in February 2008.
The EU has been concerned about the demographic
changes looming by 2050 since at least the year 2000.
You know what they are, and you know they are partly
due to life changes and partly to declining birth rates
in Europe.
This prospect of the changing age structure in Europe
is a clear concern for institutions and policy makers because
it will impact on our economic life and our social
model, in particular social welfare spending, the management
of ageing, and the funding of pension schemes.
But for the politicians I am speaking for today, the question
is how do we face up and adapt to this new situation,
but also what can we do to influence the trends reported
to us by population experts.
Opening speeches > françoise castex
Opening speeches
Françoise Castex
Member of European Parliament, Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (FR)
In the report which was adopted by Parliament, which
I was privileged to present and coordinate, I wanted to
first qualify this demographic challenge by pointing out
that the two main causes of the change were causes for
celebration. One being steadily rising life expectancy
and healthy life years; the other what I see as the two
key advances of the twentieth century : girls’ education
and fertility control.
And it is these new models, this new way women are doing
well in our European societies, that have shaped and
to some extent brought on this fertility decline.
It is my belief that women do not want to turn back
the clock on their fertility control. However, there are
Member States where the fertility rate is particularly, and
I would even say abnormally, low for it stands around
1.5 or 1.3 children per woman. This alarming decline in
fertility must raise questions for us, and make us think
about the causes.
I do not think we need to be worried by it, not least because
we must factor in the rising age at childbirth. And
in France – which as you know is one of the Member
States with the highest birth rates – we saw a sharp decline
in the birth rate as far back as the 1980’s, and the
birth rate has surged simply because the age at childbirth
has risen so that instead of having the first child at
around twenty years of age, it is now more usually after
25, so there is a delayed impact. It may be that these
alarming EU averages are also due to changes in lifestyle,
at least in the new Member States.
But this does not tell the whole story. As the representative
of the family associations said, one cause of the declining
birth rate is also today’s worrying environment.
To decide to have children, you must first have confidence
in the future and the family policies established
by Member States need to offer the long-term security
to plan for the future – and not just five years but ten,
fifteen or twenty years ahead… because this is the kind
of timeframe people look at when deciding to start a
family and have children.
So, later attachment to the labour force, job instability,
costly housing, low financial assistance to families, the
steady decline of the welfare state and the budget cuts
we have seen in different states for several years pretty
much across the board – are material anxiety-provoking
factors.
You have pointed out, and you know, that the European
Parliament is one of the institutions that keeps a very
close eye on work-life balance, gender equality and all
measures that are conducive to having children. In my
report, I refer to some of these as regards developing
childcare provision… something that you may remember
was already mentioned in the Lisbon Strategy. That
was in 2000, and we set a target of places for 90% of
under-3s and all children over six. We are still far from
having achieved these rates everywhere.
You mentioned tackling pay discrimination against
women but also discrimination against those who want
children. Some countries provide statutory protection
for women who are pregnant, or have just given birth
and women who have decided to breastfeed. That legislation,
that protection must be strengthened.

I believe that a pro-family policy should not only be
about women. In my report I also pointed out that there
are also rights to parenthood generally. Rights related
to fathers, in particular on paternity leave, which are
apt to bring about changes in the current family model,
and that the law must follow the developments in these
models of society that are taking place.
To avoid a lengthy recital, I would just add that there
is also one measure that urgently needs taking for the
family, and that is the treatment of infertility – paying
for such treatment and linking measures for assisted
conception with measures in favour of adoption. Any
couple, any family, that has had to go through this obstacle
course knows that there are positive measures to
be taken in that direction.
At the other end of the chain of life – since we are talking
about fertility and births – but an equally important
issue is the question of ageing. Not only because of the
fear of imbalances between the economically active and
inactive and the rise in the old-age dependence ratio,
but also because of the belief that solidarity – how our
societies incorporate ageing into their models – is extremely
important.
We must take care not to see the prospect of an ageing
society as a burden, and that family patterns that accommodate
ageing are promoted and developed.
All this obviously comes at a cost to communities. Our
social models, particularly in terms of solidarity between
states, between regions, between Member States, are
not yet sufficiently developed and the demographic
challenges are clearly set to produce new inequalities
between areas. Between areas with a working and
therefore wealth-producing population and areas that
more resemble dormitory areas for non-working retired
people who are consumers of local care services and
therefore may impact on the community.
Family policies, particularly with the demographic challenge,
should arguably come more onto the Community
agenda so as to give more weight to this need for solidarity
that is emerging with the demographic inequalities
in our different Member States.
I think that despite the crisis, despite the austerity budgets
that we see in each member state and the EU, we
need to have a proactive policy to preserve a level of social
protection and sources of funding for family policies.
I know that the Commission has pledged itself to this.
Mr Commissioner, you mentioned this and I am aware
of what you are doing in this area. I believe it must be
done in conjunction with the family associations that are
present here today, and others, so that all these policies
that are put in place at European or community level, are
established in a concerted manner, known, analysed, accepted…
this is the best guarantee that a wide take-up
and an exchange of good practices will follow.
Finally, to conclude my remarks, I urged all throughout
the work I did on this report that it should be borne in
mind when looking at this general problem of demography,
these problems of ageing and the declining birth
rate, and the economic problems posed, that this is an
issue on which we cannot take a statistical and purely
technocratic financial balance approach, for example.
We must never forget that what we are dealing with
is human beings. And that when we talk about ageing,
when we talk about birth, we are talking about life,
about death, about wanting children, the hardship of
growing old, and it is that approach that will give us the
fairest possible policy.
Thank you.
FRançoise castex
Opening speeches > françoise castex
17

18
Thank you very much.
Madame, Majesté,
Ministers,
Commissioner,
Members of the European Parliament,
And of course, all of you who participate
in this big Conference for two days,
It’s an honour and a pleasure to have the possibility of
participating and addressing you briefly in this opening
session. Because of all of your good ideas about policies
for families, children, and others, I’ll drop my speech.
Instead, I’ll touch on two topics which – from my personal
point of view – are very important.
First of all I’m very happy to be here with COFACE, because
we’ve been cooperating for several years and we’ll
keep doing so in the coming months and for forthcoming
events.
When I say we, I represent the EESC. This is a body with
members from 27 Member States from what we call civil
society organisations. Organisations that are like you:
engaged people who share their experience with their
engagement and who voice their opinions.
Opening speeches > Staffan nilsson
Opening speeches
Staffan Nilsson
Groupe III President, European Economic and Social Committee
And we are, stated by the Treaty, a body that’s a little
smaller than the European Parliament but still reasonably
sized with 344 members.
We have an advisory role by the Treaty to publish opinions
but one of other tools for us is also to work with
European organisations like COFACE, and also with organisations
which work at the national level. And I am
also happy to see that accompanying me here today is
a delegation from the EESC.
I want to touch upon only two topics because I fully
support the interventions we’ve heard from the floor
up until this point.
These two topics being : early childhood and what you
referred to as ‘parental’ leave – not maternity leave but
parental leave. It’s very good that we use these words.
We have an excellent Hungarian rapporteur who drafted
an opinion on early childhood care and education as a
tool for an initiative we decided to carry out ourselves.
Perhaps this could also be an input to the coming
Presidency and let me also congratulate the Belgians
for their excellent Presidency at this very difficult time.
And I think it’s very innovative to see three-party cooperation
between Spain, Belgium and Hungary. And I am
wishing you very good luck for this next half year.
When we talk about parental leave, I very much support
the intervention coming both from the COFACE
President and from Mrs Castex. If you talk with the social
partners, and sometimes with the employers, they
sometimes look at this as a cost. It’s a cost, sometimes
more or less for the employers but also for the society.
But in my view, it’s an investment: what you do to secure
security for boys and girls up to the age of two years.
This is basic ground for the family and for the whole
society.
And I also very much support that parental leave is more
than just about women. It’s about men and women. I am
both happy and proud that my son has just taken half
of his two-year leave to look after his newborn child. I
think it’s not only the question of gender balance but it’s
a question of him and his child coming closer and forming
a strong bond. This is what is the most important in
his life right now.

So I really support the fact that this should not be just
about opinions expressed by the European Parliament
or by the European Commission. They reflect what we
think is right and give an example to our children and
their children later on.
I also want to address all of you because, coming from
Sweden, I am very happy to come from a kingdom where
things work well. I am very happy to have a government
recently elected. I am very happy to have good authorities,
in which I can place my trust. But what could we do
without people’s engagement in this society ?
You know that very well because you are the most important
people in this conference, giving contributions
to all of the workshops. Because you are the people
coming from the engaged groups, from what we call
organised civil society. But you play a crucial role in the
society to build social inclusion.
So I hope that your conference here today will be useful,
and that you will have good outcomes and that we,
in the end, tomorrow, we will have good contributions
working towards our future.
Thank you very much for giving me the possibility of
addressing you. I hope I was brief enough. And I really
wish you good luck, not only with this conference but
with also for the future.
Thank you very much, Madame.
staFFan nilsson
Opening speeches > Staffan nilsson
19

20
Your Majesty,
Madam Minister,
Friends of COFACE,
I should first like to take this opportunity offered by
COFACE under the auspices of the Belgian Presidency
to consider the nature of the ties that bind the family
dimension of European societies to the further development
of the European Union.
Let us look forward in time. What new developments
are ahead as we end 2010 for both families and the
European Union ? It will not have escaped notice that
the EU has entered a new phase of its development. The
family – or rather, families – are also changing, and that
change is both a consequence and the source of general
demographic change. What are the points of contact
between these changes ?
From this comparison of outlooks will come the idea
that the Union should take a new stance on family issues.
In recent years – and particularly since the great
enlargement and the perceived scale of demographic
change – the EU has engaged substantially more if not
with families, then at least with family policies. However,
the Union would benefit from giving more weight to
the deep-rooted goals that families embody in terms
of social well-being and the ability of society to look to
the future.
Keynote speeches > Jérôme Vignon
Keynote speeches
Jérôme Vignon
President of the “ Semaines Sociales ” of France
Family structures,
part and parcel of the european model of society.
The question often arises whether or not there is a
European model of society, given the wide range of
national models of social protection. These wide differences
are indisputable. That notwithstanding, compared
to other groups of developed societies in the world, the
countries of Eastern and Western Europe share an exacting
vision of compulsory social protection. And while
the forms of that protection may vary with what is often
the turbulent national history in which they are based,
they are all set within a broad approach to social rights
guaranteed by the authorities, whose purpose is to enable
everyone to enjoy their civil rights in practice and to
participate as far as possible in economic life and citizenship.
Social rights in Europe – be it in the Czech Republic
or Spain – are important. They ensure individuals of an
“ enabling ” protection, by which I mean both an insurance
against the risks of life and empowerment.
The social rights meant to protect families so they may
fulfill their essential purposes are part of these enabling
rights. Unequally developed they may be, but they are
more developed in Europe than elsewhere, as is evidenced
by the OECD’s regular studies of the matter. No
matter the area - family benefits, access to childcare and
preschool education for young children, child welfare
– the European countries top the list. This is not borne
out of coincidence.
When at the request of Jacques Delors the European
Commission’s Forward Studies Unit looked at the
common features derived from the shared history of
European societies, we were struck by the depth and variety
of these features, be it the balanced distribution of
population between large and medium towns and cities,
the existence of social classes marked by the distinction
between manual workers and middle classes, the existence
of universal education from early childhood, the
cosmopolitan nature of the cities, or the role played by
pubs and cafés, always to be found everywhere within
walking distance. Many more examples could have been
cited, but probably one of the most striking was the existence
in Europe, very early on in its history during the
early development of the Middle Ages, of a nuclear family
structure comprising two or three generations related
by direct descent.
The European family is small and hence vulnerable. To
protect it, circles would form around it, starting with fiefdoms,
then municipalities and ultimately universal social
protection, the prolongation of a long chain of subsidiarity
built on the family unit. It is to the eminent German
sociologist Hardmut Kaeble that we owed this discovery,
and it is something that has stayed with me to this day.
While being, as the stock phrase has it, “ the building
block of society ”, the European family is also very closely
bound up with protective structures that surround it
with varying degrees of support: very strong and exacting
as in the Nordic countries, much more flexible and
light as in Mediterranean countries. But these differences
are now progressively diminishing not least because of
the discreet unifying influence exerted by the “ Open
Coordination ” process across the 27 Member States.
Families in Europe therefore form part of a chain of subsidiarity.
They are the second link after the individual
whose dignity they are mainly responsible for preserving
and developing; so much is evidenced by the deep
exclusion suffered by those who have lost all family
ties as a result of the new social risks. But at the same
time they are the focus of the different levels of social
protection that surround them. Before that of the EU,
there is obviously the circle of the nation which plays

a predominant role as being ultimately responsible for
national cohesion. It is in each individual state that is
played out the delicate alchemy between what is the
private and personal responsibility of each family, and
where solidarity comes in. The Union cannot be directly
involved in this debate and that is why its specific role
will never be more than subsidiary, complementing
that of states where family matters are concerned. This
is why our legislative and judicial bodies tread so very
lightly – and rightly so – where the fundamental rights
and freedoms derived from European treaties – particularly
the right to equal treatment irrespective of nationality
– come up against national civil rights that define
the boundaries of the family.
the decade ahead
We can now look together at all the great changes that
seem to be looming both for Europe and for family life
in the coming years : where may they converge, where
may they pull in opposite directions ?
Where the European Union is concerned, the literature
abounds with studies that emphasize and make good
cases for the scale of the crises and accelerated developments
that the next decade will bring : rapid demographic
change necessitating a greater focus than ever
on the quality and contribution of the full potential of
the working population and also increased reliance on
external migration; climate change also, which requires
us now not only to think not only about preventing the
most serious risks, but also making significant infrastructural
adjustments to offset the undoubted impacts of
new climatic conditions; the forms of the welfare state
will have to change too from the need to cap or cut
public spending, to bring the debt burden down to a
sustainable level, which will inevitably necessitate tax
adjustments to reduce the inequalities that now render
such adjustments unpalatable. Fortunately, these obligations
are consistent with that of adapting to a globalised,
multi-polar world which prompts us as Europeans to
look for other drivers of our development than frenetic
consumption and piling on the debt : an era of a new
kind of tangible and intangible investment is upon us.
What the studies do not tell us, or not sufficiently, is
that such developments will highlight the need to draw
more deeply on the roots of our values, the source of our
urge to live together. When the overall movement picks
up speed, economic and social cohesion cannot come
about only as the result of economic strictures or budgetary
needs. Political action must go together with a
greater visibility of what unites us through our diversities.
Where families are concerned, the future is not all a bed
of roses either. Among the many recent books on the
family published in France, one bears the evocative title
“ Storm warning over the family. ” It is written by a
psychoanalyst, Christian Flavigny, although I hasten to
say that the stance taken is not moral, but political and
legal. What warning does he give? He argues that the
continuing trend towards the loosening of family ties,
especially demands to sever parenthood from the links
created by descent, is likely to profoundly undermine
the social structure and leave the younger generation
with a very heavy burden to bear.
Without going as far as that, and in simpler terms, today
and perhaps even more so tomorrow, families are
torn between two paradigms : one that sees them as an
aggregate of individuals with each member entitled to
pursue their own good by themselves; the other which
sees the family as a community of connected persons
whose most vulnerable members – children or very old
people – are entitled to expect unrequited care and
attention. Indeed, it is the resurgence of this latter vision
against the backdrop of individual empowerment
– for men and women alike – which in recent conferences
organised by the European Union, like that in Prague
in 2009 on Family Policy and access to employment for
women, especially mothers in connection with equality
of opportunity, produced a consensus around the
issue of child well-being and set discussions under way
on the freedom of couples to choose between different
trade-offs between family and working life in line with
the couple’s own search for balance outside of the patterns
dictated by social conventions.
It is therefore reasonable to assume that national family
policies will undergo a further shift in emphasis. At
present, their main approach is not to prejudice the
supremely “ private ” choices made by each couple, particularly
with regard to formation or dissolution, and
therefore confine themselves to financial compensation
for the additional costs incurred by having children and
other dependents, as well as making it easier for women
to work. In future, they will have to take more account of
the well-being of couples and their children, by which I
mean putting more focus on the community, the social
entity that families are. This is the conclusion led to by
the analysis of the causes of child poverty, and of the
exclusion of older people. Tackling child poverty, and
also preventing abuse of dependent older people, are
two ills which are also symptomatic of family instability
and will lead to the range of family policies refocusing
towards new areas like :
❙ improving the standard and availability of home
care to supplement the care provided by families,
❙ providing secure employment prospects for
young adults, a key condition for forming a stable
Keynote speeches > Jérôme Vignon
21

22
partnership, and more generally cutting the number
of insecure jobs with no prospects for advancement
which are very often women’s jobs, and quality
social work to promote inclusion into society for
lone-parent families.
In the future, I see Europe putting a fresh perspective
on the purely economic goals attached to family life
in relation to other goals like those contained in the
European Charter of Fundamental Human Rights or the
International Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Not that the idea is to tip the balance away from the
economic goals towards those of socialisation. We know
that the constraints of competitiveness and growth are
unavoidable, even if the content and measure of the
latter are changing. It is more about not carrying on as
though once the economic goals are attained the rest
must follow as well. We must rid ourselves of an eitheror
view of social life, which under the pretext that the
choice of values is a personal matter for the individual
ultimately leads to placing importance only on what can
be measured in terms of increased commercial wealth.
No, when setting our social, economic and budget
priorities, we need to look for those that also help to
strengthen social and especially family ties.
So, where might the looming challenges for the European
Union and the prospects for families in Europe converge ?
Keynote speeches > Jérôme Vignon
Let me first mention the significant progress – in a way
unexpected even by COFACE – made in linking up policy
action taken by the European Union with support for
family life.
In recent years, and particularly since the great enlargement
and the perceived scale of demographic change,
the Union has drawn substantially closer if not to families
then at least family policies to become the advocate of a
new agenda linking equal opportunities, women’s access
to work and demographic renewal. This is demonstrated
by the first European Commission Communication on the
demographic challenge, followed by a series of reports on
the demographic situation published every two years to
coincide with a European family forum at which experts
and civil society, business and local government discuss
and work together on shaping a common vision on policies
that can help flank population change, and especially
to turn to account the best practices in family policies.
A new impetus was given to this convergence of EU
economic policies and national family policies in 2007
by a European Commission Communication titled
“ Promoting solidarity between generations ” which
under the German presidency launched the European
Alliance for Families. At the same time, a group of experts
on demographic issues chaired by Ms Hostasch
was set up and has gradually acquired authority through
the standard to which it has synthesized research and
national family policy practices. It is no exaggeration to
say that through these initiatives the EU is exercising a
form of constructive leadership on the renewal of family
policies which are now strongly focused on equal opportunities,
creating enabling conditions for women’s
employment, the search for new forms of partnership
between families, government and business so that a
mother or father’s choice to raise their children is not
an automatic barrier to working. Nor could I overlook,
in the same context and informed by the same vision,
the pioneering agreement negotiated by the social partners
focused on reconciling family and working life, a
template for a series of advances in the world of work,
both for protection of working mothers and for equal
opportunities between men and women in terms of a
fair balance between the tasks of each.
But there has been a price for the EU getting closer to
family policies, namely the risk that the Union sees families
as a productive resource : productive of the workforce,
productive of progeny and demographic balance,
and also productive of support services for older people
and those in difficulties.
These are not inaccurate views, but they are not the
whole story. Because families pursue goals and hold a
place in the future of society that goes far beyond these
productive tasks. These goals are more important than
ever at a time when citizenship is rendered vulnerable,
especially for economic and social reasons that beleaguer
the plight of the oldest generations as well as those
just starting out in life. Even without going beyond the
limited scope of its economic and social competences,
the Union would benefit from taking better account of
the extended family policies that attempt to support
families in fulfilling their key tasks : proper parenting,
the right of children to a quality family life, solidarity
between generations. Let me expand a little on each
of these aspects.

❙ Proper parenting. It is an established fact and
demonstrated by a very large body of research from
different social science disciplines, that children’s
long-term development, their abilities to learn and
develop responsible independence, essentially
depend on having a mother and a father around
from early childhood. Yet many parents, especially
young parents today, are unable to be there with
their child even when they feel a profound need
to do so. The EU is concerned by mainstreaming
policies to support parenthood. Firstly, through the
general encouragement it gives to geographical
and occupational mobility. European cross-border
mobility policies should encourage countries of
origin and destination countries to work together
more to foster family reunification as far as
possible, or to take separation from the family into
consideration. Future discussions on the quality of
work and job flexibility that may be inconsistent
with such quality should also take into account
more encouragement to employers to promote a
move to non-contingent employment. The EU could
also, through its pioneering role in adult education,
look more closely at the innovations represented
by help to parents of vulnerable families, families
where no-one works, families of immigrant origin
and those with challenging attitudes towards
authority and transmission systems, particularly
the role of the school, a policy of empowerment
through an introduction to self-provision activities,
and policies to tackle illiteracy. These actions,
which are now essential for social cohesion, are not
directly connected with employment and not easily
accommodated in the European typologies, yet they
predicate inclusion into the world of work.
❙ Children’s right to a quality family life. Guaranteeing
this right is largely a matter for Member States. The
Union is indirectly concerned alongside them, by
the availability of housing that is appropriate to
families’ needs and the adequacy of minimum
income systems. According to recent Eurobarometer
surveys on family well-being, inadequate housing
tops the reasons for dissatisfaction among European
households. In the past 20 years, the trend in
Europe’s housing market has been generally adverse
to households in the lowest two deciles of the
income scale. Along with soaring rents related to
energy prices, growing inequalities in the quality of
housing measured by the criteria of size, distance
and fitness for human habitation have tended to
worsen in the EU as they have in Member States.
In the context of the Europe2020 Strategy, taking
into account the assessments made by the Social
Protection Committee in 2009 as well as the results
of the Consensus Conference on Housing shortly to
be held under the auspices of the Belgian Presidency,
it would make undoubted sense for the Union to
mobilise all its capabilities, through the internal
market, regional funds and financial engineering,
in a large-scale EU-wide programme for the
rehabilitation of the most dilapidated housing and
promoting town planning and design that promotes
the well-being of families, energy conservation
and social diversity. In the same line of thinking,
by opening a new stage in the establishment of
minimum social rights consistent with the principles
of active inclusion, the EU would send a message
to Member States that would encourage them to
revisit the family benefits system which was often
designed decades ago when family risks were very
different from what they are today, to ensure that
these benefits are allocated efficiently and fairly.
❙ And finally, intergenerational solidarity. The new
risks of life – care needs, family breakdown that may
go with a drastic worsening in the quality of life and
the loss of a job – makes new and heavy preventive
demands on family solidarity to supplement
institutional solidarity. But what happens when
family solidarity has gone or not been formed ? A
statistical indicator flags up a profound change in our
societies - that of the steady rise in the proportion of
people – unattached individuals of all ages, and older
people, mostly women – living alone. The European
Commission’s latest demographic report estimates
that nearly one-third of households in Europe are
single-person households – a figure that has doubled
in half a century. That means we need to develop
new community-based networks for sociability
enlisting new forms of voluntary engagement
like mentoring and coaching and increase the
opportunities for interaction between generations
beyond the family circle proper. It may be said
that social networks that create new links already
exist on the Internet. But do they create support ?
To stay cohesive, our societies need both links
and support, which is learned through excellence
of the family setting. That is why today we need
families that are outward-looking, not turned in on
themselves, but able to generate a knock-on effect
of solidarity. Arguably, this is one of the challenges
of the European Year 2012 for which the Commission
has put forward a welcome proposal to Parliament
and Council to promote active ageing. That must be
taken to mean not only a longer working life, but also
devising new forms of intergenerational solidarity for
contacts and exchanges between those who live in
families and those who live alone. In our old Europe,
built on a tight family nucleus, we must be able to
come up with a broader understanding of the family.
Keynote speeches > Jérôme Vignon
23

24
But how in practice can the European Union’s policies
be informed by these very general considerations about
the role of families and their needs in today’s Europe ?
We must steer clear of a by-the-numbers approach here.
A Europe2020 Strategy is being implemented that includes
well-defined strategic priorities that will be regularly
evaluated. I am sure that the European Commission,
the Social Protection Committee with the flagship
project of a European Platform against exclusion, the
Employment Committee, but also the bodies for consultation
with civil society set to develop around the internal
market strategy, will find appropriate openings for
taking the conditions of a quality family life into account.
Conversely, the family associations linked together by
COFACE will get a readier hearing if they come with new
ideas validated by experience and stimulated in particular
by the very worthwhile innovation represented by
the forum launched by the Commission’s DG Research
bringing together researchers and family organisations.
Keynote speeches > Jérôme Vignon
encouragement to family organisations
I would like to conclude with a word of encouragement
to family associations and the joint work they do
in Europe, linked together by COFACE. I hope to have
helped show the extent to which that work fits into a
European context. In particular, the experience they
have developed on big-picture issues like combating
exclusion, preparing young people for life in society,
reconciling family life and working life for fathers and
mothers, is both constrained and irreplaceable; it is constrained
because it is subsidiary, since the Union’s role in
relation to family policies will always be secondary. It is
irreplaceable because this contribution, within the different
European bodies, is one of the very few with the
authority to point out that citizens do not live on material
wealth alone, but that their security and well-being
stem from their reason for living, their ability to look to
the future and to plan for it.
But conversely, and especially in the period ahead,
marked by the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty
and the application of its charter of fundamental human
rights, Europe is giving family associations in the different
nations from which they originate the opportunity
to make our membership of a community of values both
a visible and a living thing.
JéRôMe viGnon

26
eaPn Origins
❙ Established in 1990;
❙ A network of independent NGOs involved
in the fight against poverty and social exclusion
(within EU countries): from local till European level;
❙ To defend the interest of people experiencing
poverty and social exclusion in the development
of EU policies and programmes;
❙ 26 National Networks;
❙ 23 European Organisations;
❙ Emerging Networks (Latvia, Iceland, Turkey…);
❙ Receives financial support from the European
Commission (PROGRESS Programme).
need to take opportunity from a dedicated eu Year
❙ To build a real awareness of the causes of poverty
and exclusion and hence the policies; needed
for Inclusion and eradicating poverty;
❙ Not speaking about combating poverty without
speaking about wealth and redistribution as well;
❙ 2010 as European Year combating poverty
and social exclusion because of new European
strategy : Europe 2020.
Key messages
❙ No significant progress on Poverty and Social
Exclusion over the last 10 years;
❙ Growth and jobs approach hasn’t reduced poverty
and helped to widen inequality gap;
❙ Real progress depends on a new or renewed
awareness of the need to tackle inequalities
(income - wealth / access to resources,
services and decision-making).
Keynote speeches > ludo horemans
Keynote speeches
Ludo Horemans
President of the European Anti Poverty Network
lisbon strategy impact on poverty?
❙ 17% of EU population at risk of poverty
– 84 million people;
❙ No significant decrease since 2000
(15% in 2001, Old MS) :
increases in AT, BE, NL, UK and PL;
❙ Higher poverty risk faced by women (17%),
children (19%), older people (19%);
❙ Inequality gap rising – lowest gaps in SE, SL, CZ, DK,
FI, AT, LU and highest gaps in PL, LA, LI, PT;
❙ In 2006, income of richest 20% nearly 5 times higher
than income of the poorest 20%.
a right understanding of poverty
and the fight against poverty:
Poverty is a denial of fundamental rights :
❙ Poverty is mainly caused by the organisation of
our society ( economic, financial, fiscal, housing,
energy… policies);
❙ An economy at the service of people and public
interest – guaranteeing an adequate income and
achieving a fairer distribution of wealth. More equal
societies are better for everyone / growth without
fair distribution won’t deliver on poverty;
❙ Mobilising all policies – poverty cannot be solved
by social policies alone / employment
is not the only solution.
europe 2020 – a step forward?
3 priorities :
Smart growth / green growth / inclusive growth
5 headline targets :
❙ An employment rate of 75% for women and men
aged 20-64;
❙ Bringing research and development to 3% of GDP;
❙ Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20%
compared to 1990 levels;
❙ Reducing school drop-out rates to less than 10%
and increasing the share of 30-34 years old
having completed tertiary or equivalent education
to at least 40%;
❙ Reducing the risk of poverty by
“ lifting at least 20 million out of poverty by 2020 ”.
7 flagship programmes (initiatives-phares) :
❙ Flagship programme – European Platform against
Poverty : “ to ensure economic, social and territorial
cohesion, building on the current European Year
of combating poverty and social exclusion (…)
enabling people experiencing poverty and social
exclusion to live a life in dignity and take an active
part in society ”;
❙ A « transformed Social Open Method of
Coordination (OMC) » – moving beyond cooperation
and exchange to take concrete actions;
❙ Social Innovation programmes – education, training
and employment support for deprived groups / fight
discrimination»;
❙ Adequate and sustainable social protection
and pension systems and better access to health
care systems.

eu Flagship Platform on Poverty – eaPn Proposals:
1. Take a transformed (strengthened) Social OMC as the
heart of a dynamic, participative EU platform, build up
by national platforms against poverty, that deliver results.
National Level :
❙ National poverty platform / stakeholder forum
meeting 4 times a year to develop, implement and
monitor progress on a 3-year strategy. (Building on
experience of EAPN national networks !);
❙ Participants: More link to regional and local level
– local authorities and people experiencing poverty
and NGOs;
❙ Tools and budget to support meaningful
participation, with common methodology
and minimum rules;
❙ Annual Review and debate on progress
based on scoreboard review of indicators
– in National Parliaments;
❙ Poverty Proofing all policy fields,
to ensure do not undermine social goals.
Give priority to ensuring implementation as well as mutual
learning, involving NGOs and people experiencing
poverty !
Key Proposals :
❙ DG Employment and Social Protection Committee
and Ministers as driving force defending
Social Europe;
❙ EU stakeholder forum meets 3 times a year to review
progress on EU and national targets and strategies,
making recommendations to Member States and to
Council – sanctions?
❙ Key participants: Experts from national/regional
level, social partners, and EU NGOs working with
people experiencing poverty;
❙ People experiencing Poverty meetings to be
strengthened and embedded in policy process with
Round Table reviewing progress;
❙ New EU thematic clusters/group to develop
multi-annual EU strategies on key priorities:
active inclusion, child poverty, housing exclusion/
homelessness, migration and ethnic minorities,
financial exclusion, energy poverty and access to
quality services;
❙ Sustainable financing to national networks to ensure
NGO and people experiencing poverty engagement.
2. Progress on Social Standards – move towards EU
frameworks to guarantee social rights :
Build on Lisbon treaty’s enhancement of social obligations:
(enhanced social values, new horizontal social clauses,
Charter of Fundamental Rights, coordinated action on
social protection and social inclusion - Art 151 and 153).
Key Proposals :
❙ Platform should evaluate effectiveness of current
instruments;
❙ Develop road maps for developing common EU
frameworks to guarantee basic social standards
– common definitions, principles, criteria with
national application;
❙ Starting point – An EU framework directive
to guarantee an adequate minimum income
for a dignified life;
• At least at the risk of poverty threshold
(60% of median income)
• Building on Council Recommendation of 1992
and Commission Recommendation on Active
Inclusion of 2008
❙ “ Adequate income support to lead a life that is
compatible with human dignity”
❙ “ Inclusive labour markets”: “to facilitate progressive
reintegration into society”
❙ “ Access to quality services”
❙ Legal links in declarations and treaties
• Political commitment for a framework directive
• A road map to raise minimum income above
poverty threshold
3. Better financing – using EU instruments to support
rights to services, demonstration projects and better
participation/governance:
Europe 2020 will target Structural Funds to objectives/
targets but all EU financial instruments need to be
mobilised…
Key Proposals:
❙ Supporting rights to affordable universal services
– particularly in poorer regions eg energy efficient
social housing / quality childcare;
❙ Demonstration / innovative projects to support
people into inclusion (active inclusion) – back social
economy, ensure NGOs can access funding through
improved technical assistance, global grant and
pre-financing;
❙ Financing sustainable participation of
NGOs / National Networks and people experiencing
poverty – at national and EU level.
Keynote speeches > ludo horemans
27

28
3. Mainstreaming social objectives across Europe 2020,
with social impact assessment at all policy areas:
Need to ensure that social objective is mainstreamed
and not undermined by other EU policy goals and measures
i.e bottlenecks to inclusion not just growth.
Key Proposals :
❙ Review social impact assessment of all policies;
❙ Mainstream analysis of social impact of crisis and
exit strategies – especially cuts in public services;
❙ Ensure results subject of annual EP debate;
❙ Platform to make recommendations from
assessment to Council.
‘ Keynote speeches ’ > ludo horemans
conclusions:
(www.eapn.eu — publications — policy papers)
❙ Build on Social OMC to develop EU
and National Platforms on Poverty as dynamic,
visible partnerships to deliver on poverty;
❙ Shared ownership - building common solutions :
put structured dialogue involving people
experiencing poverty and NGOs at heart;
❙ Harness EU finances to deliver on rights,
demonstration inclusion projects and sustainable
financing for participation ;
❙ Political commitment/ follow up essential but EU
needs stronger enforceable instruments…
❙ Make sure the rest of Europe 2020 and other policies
don’t undermine poverty goals – starting with the
crisis!
Thank you very much !
ludo hoReMans

Workshop 3
The long road to inclusive
Europe-Progress and prospects
for people with disabilities
and care needs
Workshop 1
Family and social policies
in a changing Europe
Workshop 2
The importance of a specific
family approach to consumer
and health policy
Workshop 4
Making education
and information and
communication technologies
work for social inclusion
Workshop
29

30
Chair
Annemie Drieskens
Rapporteur
michelA costA
Video
Work-life: A Very Fine Balance (Hungary)
Expert contribution
kAtjA Forssen,
Department of Social research
University of Turku (Turku, Finland)
Katja Forssén is Professor of Social Work at the University of Turku
(Finland). She is currently working on projects researching the well-being
of families with children in Finland, social exclusion and its prevention in
early childhood, and is conducting a study on the changing relationship
between work, subsistence and social life spheres among families with
children. Her research expertise also covers social work, child protection,
marginalisation, child poverty and family policy.
Workshop 1 > family and social policies in a changing europe
Workshop 1
Family and social policies in a changing Europe
“ the role of family policies
in preventing child poverty ”
Introduction
❙ One general task of family policy system is to
guarantee well-being of families with children;
❙ Different types of family policy model can be
explained by ideological and political atmosphere
of different countries;
❙ Many studies have shown the negative association
between poverty and the development of family
policy;
❙ The better family policy system, the less poverty.
Family policy models
❙ In Walter Korpi’s family policy typology : Countries
are divided into two distinct groups, depending
on whether they support a traditional family
(male breadwinner), or whether they support
a dual earner family model.
❙ Korpi introduced 3 different existing family policy
strategies :
01. Nordic countries with implemented dual-earner
models of family policy;
02. Continental European countries and Ireland with
a general family support model, oriented towards
the keeping of traditional family patterns;
03. English-speaking countries, and Switzerland,
with market-oriented models of family policy
and less developed support on both dimensions.
❙ In his 22 – country – comparison, Jonathan
Bradshaw (2002) made an overview on how child
support packages impact the different stages
of the redistribution process. He compared the
structure of the child benefit package – including
the contribution of tax benefits, income-related
and non-income-related benefits, housing benefits,
childcare subsidies, health and education charges,
social assistance and child support.
❙ There was considerable variation in the child benefit
package by family type, number of children, and
level of earnings. Whether the comparison was
made before or after housing costs and the costs
and benefits of services also bore an impact on
the results of our study. The leader countries were
Austria, Luxembourg and Finland.
Aims of the study
❙ The aim of our study was to analyse the economic
well-being of single parent families in Europe
in 2005;
❙ To see to what extent single parents’ employment
patterns and living conditions vary across Europe;
❙ To give special attention to employment activity
and poverty;
❙ To understand how different family policy models
influence single parents’ income level and poverty
risk;
❙ To examine how strongly family type, number
of children, age of the mother and labour market
participation are connected to an increased poverty
risk of families with children.

Data
❙ The European Union Statistics on Income and Living
Conditions (EU-SILC) is an instrument aiming at
collecting timely and comparable cross-sectional
and longitudinal multidimensional micro-data
on income, poverty, social exclusion and living
conditions;
❙ We used EU-SILC data collected in 2005;
❙ We have excluded from our analysis the new 10 East-
European EU Member States. Countries included are
the following : Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Germany
(DE), Denmark (DK), Spain (ES), Finland (FI), France
(FR), Greece (GR), Ireland (IR), Iceland (IS), Italy (IT),
the Netherlands (NL), Norway (NW), Portugal (PT),
Sweden (SW) and the United Kingdom (UK);
❙ We focused only on mothers with children
under 18 years of age;
❙ The number of cases studied was 51 000
(of which 7 000 single parents).
Reliable poverty indicator
❙ EU’s semi-official poverty indicator is the 60%
of national equivalent median income threshold;
❙ Based on earlier studies our view is that the income
indicator should be supplemented by other
indicators covering more broadly the dimensions
of poverty;
❙ We used 3 indicators : income indicator
supplemented by subjective indicator
and cumulative deprivation indicator;
❙ We argue that this way the approach better
corresponds the theoretical concept of poverty;
❙ Reliable poverty : its precondition is that one has
to be counted as poor of at least two of the three
dimensions : income poverty, subjective poverty
and cumulative deprivation.
Subjective poverty
A household may have different sources
of income and more than one household member
may contribute to it. Thinking of your household’s
total monthly income is your household able
to make ends meet ?
❙ With great difficulty;
❙ With difficulty;
❙ With some difficulty;
❙ Fairly easily;
❙ Easily;
❙ Very easily.
Deprivation indicators
01. Unmet need for medical examination
or treatment, because could not afford to;
02. Unmet need for dental examination or treatment,
because could not afford to;
03. Can not afford to keep the household home
adequately warm;
04. The household can not afford to eat meat,
chicken or fish every second day, if wanted;
05. No indoor flushing toilet for sole use
of household;
06. No bath or shower in dwelling;
07. Leaking roof, damp walls/floors/foundation,
or rot in window frames or floor;
08. Doesn’t have a telephone (including mobile
phone), because cannot afford to;
09. Doesn’t have a colour TV,
because cannot afford to;
10. The household has been in arrears on mortgage
or rent payments in the last 12 months.
Workshop 1 > family and social policies in a changing europe
31

32
sArAh hibo
Femmes prévoyantes socialistes (Belgium)
www.femmesprevoyantes.be
Workshop 1 > family and social policies in a changing europe
Workshop 1
Family and social policies in a changing Europe
“ papas : Osez l’aventure ! ”
a femmes prévoyantes socialistes
information campaign on parental
leave
Femmes prévoyantes socialistes (FPS) is a left-wing
feminist movement active on health and citizenship
issues.
It links together 11 regional and over 200 local
groups, running many continuing education activities
throughout the area under French Community
responsibility.
We are a politically campaigning organisation that
runs actions and lobbies for women’s rights to
empowerment, gender equality, changing attitudes,
new social relationships, equity, and so on.
As a mutual aid movement, we also run actions
and campaign against health inequalities.
❙ We inform and educate through conferences,
studies & analysis, awareness campaigns;
❙ We prompt active engagement through seminars
and events, political demands;
❙ We run health education activities through
our family planning centres;
❙ FPS is also a network of vocational improvement
schools;
❙ We manage the compulsory insurance scheme
(health care and allowances);
❙ We also provide an additional service to members;
❙ FPS holds a 28.6% market share.
What’s the purpose of this campaign ?
❙ Women’s empowerment depends
on better gender equality;
❙ Gender equality requires men to engage
with family life;
❙ Men’s take-up of parental leave can encourage
that engagement.
The “ parental leave ” campaign comprises…
❙ An information leaflet aimed at fathers;
❙ Posters, flyers, videos;
❙ A website www.congesparentaux.be;
❙ A forum;
❙ A competition;
❙ An interregional chat.

The tools
Belgian law provides various leave schemes
for parents to cut their working hours or even
stop work temporarily with a guaranteed return
to work after the leave.
Types of leave
01. Paternity leave
❘ 10 days;
❘ To be taken within 4 months of the birth.
Compensation :
❘ First 3 days : 100% (of pay);
❘ Other 7 days : 82% (of pay).
02. Adoption leave
❘ 6 weeks;
❘ To be taken within 2 months of registering
the child with the population registry.
Compensation :
❘ First 3 days : 100% of pay;
❘ Other days : 82% of pay.
03. Parental leave
Each parent has the right to leave
for each child (under 12) of :
❘ 3 months full time;
❘ OR 6 months on half-time;
❘ OR 15 months on one-fifth time.
Compensation :
€ 666.3 / € 307.12 / € 104.2
Provided they have 12 months’ length
of service with the firm.
04. Time credit - career break
Over the whole career :
❘ One year’s complete or half-time career break;
❘ OR shorter working hours of one-fifth time
for 5 years maximum.
Compensation *:
Full-time: €407
1/2 : €158 (€187 single person)
1/5 : €97 (€159 single person with child)
* with 2 to 5 years’ length of service
Curbs
01. Stereotypes
Comparison with traditionally perceived
gender roles: the male breadwinner and female
homemaker. But yet, participation in the creation
of new roles and a new male identity help to
debunk stereotypes
02. Incomes
The gender pay gap means it is often more
profitable for the woman to be responsible for
raising the children by stopping work or cutting
her hours, BUT can choose a leave scheme where
the loss of pay is minimal
03. The employer’s attitude
❘ Replacement, less available for work etc.
❘ (culture of presenteeism)
BUT
❘ A contented man is a productive employee !
❘ A fulfilling family life translates into fulfilment
in work life and THEREFORE guarantees
improved productivity at work !
FPS’ demands
❙ Longer paternity leave. It should be compulsory
like much of the maternity leave period.
❙ Practical action by governments and the social
partners to dispel the gender bias that characterises
the current division of family roles.
❙ A parental leave policy that is designed to promote
more equality and so appeals to men, drawing on
the experiences of other countries, for example.
❙ Sufficient, easily affordable, good quality,
local childcare provision that is appropriate
to all ages from 3 months to 12 years or even
beyond for certain activities.
Workshop 1 > family and social policies in a changing europe
33

34
elvirA ménDez
Asociación Salud y familia (Spain)
www.saludyfamilia.es
“ multicultural needs and disparities
in healthcare for immigrant mothers ”
Introduction
Accessible, quality healthcare during pregnancy,
childbirth and the neonatal period is a determining
factor in the quality of daily life for mothers, babies
and families, as well as helping to temper the effects of
other hardships and psycho-social frustrations, above
all in the most vulnerable sectors of society, such as
immigrants and ethnic minorities.
Workshop 1 > family and social policies in a changing europe
Workshop 1
Family and social policies in a changing Europe
The foreign population in Catalonia, Spain, in 2009
comprised 15.9% of the total population and births to
foreign mothers have increased significantly in recent
years, currently making up 26% of live births. Fertility
rates are relatively higher amongst immigrant women
compared to those from the indigenous population.
Immigrant women suffer from considerable social and
economic disadvantages such as insufficient social
support networks, low-qualified jobs, delay in seeking
prenatal healthcare, high rates of abortion and low
use of modern contraceptives.
From a public health point of view, maternal and
reproductive health are fields which suffer from
profound disparities and many unsatisfied needs.
Immigrant mothers require specific action related
to prevention and health promotion, along with
other interventions aimed at reducing barriers
to the access and use of health services.
The Association Salud y Familia (ASF) and Hospital
Clínic de Barcelona (HCB) have been working since
2006 on an intercultural mediation programme
focusing on mothers from Latin America, China and
the Maghreb, to improve communication, dealings
and quality of care.
Purpose
During 2009 an action-investigation was carried
out with the following objectives :
❙ To learn about the perceptions held by immigrant
mothers from Latin America, the Maghreb and
China of the healthcare they have received during
pregnancy and when giving birth;
❙ To compare the perceptions held by immigrant
mothers with the perceptions held by health
workers in terms of the care given during pregnancy
and birth;
❙ To design, in conjunction with health workers,
an agenda for change, adapting maternal
healthcare services to meet the demands
and needs of mothers.
Methods
❙ Four focus groups were held, consisting
of a total of 39 mothers seen during the final stage
of pregnancy and birth in the Maternity Department
of the Hospital Clínic;
❙ The first focus group, or cultural control group,
comprised Spanish mothers; the second, Latin
American mothers; the third, mothers from the
Maghreb region; and the fourth, Chinese mothers;
❙ The HCB and ASF healthcare staff committee was
made up of health workers from the Maternal-
Foetal, Neonatal and Primary Care medical
departments.

Results
PercePtiOn
OF tHe HealtHcare sYstem
use
OF “vOice”
Spanish women Technically competent Yes, often Disconcerting
Maghrebi women Free, inclusive, competent No Very disconcerting
Latin American women Technically competent Sometimes Dissatisfaction
Chinese women No personal criteria to evaluate Never Dissatisfaction
care received
during birtH
WOmen
WitH sPecial needs
variabilitY OF advice
FrOm HealtHcare PrOFFesiOnals
OtHer PreFerences
satisFied
Spanish women Wish to receive information personally
and take part in decision making
Dissatisfied Individual rooms during hospital stays
Maghrebi women The birth is outside of their control.
Value friendliness and patience.
No personal criteria to evaluate Rooms clean and tidy
Latin American women Complaints about lack of privacy in care Moderately satisfied Hospital as a safe place
Chinese women Enter hospital in advanced stage of delivery
Value technical attention
Amongst the immigrant mothers, those who most
look for and value communication and human
attention from healthcare professionals are,
in descending order, those from Latin America,
the Maghreb and China.
The results show a marked contrast in perceptions and
expectations of the public health system, depending
on the culture of origin, although there are also some
shared perceptions about the use of health services
and the care received.
The resulting perception by immigrant mothers of
the care received during the latter part of pregnancy
and the birth itself is consistent with the perceptions
held by the health workers of the socio-cultural
characteristics and expressions of the groups of
mothers themselves.
No personal criteria to evaluate Help with breast feeding
Conclusions:
The agenda of modifications set out by HCB healthcare
staff and Salud y Familia covers the following areas :
Improving intercultural information
in the final stage of pregnancy,
during birth and on maternity wards through
❙ Information groups for immigrant pregnant women
to attend before being admitted into hospital for
the delivery;
❙ Knowing preferences as regards irreversible
contraception, which can be carried out in cases
of caesarean;
❙ Intensifying the attention received from intercultural
mediators on maternity wards;
❙ Production and distribution of interculturally
adapted leaflets about basic care of the mother
and newborn.
Improving information given
to mothers of at-risk newborns
❙ Production and distribution of interculturally
adapted leaflets about care of newborns with
special needs.
Improving the intercultural competencies
of medical and health-related staff
❙ Designing and carrying out learning workshops
to teach intercultural competencies, integrated
within the hospital’s continuous training plan.
Workshop 1 > family and social policies in a changing europe
35

36
Chair
nicolAs revenu
Rapporteur
mArtin schmAlzrieD
Video
Living on a Shoestring :
When Ends Don’t Meet (Spain / Belgium)
Expert contribution
beAtA swieckA,
Department of Banking and Comparative Finance
University of Szczecin (Szczecin, Poland)
Beata Swiecka is Associate Professor at the Department of Banking
and Comparative Finance at the University of Szczecin (Poland).
Her research interests include social inclusion, banking, e-finance,
and modern technologies in finance services.
Workshop 2
The importance of a specific family approach
to consumer and health policy
Workshop 2 > the importance of a specific family approach to consumer and health policy
“ the role of banking and financial
services in social inclusion ”
Numbers collected in August 2010 show that the total
amount of outstanding payments in Poland was worth
some 5.49 billion Euros. This makes for an 82% increase
compared to data collected in 2009.
According to the same 2010 data, 1.92 million people
were categorized as high-risk customers and the
largest recorded amount owned by one debtor was
20.62 million Euros. These facts clearly emphasize the
urgent need to tackle this and call on the different
stakeholders to take immediate steps in order to
better protect families from overindebtedness.
What are the effects of overindebtedness ?
Why and how can we defend our families
from such an alarming trend?
Overindebtedness impacts both on the economy and
on our social life. It increases unemployment, reduces
the possibility of access to employment, heightens the
sense of social marginalization, exclusion and poverty.
Overindebtedness lowers the level of professional
motivation and investment in health and social skills.
It is also the factor responsible for a low self esteem
and can cause severe social pathologies.
So what can we do about it ?
Who can protect families against
overindebtednes ?
Primary prevention activities can be achieved on three
distinct levels: at state and NGO level, through the
financial institutions and at the level of the concerned
households themselves.
How can the State and NGOs act
to protect families?
01. Financial Acts related to family protection:
❘ Bankrupcy Act;
❘ Consumer Credit Act.
02. Household financial education
They should operate mainly in the following areas :
❘ Financial planning;
❘ Ways to save even
with scarce financial resources;
❘ Basic concepts of credit;
❘ Introduction of personal financial
management subjects etc.
03. The creation of Financial Regional Advisory
Centers and other similar institutions in order
to against of overindebtedness and insolvency.
04. Policy on employment
05. Social policy
06. Social lending (microcredit) and promoting the
development of microfinance institutions.
07. Prevention of unfair practices – consumer
protection organisations and governments should
implement laws, rules, procedures to prevent
unfair practices by financial institutions and debt
collection agencies.
08. Measures affecting increase in household
savings may be implemented via increasing
awareness of the need to save.
How can the financial institutions act
to protect families?
01. Responsible lending – requires greater
involvement of financial institutions in order to
find the most suitable instrument for the client.
02. The cooperation of financial institutions with
institutions having a database of debtors
– a valuable tool in the fight against financial

insolvency is information. Information can include
unreliable clients formed in :
❘ Office of Economic Information, where you
can obtain information about the activities
of customers outside the financial sector;
❘ Credit Information Bureau of proprietary
documents in the database kept by the Polish
Bank Association;
❘ Interbank base unreliable customer.
03. The harmonisation of banking procedures for
evaluating credit scoring. The ability to repay
the loan is the starting point for the award of
each loan. Each bank has its own method of
evaluating the creditworthiness of households.
This has direct impact on the amount of the loan.
It depends on several factors :
❘ Skill (or level) the poverty;
❘ Differences in calculating the costs
of maintaining the property;
❘ Differences in the calculation of monthly
payments in respect of renewable energy
credits.
04. Financial education may take place through
advertising campaigns in the media, articles in the
press, publication of brochures, leaflets informing
about financial instruments, transmitting
important borrower and depositor information
in a simple and inspiring way.
How can families protect themselves?
01. Having a financial reserve;
02. Having financial strategy by households, or plan
in which the current decision-making takes
into account the decisions of the future. Such a
financial strategy should reflect a certain time
horizon (planning horizon), or the period of the
planning involved. The longest horizon is most
commonly associated with the transition
of members of households for retirement;
03. Having a cash budget and implementing it;
04. Investments in education, as well as in health;
05. Insurance of household members, accident,
disability, and if you do not have enough
resources, this insurance is the main breadwinner,
the person who largely bears the major
proportion of their income the cost of living;
06. Home insurance, housing insurance, etc.
07. Taking up a new job;
08. Using accumulated savings;
09. Raising a loan to repay maturing obligations;
10. Making use of welfare aid, charities, religious
organisations, trade unions;
11. Limiting purchases of food, durable goods,
the purchase of cheaper food and clothing;
12. Saving on water, gas, electricity;
13. Reducing or completely abandoning vacations;
14. Reducing spending on education, culture, sports,
services (hairdresser, laundry, cosmetics, etc.).
It is clear, that insolvency should be countered
with a long term view since short term solutions
have repeatedly failed to yield the desired results.
It is therefore necessary to address the issue
in several steps.
A model called the “ early warning of household
insolvency ” provides families with the possibility to
check the household finance before any chronic sign
of overindebtdeness kicks in and allows preventive
measures to being early enough for a maximum
reduction of the risks incurred by the family.
Conclusions
01. Overindebtedness and insolvency are the illness
of XXI century among many other societal
diseases such as obesity, diabetics;
02. State and non-government institutions,
financial institutions and households can win
the over overindebtedness and insolvency;
03. Insolvency should be countered with a long term
view. Sporadic activities and short term solutions
will not bring the desired results;
04. Preventive measures should begin at the earliest
time possible. One of the main methods to
counter the phenomenon of overindebtedness
in the long term should be activities pertaining
to the education of children in their initial phase
of learning. Not only in secondary schools, as is
the current practice, but also in the kindergarten
and primary school;
05. Actions aiming at decreasing financial exclusion
and increasing financial education should be
more intensive. Financial assistance schemes
should be given a priority, taking into account
the fact that costs arising from financial exclusion
exceed those invested in education;
06. The early warning model gives the possibility
to families to check their financial situation long
before the appearance of the first insolvency
symptoms.
Workshop 2 > the importance of a specific family approach to consumer and health policy
37

38
christel verhAs
Gezinsbond (Belgium)
www.gezinsbond.be
” the child norm : a family approach
to consumer protection policy ”
The Belgian COFACE Member, Gezinsbond, strives for
a ‘family and child friendly’ society, flourishing social
life at local level, family oriented services and takes
political action on behalf of families.
The Gezinsbond stands for a more child and family
friendly society which means to provide financial
benefits and material support, attain a satisfactory
combination of working life with family duties, get
adequate protection against new social risks, enjoy a
safe and healthy environment to live in and guarantee
an equitable family law and accessible education
system for all families.
Consumer protection is an integral part of family
policies. The Flemish League of Families acts as a
platform that provides several services to its member
organisations like social-legal advising, sensibilisation
and information activities (healthy breakfast, safe
online, energy coaching etc.), price reductions, family
policy positioning or possibilities to participate in
advisory (housing, consumers, media etc.) councils.
Moreover, the Gezinsbond dedicates special attention
to programmes concerning children and youth,
and bases its vision based on the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child.
Workshop 2
The importance of a specific family approach
to consumer and health policy
Workshop 2 > the importance of a specific family approach to consumer and health policy
Minors have same rights as adults although they don’t
vote. they therefore have no political representation.
At the same time as underage people have big impact
on household spending they represent a special
target group for companies and publicity. Since
minors are easily influenced by these market actors,
the Gezinsbond advocates for the protection of this
vulnerable group as a priority.
Why do we need a child norm ?
❙ Concern about the influence of environmental
contamination on our health via air (outdoor
and indoor), food, drinking water and consumer
products.
❙ Individual consumers can not influence the quality
of air, food and water. Standards are now based
on adults, not children.
❙ Children are a vulnerable group, because pollutants
or unsafe products have a bigger impact on their
development.
❙ Pollution and dangerous elements in consumer
goods are responsible for over 80 contemporary
diseases (asthma, allergies, cancer, obesities,
infertility…)
❙ Challenge is to limit these new diseases as much as
possible, with a focus on prevention.
❙ The child norm expresses a long term vision.
The idea is based on the precautionary principle.
❙ Environmental standards and product standards
should be based on children (and not adults)
to prevent damage to their developing bodies
and to prevent endanger health and functioning
of future generations.
❙ Cumulating and long term effects need more
investigation.
❙ Standardisation should take into account the way
of development of children to prevent illness
(as child or at later stage).
❙ Society has to take up her responsibility and cannot
wait until the effects are scientifically measurable.
Gezinsbond concludes by saying that A better
quality of life for children means a‘design for all’ ! ! !
And that we have to act now.

chAntAl vAn Den bossche,
WECF (The Netherlands)
www.wecf.eu
“ Wecf project nesting :
a healthy Start in life: protecting
children from hazardous chemicals ”
Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF) is an
international network gathering over 100 women’s,
environmental and health organisations implementing
projects in 40 countries and advocating globally for
a healthy environment. It has offices in Germany,
The Netherlands and France where 40 employees,
mainly women, contribute to the daily activities
of the organisation.
WECF is passionate about issues which pertain to
the provision of a healthy environment for everyone.
WECF concentrate on five thematic areas: energy and
climate, water and sanitation, chemicals and health,
biodiversity and food as well as gender and rights.
The project work in these five key areas brings about
safe ecological solutions to local problems, which are
then later advocated at international political level.
Studies indicate that nowadays not only chemicals
or substances are important, but also the timing of
the exposure. This exposure to certain chemicals and
substances during early foetal development can easily
cause brain injury. Accordingly, scientific knowledge
regarding the causes of learning and developmental
disorders implies an ethical duty and responsibility
to act now in order to protect children’s health and
well-being.
The WECF has developed a successful initiative called
Nesting. This initiative aims to help future parents
create healthy and safe surroundings for their babies
and to raise awareness on the hazards of toxic
chemicals.
Nesting’s innovative website, available in eight
languages so far, provides useful details and ideas
for future parents on how to create a healthy indoor
environment for their babies avoiding dangerous
chemicals or harmful habits. Nesting has created an
international network that not only offers practical
ideas but advocates at political level as well.
WECF is going to continue to look for more effective
ways of lobbying and advocating for healthy
environment and products. It is constantly monitoring
international programmes like REACH (the European
Union Regulation on chemical and their safe use or the
World Health Organization’s Children’s Environment
and Health Action Plan for Europe), a policy document
that highlights the need to consider the particular
vulnerabilities of children in the development of
environmental health policies.
nicolAs revenu,
Union nationale des associations familiales – UNAF (France)
www.unaf.fr
“ Better financial inclusion
to prevent over-indebtedness ”
The European institutions have found evidence
of wide disparities in access to financial services
and are now making the link between financial
inclusion and social inclusion.
In France, family associations are running a growing
number of schemes in the fields of education and
microcredit in particular.
Education
❙ The need for education is widely recognised;
❙ Financial literacy is not the same as budgeting
education;
❙ Budgeting without over-spending :
a highly successful campaign;
❙ The content of the European CD-ROM
is coordinated by UNAF;
❙ An action to be put into effect and developed
through links with other budgeting education
activities and to provide tools to our associations.
Microcredit
❙ Personal microcredit, an extension
of business microcredit;
❙ The scheme developed in France
by several voluntary community networks;
❙ The UDAF network;
❙ Social support, key to the scheme;
❙ Microcredit, education and action
on debt problems.
Workshop 2 > the importance of a specific family approach to consumer and health policy
39

40
Chair
AnnA mAriA comito
Rapporteur
michelA costA
Video
The Invisible Handicap :
Portrait of A Family Carer (France)
Expert contribution
cArlottA besozzi
EDF Director
European Disability Forum (Brussels, Belgium)
Carlotta Besozzi is Director of the European Disability Forum (Brussels).
She is currently is on sabbatical leave until 31 December 2011
and is replaced by Javier Güemes.
“ challenges and Opportunities
for persons with disabilities
and their families in the eu ”
EDF represents the diversity of persons with
disabilities in Europe, as well as their families, in
particular for those that cannot represent themselves.
We are present in all EU member States, Norway,
Iceland, Serbia, Albania, and FYR Macedonia
We also have as full member representatives from
the different groups of persons with disabilities;
physical, sensory, intellectual, psychosocial,
autism or multiple disabilities.
Workshop 3
The long road to inclusive Europe-Progress
and prospects for people with disabilities and care needs
Our main mission is to ensure equal opportunities
and human rights for the 65 million persons with
disabilities in Europe.
Our main challenge and opportunity is the
understanding and implementation on the UN
Convention on the Rghts of Persons with Disabilities
(CRPD).
CRPD recognises the unique value and contribution
that all persons with disabilities can bring to the
human society. It brings a paradigm shift in the way
persons with disabilities, including those requiring
a high degree of support.
The CRPD brings disability issues at the core of the
human rights, whether civil political economic cultural
or social. It changes not only the other’s perspectives
to persons with disabilities but also our own
perspective. We need also as organisations
to build and revise our work on that foundation.
The most striking article is equal recognition before
the law. Persons with disabilities do not only have
legal capacity, but the capacity to act in all legal and
financial matters. We cannot take away that capacity,
to transfer it to a guardian, but we can only institute
a system of support.
In its preamble, the CRPD speaks of families by saying
that :
“ Family is the natural and fundamental group unit
of society and is entitled to protection by society
and the State, and that persons with disabilities and
their family members should receive the necessary
protection and assistance to enable families to
contribute towards the full and equal enjoyment
of the rights of persons with disabilities ”
Workshop 3 > the long road to inclusive europe-progress and prospects for people with disabilities and care needs
However there is no article of families of disabled
people, but on the right of persons with disabilities
to have their own family. Also support to families
is indicated, but more as a negative right in terms
of prevention of violence against persons with
disabilities.
Of course the CRPD is about individual rights, is about
bringing persons with disabilities at the core of the
equation. But it also allows us to understand that
if you provide support to persons with disabilities,
you also indirectly provide support to families, while
if you just provide support to families, you may not
ensure independent living and choice for persons
with disabilities.
EDF is working together with its members on promoting
the needs of persons with complex dependency needs
as we called this group in EDF, and try to understand the
changes that the CRPD has brought.
How do we define this group ?
❙ They have severe disability;
❙ They need a high level of support
to live as independently as possible;
❙ They need intensive habilitation-programs if
they are borne with the disability – or intensive
rehabilitation-programs if they become disabled
later in life e.g. a severe acquired brain injury;
❙ They have a disability that affects all aspects of life.
As a consequence, these persons need an ongoing,
individual support in all their daily lives. This support
can be provided through a personal assistant or
technological equipment, depending on individual
needs. For these persons, the respect of their inherent
value and dignity is the crucial issue to be put forward.

The lack of adequate support in society and people
who require more support come of course paired
with the result of further discrimination.
Families of persons with disabilities are also
discriminated against because of the lack of availability
of support that often obliges them to provide
themselves such lifelong support. Also this situation
prevents persons to live independently and to develop
an adult life.
Examples of support
which is needed can be as follows
❙ Personal assistants / support in daily activities
not replacing persons will and decisions;
❙ Assistive technology devices;
❙ Accessibility as understood in a wider meaning :
eg visual orientation picture, training of staff
in transport, police, etc;
❙ Community based services;
❙ Skilled and well paid staff with fundamental
rights training;
❙ The possibility to live in small housing
supported settings;
❙ Ensuring adequate financial income.
There are of course also a number of measures that
should be directed to families : such as training parents
and siblings, the right to respite care, financial support
when persons with disabilities are minors, possibilities
to take paid leave from work; additional holidays,
flexible working arrangements.
Interestingly, one of the two court rulings the
European Court of Justice on the implementation
of the EU directive on employment discrimination
dealing with disability has recognised the existence
of discrimination by association.
If the directive on equal treatment currently
in negotiations is adopted it may codify this principle
in legislation.
There are a number of legislative measures granting
rights to passengers with disabilities in Europe that do
bring as a result further rights to families. If a directive
on non discrimination to goods and services is
adopted, it will also provide indirectly further access
to families that include a person with disabilities
who are often limited in their own access as a result.
We should also consider possibilities for legislation
on e-accessibility.
EDF also works on the development of the Europe
2020 Strategy. This strategy should include targets on
employment and inclusion of persons with disabilities,
since we know that persons with disabilities and their
families have been hit hard by the crisis.
Adequate income and access to employment should
be ensured with positive actions and the issue of
disability must be fully mainstreamed. Hence, a new
disability strategy is being discussed until 2020. We
need a strong commitment of all EU institutions and
national governments to bring concrete change in
the daily lives of persons with disabilities and their
families. This is why EDF calls for a Council decision.
EDF also calls for
❙ Increased efforts in development and use of
statistical data, and indicators, including through
a scoreboard or equivalent, which will also foster
peer review and exchange;
❙ Gender dimension of disability as a cross-cutting
priority in the strategy;
❙ EU institutions leading by example: promoting
the employment of persons with disabilities,
improving accessibility of physical infrastructure
and information, mainstreaming of disability in the
respective institution budgets, the training of staff
in disability awareness, accessibility and disability
budgeting etc;
❙ Impact assessment mechanism;
❙ Non discrimination: review of directive on
equal treatment to the work place and study
to put in place article 10 of the Treaty (equality
mainstreaming clause);
❙ Design for all in internal market and research,
actions to implement legislation in transport,
development of legislation in ICT, accessibility
mainstreamed in trans-European network,
enhanced standardisation, and development
of a market on assistive technology;
❙ Implementation of European employment strategy-
support for EP target on employment;
❙ Mobility card;
❙ Access to mobility and education/training
programmes for persons with disabilities;
❙ Mainstreaming of disability in the social protection /
anti-poverty strategy and flagship of Europe 2020;
❙ Structural funds – improve and enforce access and
non discrimination for persons with disabilities.
Workshop 3 > the long road to inclusive europe-progress and prospects for people with disabilities and care needs
41

42
jesús m. roDrigo
Confederación española de familiares de enfermos
de Alzheimer y otras demencias – CEAFA (Spain)
www.ceafa.es
Workshop 3
The long road to inclusive Europe-Progress
and prospects for people with disabilities and care needs
“ progress and prospects for people
with disabilities and care needs ”
Family organisations representing dependent
people are the authorised voices to claim
their rights, awareness society and raise solidarity
from governments.
Because families are the primary party affected by
dependence they thus, consequently, know better
how to address dependency-related problems and
how to create a path towards “ the solution ”.
Those organisations must demonstrate
❙ Seriousness and solvency;
❙ Professional path;
❙ Transparency in management;
❙ Quality in action;
❙ And must pursue the establishment
of public and private synergies to develop
their working programme.
Only in this way, can these organisations play
their role as privileged advisers before their
respective national governments.
The Confederación española de familiares de enfermos
de Alzheimer y otras demencias (CEAFA) represents
the needs of 200.000 associated families and,
indirectly that of 3,5 million people in Spain.
We have sustained a continuous collaboration
with the Spanish government, but never forgot
our role as watchdog.
Workshop 3 > the long road to inclusive europe-progress and prospects for people with disabilities and care needs
CEAFA has been the government’s advisor in the
drafting of the Dependence Law articles. Thank to this,
the Law considers the “ Third Sector ” and particularly
family organisations as an active partner in processes
oriented to meet the needs of dependent people.
Nowadays, CEAFA is working to convince the Spanish
national government to adopt an Alzheimer’s
National Policy. Our participation in the International
Entities grants us a privileged position to raise the
government’s awareness about the need to apply
European Policies at a National Level.
Recommendations
❙ Family organisations must make the effort
to demonstrate their solvency, seriousness
and transparency;
❙ These organisations must act with their national
governments as an active and helpful partner,
without forgetting it’s role as a watchdog and
warrant to the rights of people with special
care needs;
❙ In the framework of such collaboration,
they must demonstrate to their governments
the need to adopt and implement inclusive policies
around family-related themes.
So in conclusion, we should seek to be seen
not only as demanding organisations…
BUT as “ constructive organisations ” ! ! !

FiAmmettA bAsuyAu
Association des paralysés de France
– APF (France) www.apf.asso.fr
“ disability, illness, care needs :
a family affair ”
A person who develops care needs finds themselves
in a particularly vulnerable situation and in need of
appropriate support, which is mainly provided by
the family more from duty than choice. As a result,
an entire family finds itself at risk of exclusion due
to the state’s failure to cater to its most vulnerable
citizens. Today, we shall be looking more specifically
at good practices by family organisations to support
these informal family carers, what things can offer the
prospect of ensuring all families of the most fulfilling
possible quality of life, including where dependency
issues arise, and where the family is drawn into the role
of informal carer for one of its members.
What we have to say obviously ties into the context
of the current EU policy approach with the shift
from a policy of institutional care to one of care in
the community. This context gives an even more
fundamental dimension to family carers who are
required to do much more for the care-needer.
Balancing carers’ family and working lives, their needs
for respite, time, support, training and information are all
things that must be mainstreamed across public policies
for this care in the community policy to really work.
Aliette gAmbrelle
Union nationale des associations de parents,
de personnes handicapées mentales et de leurs amis
– UNAPEI (France) www.unapei.org
Our two associations
the Association des Paralysés de France (APF) and
the Union nationale des associations de parents, de
personnes handicapées mentales et de leurs amis
(UNAPEI) – have since the very beginning consistently
worked actively with others to assert the inalienable
rights of people with disabilities and their families.
This common goal, beyond the differences between
our associations, has led us to discuss, demand,
propose, and pool our experiences by taking a crosscutting
approach to the issues around disability and
care needs.
APF is a national association founded in 1933 by four
young people with mobility impairments who were
disgusted at the exclusion they suffered. They set up
what is a campaigning organisation that also runs
community health services and facilities based on a
charter and a shared social care aim. Our association,
although originally created by persons with a disability
to demand their full participation in society, has also
sought to give a proper place to the family in the
broad sense of kith and kin. Giving recognition to the
rights of a person with disabilities also means giving
recognition to the rights of their relatives and close
circle. Consequently, giving recognition to the needs
of a care-needer must necessarily include recognition
of the needs of their family and making the necessary
responses to address those needs.
UNAPEI is the main federation of French associations
providing representation and advocacy for people
with learning disabilities and their families. Founded in
1960, it links together 600 associations of parents and
disabled people acting to ensure that any person with
a learning disability can find residential and support
provision and be included in society. 60 000 families
are members of UNAPEI associations, and 180 000
people with learning disabilities are receiving care
and support through 3000 community health services
and facilities and 75 000 professionals.
Statutory provision for families
with a care-needing member
The good practices written into our family policies
are the outcome of forceful advocacy work by
the voluntary community. The long-demanded
recognition for family carers of persons with
disabilities was finally legally entrenched in the People
with Disabilities (Equal Rights and Opportunities,
Participation and Citizenship) Act No. 2005-102 of
11 February 2005 which provides training for carers
who can benefit from the Credit for Experience (VAE)
scheme with a view to returning to work. The Family
Conference which followed in 2006 recommended
that family carers be given vital help through support
and training measures, and respite provision to give
them a breather.
The Act also introduced a new disability benefit
– the PCH independent living allowance – and
compensation for family carers based on an
assessment of attendance needs related to the severity
of the disability, and other forms of financial support
called the “ education allowance for disabled children ”
(AEEH) of an amount varying with actual costs and
the restrictions on parents’ working ability due to
the disability. Finally, the old age insurance for nonworking
parents scheme gives carers means-tested
pension benefits.
Workshop 3 > the long road to inclusive europe-progress and prospects for people with disabilities and care needs
43

44
As a result, a free online Family Carer’s Guide was
produced, offering practical and near-complete
information on the rights of non-professional family
carers and their care-needing relative and details of
where to turn to for help. The guide tells them about
opportunities for securing recognition and credit for
the skills acquired by performing caregiving tasks
with a view to possibly returning to work.
Unfortunately, this tool is not much known to families
affected by care needs and so is under-used.
Not everyone has Internet access and can print out
the 174 page guide !
Equally unfortunately, it offers users the prospect of
a range of solutions and answers to their questions
which in reality are betrayed, for family carers very
often have to deal with a mountain of paperwork,
unconscionable delays in processing applications, little
or no hope of the care-needer’s needs being met so
as to enable them to plan a future life, and obviously
no respite solution for the carer who may need to cut
their working hours or even stop work altogether.
There is also a family support leave for informal carers
who are in formal employment and want or have to
care for a close relative with a disability or particularly
high-level care needs. This is for a period of 3 months
but cannot exceed one year over a working life. It is
unpaid, but subject to meeting certain conditions, the
leave-taking carer can be paid by the care-receiver
themselves. The advantage of this leave is that it
enables carers to preserve their pension rights and be
guaranteed a return to work.
This measure introduced into labour law is certainly
a step forward, but the caveat is that by its nature
it relates only to persons in employment, assumes
that the carer can forego their salary for a period of
months, and could harm the career development
opportunities of the person who takes it.
Temporary residential stays were introduced in 2002
as provision to help both care-receivers and family
carers; it is for people who have care needs due to
a disability or an age-related disease. It is a stay in a
purpose-designed facility for a break and respite to
which all persons with care needs are entitled.
From associations to inter-associations
An online information system known as SARAH
developed by the GRATH (task force and network
on temporary residential stays for persons with
disabilities) enables those concerned to search online
for a respite place and facility managers to show
their place availability if they wish. The law requires
all nursing homes to reserve a number of places for
respite care limited for any one person to 90 days
per year.
Here again, the practical value of this provision
has to be qualified: not all facilities make respite
provision, considering it to be more complicated to
organise than a permanent residential stay. But to
be worthwhile, temporary residential stay provision
must be local provision accessible to everyone
nationwide.
Workshop 3 > the long road to inclusive europe-progress and prospects for people with disabilities and care needs
In 2003, APF’s National Parents Group (GNP) produced
a video documentary titled “ The time it takes ” on
the reality of what working mothers and fathers do
for their non-adult or adult child with a disability
or multiple disabilities. This awareness-raising
document shows the various kinds of time needed for
families to cater to their children’s needs (mealtimes,
communication, recreation, toileting, help with
homework, etc.) and shows the importance of them
being present and watchful, and their real technical
skills. It shows the impact this help-giving has on
siblings and the quality of family life.
Then, in October 2005, the same group published a
booklet entitled “ Guide to family needs ” defining
what carers are and listing their different needs. And
finally in 2006 a “ Guide to what parents want and
demand for their non-adult or adult child ” was
published focusing on families’ abilities and the need
for a partnership with professional carers. These tools
were developed after consultation with many families
during the APF’s national parents’ days.
From 2004, APF started to take this thinking on the
need for support for family carers to a number of
associations, including those that give a voice to
families of people with care needs regardless of the
care-needer’s origin or age. This led to the creation of
an inter-association coalition for help to family carers
– CIAAF – which as stated previously had an active say
in the decisions of the 2006 Family Conference with
the assistance of Union Nationale des associations
familiales (UNAF). CIAAF is taking its advocacy work
forward today with the development of information
resource sheets setting out the measures that need to
be implemented to address family carers’ needs. APF
and UNAPEI are actively involved in this work.

AIDER
Given recognition by a prefectoral order dated 4 March
2009, the social and community health coalition
Groupement de Coopération Sociale et Médico-sociale
(GCSMS), Actions pour l’Information, le Développement
et les Études sur les Relais aux aidants (AIDER) links seven
members brought together by GRATH with the aim of
promoting the development of replacement solutions
for carers, sharing knowledge and skills, pooling
resources, supporting trial schemes and stimulating
social innovation, as well as fostering local synergies.
From inter-association movement
to the European movement
At European level, COFACE HANDICAP 1 , an
organisation which links together associations of
families of people with disabilities, provided the
setting for a working group of associations from
France (APF, UNAPEI, UNAFTC), Belgium, Italy,
Luxembourg, Portugal, etc. to identify the various
measures established in Europe for family carers,
agree on a common definition of a family carer and
determine the nature of the help provided by families.
This work enabled COFACE-HANDICAP to frame a
European Charter for Family Carers.
From 2010 to 2012, associations from France, Belgium,
Luxembourg, Cyprus, Spain, Slovakia, Ireland and Italy
will be working together under the EU’s GRuNDTVIG
programme for adult education on how family carers
see their role to train them in self-assessment designed
to enable them to preserve their own health, avoid
burnout and preserve the quality of life of all family
members. UNAPEI is coordinating this European project.
1) A daughter association of COFACE – the Confederation of Family
Organisations in the European Union
Conclusion…
The key objectives of the demands
It is important to say that to enable families coping
with a child with complex care needs to avoid burnout
and balance all aspects of their lives without foregoing
their working life or leisure time the support provision
must be organised on the basis of five principles :
01. An early response to prevent a worsening
of the disability;
02. Close-to-home provision attuned to how ordinary
life is organised so as to enable social inclusion;
03. Flexibility to ensure a truly free choice by a range
of services – day care, temporary stay, emergency
intake and permanent residential stay;
04. Continuity to provide security in life;
05. Quality, without which parents/carers will not
entrust the care of their child to anyone else.
The aim of inclusion for persons with a disability,
therefore, cannot be developed outside
of the family dimension.
Workshop 3 > the long road to inclusive europe-progress and prospects for people with disabilities and care needs
45

46
Chair
Anne AlitolppA-niitAmo
Rapporteur
mArtin schmAlzrieD
Video
Migration, Education, Integration:
A 3-step Plan (Finland)
Expert contribution
ellen helsper
Department of Media and Communications
London School of Economics and Political Science
(London, UK)
Ellen Helsper is a Lecturer in Media and Communications
at the Department of Media and Communications, London School
of Economics and Political Science. Her primary research interest is the
role of new media in the everyday life of disadvantaged social groups,
and understanding the links between digital and social exclusion.
In addition, she continues to work on the role of digital media in people’s
everyday social and personal relationships, and has recently published
on agreement about acceptable behaviour and surveillance between
partners and the gendered use of the internet across generations
and life stages.
Workshop 4
Making education and information
and communication technologies work for social inclusion
“ the role of media and nict
as social integrators ”
--- Level of digital inclusion ---
Deep exclusion Deep inclusion
Deep exclusion
Social environnement :
Family
Friends
Social activities
Socio-cultural
background :
Ethnicity
Gender
Generation
Socio-
economic
spheres
Individual characteristics :
Personality
Well-being
Workshop 4 > making education and information and communication technologies work for social inclusion
2009, R2 = 0.94
2007, R2 = 0.89
2003, R2 = 0.94
2005, R2 = 0.91
Deep inclusion
--- Level of social inclusion ---
Economic statuts :
Education
Income
Occupation
Access
skills
Attitudes
Relevance
Value
Sustainability
Social :
Communication
Networking
Civic engagement
Cultural :
News
Cultural participation
Digital
engagement
spheres
Individual :
Entertaiment
Leisure
Economic :
Learning
Shopping
Services

Informal learning
Fact checking
Formal learning
Informal learning
Fact checking
Formal learning
Home access**
Children
Women**
Home access*
Children**
Women*
Home access*
Children
Women
Self-efficacy**
Attitudes towards ICTs*
Self-efficacy**
Attitudes towards ICTs*
Self-efficacy**
Attitudes towards ICTs*
33%
35%
36%
38%
39%
37%
33%
38%
35%
43%
39%
46%
46%
42%
42%
47%
45%
50%
51%
51%
54%
55%
70%
72%
85%
85%
87%
97%
96%
95%
96%
96%
94%
97%
95%
0% 20% 40%
60% 80% 100%
% of adult users
1 2 3
3,1
3,1
3,4
3,3 3,5
3,5
3,6
3,3
3,4
3,5
3,5
3,3
3,2
3,4
3,3 3,6
3,4 3,6
4,3
4,1
4,3
4,0
4,2
4,1
4 5
100%
Social support
“ You’re like isolated, aren’t ya ? Isolated. Whether you
want to use your email or whether you want to use
your mobile that’s how people intend to contact you
now. So like they send it through email or they want
to phone you so, uhm, you haven’t got Internet access
you are going to be waiting for a letter ”
(limited user, father ).
“ I think with colleagues within our daily community,
whether it’s work, university, we do exchange
information. There are applications that I know more
about than someone else knows, but other things,
we do exchange information between ourselves. ”
(Intense user, father)
(Helsper & Godoy, forthcoming)
Conclusions
❙ Digital exclusion is strongly linked to traditional
deprivation. The question is whether the cycle
can be broken;
❙ Media and ICTs are more than just technologies
or tools: they are links to the wider world
and proxy users and support networks
are incredibly important;
❙ Family is the place where opportunities are created
and habits are formed (socialisation is key also
for ICTs) – the home is important for ICT skilling
and networking;
❙ Just like social exclusion is varied and complex
so is its relationship with digital exclusion.
Workshop 4 > making education and information and communication technologies work for social inclusion
47

48
Dimitrios stAmoulis
Supreme Confederation of Multichild Parents
of Greece – ASPE (Greece)
www.aspe.gr
Workshop 4
Making education and information
and communication technologies work for social inclusion
“ Safer internet : the case of aSpe ”
Profile of ASPE
The Supreme Confederation of Large Families’
Associations of Greece (ASPE) is a non-profit,
non-governmental organisation founded under
the Greek Law in 1931, to undertake :
a. The representation of the Large
(four or more children) Families in Greece;
b. The study and the promotion of their needs
and demands;
c. The looking after of their material
and non-material interests as well as;
d. The support of the concept and the institution
of family in society.
Members
❙ 110 Family Associations of Multi-Child
(4 or more children) Families in Greece.
Represents
❙ 180.000 families;
❙ 1.200.000 persons – adults and children.
Member of
❙ COFACE – the Confederation of Family Organisations
in the EU;
❙ ELFAC – the European Large Families Confederation;
❙ EUROPEAN NETWORK OF VOLUNTARY
Organisations.
Workshop 4 > making education and information and communication technologies work for social inclusion
As part of our information services to our members,
we try to disseminate information vital for parents
such as health and nutritional issues, legal rights
and advice on protection of family, parenthood,
motherhood, children etc.
In this context, we have decided since 2008 that
Internet can be a potential source of threat for
children. Therefore, we are implementing strategies
to pass this message to our members : both member
organisations of the Confederation as well as our
end members, the multi-child parents we represent.
Why safer Internet ?
❙ Awareness raising
Objective : to incentivise our members
to start coming in touch with the issue.
Methods of action : use of all the communication
channels available for information pushing
to our members.
❙ Hands-on experience
Objective : to provide parents with the necessary
skills to manage a PC and the appropriate tools
for protecting their children.
Methods of action : training offerings.

EPA, the Athenian Association
of Multi-Child Parents
❙ Set up a computer lab to offer free training
for acquisition of the basic PC skills;
❙ Offered free training and preparation
for the basic level of ECDL examination;
❙ Aims at providing Safer Internet specific training
sessions for free, if possible, depending
on available funding.
EPA also cooperates with The Greek Awareness Centre
via their website (Saferinternet.gr) to ensure that their
bimonthly newsletter includes a relevant article.
A Conference in Athens was organised in 19.09.2009, in
view of the assembly of the new European Parliament :
‘ FAMILY WITH CHILDREN : THE EUROPEAN POLITICAL
DIALOGUE ’ informing the Greek MEPs about family
issues at the European political level, including
Safer Internet.
❙ Lobbying to political decision making bodies
(for example) :
– Prague Declaration ‘Safer Internet for Children’ :
Eu Ministerial Conference, 20th of April, 2009
– 7 Eu Member States have failed to sign the
Council of Europe convention dealing with
this issue and 8 have failed to ratify the voluntary
protocol on the UN convention on the Rights
of the Child regarding the exploitation of children,
child prostitution and child pornography.
Awareness raising
using all available communication channels
❙ Quarterly magazine.
Relevant articles
❙ TV broadcasts.
Special guests
❙ On the European Day of Safer Internet, yearly.
Issue of a Press release
Conduct interviews
❙ Confederation’s Website.
Next steps
❙ Translate COFACE’s position paper on Safer Internet
in Greek and disseminate it;
❙ Use this position paper as the basis for the issues
to be discussed with the Greek authorities;
❙ Seek funding to organise more events;
❙ Pursue more opportunities for providing hands-on
experience for parents.
Workshop 4 > making education and information and communication technologies work for social inclusion
49

50
mArie De blic
Confédération nationale des associations familiales
– CNAFC (France)
www.afc-france.org
“ Seeing that the new information
technologies do not produce
social exclusion ”
Without proper training for adults and parents, and
education of children and young people, the new
information technologies will not only not promote
social inclusion but will produce social exclusion !
These new technologies have the remarkable ability
to ease many people’s daily lives : getting information
quickly, easing travel arrangements, etc., creating and
maintaining social networks, including for people
with restricted mobility (sick, disabled or in prison)
or people on their own for any reason at all.
The risk has been raised of a “ digital divide ”,
the potential de facto exclusion of many families or
individuals. But it is not an exclusion brought about
by lacking the money to buy things! Rather, it stems
from the ability to cope with things which require skills
to use that not everyone has ! As a family association,
we have chosen to focus on two groups.
Workshop 4
Making education and information
and communication technologies work for social inclusion
What we do for “ savvy ” families
All across France, but also in for the last year
in Belgium and some French communities abroad,
over 600 parent groups, which we call Education
Support Groups, have been holding regular meetings
on educated parenting for daily life: things like
managing the family computer, mobile phones
in the home, and new technologies. Each month,
group leaders prepare the discussion topic for the
next meeting using the resource material we supply,
and draw up a questionnaire that is sent out to the
families in the group so that parents can talk it
over together before the meeting…
That questionnaire is not sent out afterwards to
teachers or relationship counsellors. The aim is
just to help families think about the reality of their
family life, how they want their lives together to be,
what is difficult and could be improved. They will
find their own answers. But it helps to talk things
over with others, and this is where the two-hour
monthly Education Support Group meetings come
in. They comprise up to a dozen parents – the same
throughout the school year to build confidence –
and a facilitator to ensure that everyone gets
a chance to speak, and to offer some food for thought :
each parent will find their own solution in line
with their upbringing choices.
Workshop 4 > making education and information and communication technologies work for social inclusion
Alongside these meetings, we offer families a media
training day 1 , lectures and articles on these topics in
our national magazine, with advice : e.g., set time limits
(a few hours a week, don’t let them go on Facebook
too young (arguably not needed and dangerous for
pre-teens), explaining why you should protect privacy,
limit the number of photos posted, set their page with
them and don’t allow too many friends, teach them
how to cut off a conversation in chat rooms, to say no,
talk with them frequently, be aware of the dangers of
“ over-communication ” in the teenage years (distorted
self-image, narcissism, pseudo-friendships, timewasting,
exhibitionism, voyeurism, superficiality, etc.).
But all this rests on proactive families who choose
to take the time to educate and protect their children.
When difficulties arise, they are not on their own
in dealing with them and getting help.
And for “ non-savvy ” families…
But there are also families who struggle with literacy
(reading or writing), with speaking the country’s main
language, who struggle to get their heads around
the combined knowledge that new technologies
require 2 , or with abstract thought… For such families,
the obstacles to be overcome in “ getting and staying
online ” require skills too far removed from their
ordinary abilities.
There are also families whose children are way ahead
of them technically or educationally : young people
who set their own “ rules ” because they have the
knowledge, parents who no longer feel able to keep
control over their children’s time…

There are families who have never learned to talk to one
another, to take the time to say things to each other, to
take an interest in what one another are doing…
These families are very vulnerable to the downside of
new technologies. Those who spend endless nighttime
hours on networking games or in chat rooms
are at direct risk of self-exclusion. An imbalance in
relationships can easily take hold : reams of Facebook
“ friends ” but no-one to confide in, no-one to offer
friendly, disinterested support in difficult times,
immense emotional loneliness. Not to mention the
addiction that ends up with some eating nothing more
than a sandwich at the computer and dropping out…
Society must offer them some protection : it is for
these families that we also campaign. What do we do ?
We take part in the Internet Rights Forum (FDI) and the
Interassociation Alliance for Media Education (CIEM).
We respond to European Commission consultations on
the matter as part of its “ Safer Internet ” Programme 3 .
Through our publications and in a regular TV show
we give families advice on things like problem-free
ways to switch ISP or phone company, choosing
and changing contracts, what to do about spam,
the TV, etc.
But we must not overlook protection by law :
considering how easy it is to access shocking, violent
or pornographic images, we have chosen to support
families who want to bring court challenges against
publications that do serious harm to young people
or offend sound common sense 4 . This watchdog
and “ control ” activity aims to ensure a good quality
environment for families and enforcement of child
welfare legislation.
We need to bear in mind that much content is put
online or organised purely to “ con ” people and not for
the good of human society ! So it is up to us to protect
the most vulnerable !
1) We held a media training day for interested parents and educators
on 9 December last year to enable participants to get to grips with
support tools. We also talked about the profession of journalism,
advertising, safe surfing for children, what we do as regards the media,
and deconstructing images. It was very well received, and we have plans
to repeat it.
2) Such as knowing a bit about electricity, waves and antennas,
the difference between hardware and software, how equipment relies on
drivers, when something goes wrong and the question is,
is it an ISP problem, a virus, or faulty hardware.
3) We argued among other things that in France, the Act of 5 March 2007
requires hosting service providers to check children’s ages, but age checks
tend to be self-certified and therefore offer no absolute certainty.
Let me take this opportunity to mention the forthcoming Forum
organized by the European Commission on 21-22 October in
Luxembourg : Safer Internet Forum 2010 – How do children use online
technologies ? Are parents up to speed ? How to cope with risks ?
4) We have tested several websites with a lawyer and bailiff present,
finding evidence of several content and access for minors offences.
We have taken legal action on them.
Workshop 4 > making education and information and communication technologies work for social inclusion
51

52
olivier gérArD
Union nationale des associations familiales
– UNAF (France)
www.unaf.fr
Workshop 4
Making education and information
and communication technologies work for social inclusion
“ pédagoJeux : the video game information
and education site ”
Findings
❙ Parents lack information about all aspects
of video gaming;
❙ Parents do not understand about the Pan European
Gaming Information – PEGI age rating system;
❙ The media often paint a stereotyped picture
of video gaming.
The PédaGoJeux site was launched on 15 December
2008 as the result of a recommendation by the Internet
Rights Forum entitled “ A question of governance of
online video gaming ” attended by the Secretary of
State for Development of the Digital Economy, with
the support of the Secretary of State for the Family.
An alliance of 10 founding members
❙ Public authorities : Délégation aux Usages de
l’Internet (DUI); Délégation Interministérielle à la
Famille (DIF); Internet Sans Crainte; Forum des droits
sur l’Internet;
❙ Business players : S.E.L.L; Microsoft; Bayard
Jeunesse;
❙ Voluntary organisations : Union nationale des
associations familiales (UNAF), Action Innocence,
JeuxOnLine.
Workshop 4 > making education and information and communication technologies work for social inclusion
This multi-stakeholder operation ensures
the neutrality of the messages put out by
PédaGoJeux. Each partner is actively involved in what
PédaGoJeux does in a variety of ways.
Partnerships
❙ Permanent (ISFE, Ankama…);
❙ Event-specific (Salon du vidéo
[video game exhibition], Kid Expo…).
A website
❙ Over 105 000 separate visitors
and nearly 370 000 page views.
200 000 leaflets distributed
❙ Participation in many exhibitions (Salon du vidéo,
Salon Européen de l’éducation, Kid Expo…)
A large-scale public awareness campaign
for Christmas 2010
Extensive press coverage in all media
(Print, radio, TV and Internet):
❙ Print press : AFP, Le Monde, Le Parisien, Libération,
Métro, 20 Minutes, Ouest France, La Voix du Nord,
Femme Actuelle, La Croix, Télé Loisirs, 01 Net,
LePoint.fr…
❙ Radio / TV : Europe 1, RTL, France Info, RMC, France 3,
LCI, M6…
Given a public focus by the authorities
(Questions to the Government in the National Assembly).
We pledge
To craft a more ambitious political and media strategy
for PédaGoJeux.

We want
A strong commitment by console makers
and games publishers to work with us.
6 main sections to answer the questions
that parents have:
01 Hot topics
❘ Time spent gaming;
❘ Discussions about addiction;
❘ Explicit content…
02 Gaming and social relationships
❘ Gming and parental authority;
❘ The psychological impact of games;
❘ Who does what in video game-making…
03 Choosing the right game
❘ Games and the player’s age;
❘ Playability;
❘ Advertising in games;
❘ Typology of games;
❘ Games in the headlines…
04 Equipment
❘ Descriptions of the different equipment
and how to apply a parental lock…
05 Money
❘ Buying arrangements;
❘ Tax aspects…
06 Rights and duties
❘ Piracy;
❘ Playing by the rules…
We also put out other information through
❙ Themed information packs
(who does what in video game-making…);
❙ Educational resources (guides, leaflets…);
❙ What “ experts ” think;
❙ Contact points.
The strategic and political aspects of child welfare
related to video gaming means we need to up
our game !
We therefore plan
❙ To revamp the site and improve its content
selection;
❙ To produce 500 000 leaflets and 200 posters,
and create PédaGoJeux “ goodies ” for handing
out at exhibitions and conferences;
❙ To boost the site’s media profile by producing
regular media plans;
❙ To strengthen PédaGoJeux’s political impact.
Workshop 4 > making education and information and communication technologies work for social inclusion
53

54
panel > Jørgen rønnest
panel
Jørgen Rønnest
Chairman of the Social Affairs Committee, BusinessEurope
I am very pleased for the opportunity to share with you
our views on work-life balance.
Reconciliation of personal and professional life is one of
the most challenging policy priorities across EU Member
States.
Ensuring that women and men can more easily remain
active on the labour market while having children, has
been approached in many different ways.
The sheer diversity of measures and leave arrangements
in European countries clearly shows that there are very
different solutions to tackle this issue.
The timing of this discussion is also relevant because the
crisis has hit women and men alike. At the moment, we
have to remain optimistic that the momentum for economic
growth will pick up.
In general, and even before the crisis, it has been evident
that further progress is possible to make better use of
talent available on the labour market.
In 2009, European Social Partners addressed this issue
by negotiating an autonomous framework agreement
on ‘Inclusive Labour Markets’ with this objective in mind.
If we look at things from the gender equality perspective,
a positive sign is that the EU’s employment rate for women
grew by over 5% between 2000 and 2009 (to 62.5%).
Of the overall increase in employment during this period,
almost 80% is accounted for by women. While this is
encouraging, it is also clear that we need more female
entrepreneurs and managers in Europe. This is an ongoing
challenge.
demography and employment rates (europe2020)
But the context is also changing, mainly because of
demography.
We have fully welcomed the Europe 2020 employment
rate target of 75%. Taking into account demographic
forecasts across the EU, in conjunction with the resulting
increase in dependency ratios, it is clear that employment
rates need to rise.
This means that additional measures might be needed to
improve further work-life balance. However, such solutions
need to be found at national level. They need to
be tailored to local needs and circumstances.
leave arrangements
It is especially important now to emphasise this. I can
give 2 examples why :
1. In 2009, European social partners revised their
Framework Agreement on parental leave, which has
now been transposed into an EU Directive.
It respects the Member States’ prerogative to decide
on and set the level of compensation.
It recognises that there are increasingly diverse family
structures.
It also includes an extra month of non-transferrable leave,
therefore encouraging a better sharing of responsibilities
among parents, but in a voluntary manner.
Ultimately, it provides incentives for better worklife
balance while leaving the important choices
and flexibility to national authorities and to parents
themselves.
2. On maternity leave, the Commission has proposed an
extension of the minimum statutory leave across the
EU from 14 to 18 weeks. The European Parliament has
gone much further, calling for 20 weeks + 2 weeks
paternity leave, all on full pay.
As such, this is not an appropriate measure for
legislation at EU level. It would be very costly for most
countries (over € 6 billion annually for 9 countries alone)
including those having serious problems with public
finances. It can therefore be detrimental to reaching
sustainability of social security systems.
It can end up undermining existing systems where
there is a mix of complementary leave arrangements
that are designed to improve work life balance and to
encourage women to return to work after childbirth
(i.e. in Germany).
It can also be detrimental to women’s prospects on
the labour market.
european social partners’ activities
Bearing in mind that the causes of inequalities on labour
markets are complex, European social partners
have adopted an approach where finding appropriate
solutions requires integrated strategies. This particularly
includes actions at different levels to desegregate labour
markets while tackling barriers for better compatibility
of work and family life for men and women.
European social partners adopted in 2005 their Framework
of Actions on Gender Equality, with 4 integrated priorities:
❙ Addressing gender roles;
❙ Promoting women in decision making;
❙ Supporting work-life balance; and
❙ Tackling the gender pay gap.

Member organisations of European social partners committed
to take actions during 4 years (2005-2009) and to
report annually on what has been done in their countries.
These reports provide a wealth of material and
examples of good practice addressing the four priorities.
In 2008, European social partners provided a joint evaluation
of the progress made by Member States in promoting
work-life balance.
In 2008 they also supported the implementation of
the Barcelona objectives on childcare. They stressed
that there is still a significant gap between supply and
demand of quality, accessible and affordable childcare
infrastructures. This can act as a disincentive to work for
many potential second earners in couple families as for
single parents.
This is why BUSINESSEUROPE fully welcomes the action
in the new strategy for equality between women and
men 2010-2015, on childcare.
Working time and contractual arrangements
However, BUSINESSEUROPE is concerned about negative
depictions of part-time work and its association with
precariousness or ‘atypical’ forms of work, as portrayed
in the new strategy.
European social partners have also contributed by concluding
agreements to promote flexible forms of work
that can facilitate reconciliation (agreements on telework
in 2002 and part-time work in 1997).
Flexible working practices are a key element in modern
and dynamic labour markets. Such practices are designed
to support individuals, in organising their working
time. At the same time, they offer companies the
flexibility to adapt working patterns.
Businesses need to be able to develop new approaches
to workforce management, if they are to respond to
technological changes and global competition.
The main objective is to become more adaptable to
changes in the market and to enhance productivity.
Working time and contractual flexibility is crucial in this
respect.
Companies are committed to providing a work environment
which helps employees to successfully balance
their work and family life and to enhance their
productivity.
Part-time and fixed-term forms of work are therefore
very important, both for businesses and for workers.
A flexible work organisation can help workers in reconciling
work and family life, helping them to adapt their
working time to individual needs. This aspect should be
recognised.
conclusion
It is paramount to emphasise that achieving greater degree
of inclusiveness in the workforce works as much in
the interests of business as for employees.
In this regard business should be encouraged to implement
actions and initiatives in a voluntary manner according
to their characteristics and context.
Such is the diversity of practices and circumstances
when comparing Member States that no one-size-fitsall
approach would be appropriate at EU-level.
BUSINESSEUROPE also strongly believes that further
legislation at European level on equal opportunities
is not needed to complement the already substantial
body of law.
The debate on work-life balance is not new. But the recent
initiatives from the social partners as well as from
public authorities on family policies, flexicurity etc give a
new impetus to the debate. This is especially true when
considering demographic projections.
In this sense the opportunity given to us by this event is
timely and fruitful for future actions.
JøRGen Rønnest
panel > Jørgen rønnest
55

56
panel > henri lourdelle
panel
Henri Lourdelle
Advisor of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC)
I should like to thank the Conference organisers for having
invited the European Trade Union Confederation
(ETUC) to come and talk about its commitment to the
development of quality European and national family
policies.
I would also like to pay tribute to COFACE’s abiding concern
to involve the social partners, especially the ETUC,
in its discussions.
The relatively short time allotted means I sometimes
shall necessarily have to simplify somewhat, so please
bear with me.
While family policy may not technically be a direct responsibility
of the EU, the ETUC like many here, works
within its sphere of activities and responsibilities to get
family-friendly policies implemented at European level…
My opposite number on the employers’ side has already
dwelt at length on what the social partners have done at
European level, so I will not go back over that in detail.
But to answer our session Chair’s question in very practical
terms – i.e., what is the ETUC doing and what does it
plan to improve – I would say that we must take into account
the needs and aspirations of young people, women,
elderly people, i.e., families… and address them !
And for the ETUC, this means first and foremost pressing
for the resources required by :
❙ People;
❙ Institutions.
resources for people
Firstly, the ETUC and its member organisations are highly
active in the fight against poverty and social exclusion,
which means first of all a guaranteed decent income
for individuals and families. And the ETUC believes
that guarantee cannot just be a matter of “ solemn declarations
” but requires the adoption by EU policymakers
(Council and Parliament) of a directive to that effect
dealing not just with the right to a guaranteed income
but its “ quality ” (a “ decent ” income !). For where there
is such an income, in all countries that have introduced
it – and not all have, unfortunately – it is in every case
sub-poverty level… !
It is also, in this period of crisis, about the EU and Member
States “ breaking with ” the article of faith of financial
orthodoxy, namely cutting public deficits come hell or
high water with the sole aim of… reassuring the financial
markets !
The ETUC says NO to this approach.
Rather, as I said at this time of crisis – which is not of our
desire or making… – we argue that the margins offered
by these deficits should be used to deliver practical responses
to the families who are or are at risk of being
the most vulnerable or with the most disadvantaged
members (children, elderly, disabled, women, …)
In other words – reverse the current trend of reforms :
that means putting the interests of women, men and
families back at the centre of the political agenda
and challenging that equation that is untenable to us
all whereby each reform is equal to and experienced
as new restrictions imposed on us.
resources for “ institutions ”
This means re-empowering social protection and social
security. But we find ourselves in a paradoxical situation:
❙ On one hand, there is general agreement that
social welfare systems have acted as “ social shock
absorbers ”, to coin a phrase, and experience shows
that the nationals of countries with better quality
social protection systems have been able
to withstand the effects of the crisis with
somewhat less difficulty !
❙ While on the other hand, the main priority
of Member States is to reduce deficits by cutting
public spending… i.e., cutting funding for social
protection systems !
It is also about guaranteed funding. And before we
go looking for new sources, we must first secure the
sources we have.
What do I mean by that ?
Today, the main source of funding for social protection
in the different EU countries comes from earned income
and the wealth generated by work. But even before the
crisis – and that has not helped matters – we were seeing
a casualization of employment (fixed term, involuntary
part-time, agency work, internships…) and a
pressure on pay that hi :
❙ Firstly young people : nowadays
“ being young is hell ! ” (is that what developing bold,
quality family policies is about ? …);
❙ Lone-parent families and women (with equal
qualifications on lower pay… better educated
than men, but fewer in posts of responsibility,
the well-known “ glass ceiling ” …);
❙ But also all men and women workers, the so-called
“working poor”. And a poor worker will always end
up as… a poor pensioner.

And as the contributions and levies that finance social security
are essentially based on the income and wages of men
and women workers : poverty-level wages means povertylevel
contributions which produce poverty-level social
protection… !
Whence the ETuC campaign – which is not a narrow-
focused campaign but a public interest campaign for good
quality jobs (i.e., not casual hire-and-fire and for “ decent ”
pay – or “ adequate ” as the Commission might say !)
And that’s what we spelled out in capital letters on 29
September – thousands of us in Brussels but also in Prague,
Madrid, and elsewhere…
It is also about doing away with exemptions from contributions
– or charges as some would say, as if solidarity was a
charge… ! – with no quid pro quo in terms of jobs (created
and / or maintained), which amounts in fact to a free lunch ! …
in the name of competitiveness ! So there we are again with
“ economic concerns taking precedence over social concerns ” .
It also about tapping other sources of profits and wealth
which are currently not contributing to solidarity-based financing
– those generated by financial transactions among
other things…
It is also about enabling those who have stopped working
to look after their families to return to work. And this is the
whole point of the agreement concluded by the European
social partners on 9 December last year, which must be implemented
in the different countries and called for “ an inclusive
labour market ”, for example by setting up workplace or
industry childcare provision, support, and training provision
for these people…
It is also about the awareness-raising and concerted action
that we carry out with the European Disability Forum to
encourage our members to include specific clauses relating
to disabled people in their agreements with employers, as is
done in Spain for example.
Again, it is about enabling a better sharing of responsibilities
within families, by introducing a “ paternity leave ” into
the revised agreement on parental leave, which the social
partners have just reached at European level. We see it as a
first significant step in the right direction…
Again – but we have not yet got there at European level – it is
about implementing specific leave for family carers (“ caring
for carers ”). But it is on our agenda… As you asked William,
this is a point on which we have to continue focusing our efforts
and stands in need of improvement !
It also about joining forces for quality, geographically accessible
and affordable services, and, allowing parents who want
to balance their family and personal life with working life…
This is a responsibility that the Member States and European
Union have. Because these services – and social services more
generally – do not just have an “ economic ” aspect, but also a
strong “ social ” aspect that enables especially – but not only -
the most vulnerable among us to exercise their social rights as
spelled out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union (also known as the “ Lisbon ” Treaty).
I could go on, because there is still a big job of work to do, and
the obstacles are still very real if you believe the prevailing
free market rhetoric. But I think my allotted speaking time is
up and I would not want to leave you with the feeling that I
am throwing everything in including the kitchen sink…
But what I have tried to illustrate – and it is something you
are well aware of – as is evidenced by the programme of this
Conference which is coming to its end, is that you cannot develop
a European policy without taking a holistic approach
that involves all stakeholders…
And finally, if I had a message to deliver on behalf of the ETUC
to the Belgian Presidency of the EU, to Council, to Parliament,
to the Commission – fear not, I am not about to tread on
COFACE’s toes because that message is in line with your own
messages – it would be to put the social dimension back
where it should be – namely, at the heart of European priorities.
That means freeing it from the yoke of the economic
considerations by which it is curbed. In other words, reverse
the terms of the current policy equation – “ put economic
concerns first and then see what we can do… for social concerns
! ”. No, for us the proper equation is “ let’s determine and
set our social priorities together and see how to release the
(economic) resources to implement them ”.
It means putting women and men – in other words “ human
beings ” – at the heart of our priorities and our commitments.
And that is our guiding principle in the ETUC. And it is our
firm belief that this is how we can get a bold and… solidaritybased
family policy, including at European level.
Thank you for your attention.
henRi louRdelle
panel > henri lourdelle
57

58
panel > conny reuter
panel
Conny Reuter
President of the Social Platform
Thank you very much. In your introductory statement,
you said we had eight minutes each to introduce our
point of view and what can I say to COFACE about what
is the Social Platform’s stance on these issues ?
Because you are part of the Social Platform, an important
player so I cannot say what is our opinion because if I say
our, it is our common opinion.
So first of all, I want to congratulate you for putting this
topic of social inclusion of families on the agenda of the
Belgian Presidency of the EU.
I think we all very much welcomed the very social orientation
of the Belgian Presidency that started here in this
room, just three months ago.
Three months ago, the social partners, Business Europe,
the ETUC and in another round as well the Social
Platform, were meeting the Belgian Presidency and we
discussed with the Commissioner and the Parliament
and heard what the social partners had to say.
It’s always important to underline that our role is not to
induce confusion between social dialogue on one hand,
and the civil dialogue on the other. But what is important
for us is to take the social questions out and, for sure, as
an employer, as a trade unionist, or as a social NGO you
have to pay particular attention to the social dialogue
in your own field but you are also an employer, a job
creator and in a sense, and when it comes to the job
creation in the social field we represent something like
12% of the employment today in Europe.
We may later want to come back on the quality of this
field because there is a real problem… but we were
asked to speak on the question of work-life balance,
helping families to reconcile family and working lives.
I think that, for the Social Platform, it’s clear that we are
standing for enhancing the prioritising of family life but
there is a particular context which is linked to the demographic
changes and also to some social changes.
If we are to speak about social changes for sure we
can address the issue of the ageing population but we
should also take into consideration that there is a greater
diversity in families. There are no classical families as you
know and speak about but there are single parent families
and different components of families.
I think there is a risk today in particular for those who
govern us, that when it comes to problems of social inclusion
to put everything on the shoulders of the school,
on the one hand, and on the other on the shoulders of
the families.
Tackling the other issues which we already mentioned…
which is the situation of the crisis today because what is
the situation of crisis today as Henri Lourdelle (Advisor
at ETUC) was speaking about ?
With this, we come back to a certain from of financial orthodoxy.
For sure nobody is for more public debt, nobody
is for increasing deficits… but the problem is that today, in
the policy frame that we find ourselves in, we only speak
of the 3% and the 16% and that we might use the capacity
of intervention to the maximum and when I say the capacity
of intervention, I want to come back on something
which has already been said… a word which seems to
us to be a keyword in social policies which is investment.
Investment in social policies and investment in social
infrastructures. Because in times of crisis, we know that
the needs are increasing and we must find replies… and
we know also that the field we are working on is not
only a business field where we create new jobs and make
business with turnovers, you also have to offer services
on which you cannot earn anything except recognition.
Social recognition, if anything.
So what we have to work on for sure is to look at how
we can reconcile the measures in a comprehensive approach
and I think it is good and we should also communicate
that Europe has made progress and that we
can refer to what is in the EU charter of fundamental
rights. There are three fundamental rights we can refer
to which are : the right to private and family life, which
is the right to quality public services and to a high level
of social protection.
And in particular when it comes to the last two, indeed
we are entering fully in the policy field of the EU. Because
when we come to social services there is a debate. Social
interests to be considered by general interest or social
services to be considered as part of an internal market ?
Do we only consider market rules ? Or do we consider
the side of general interest and give the opportunity
also to the actors in this field which are organisations like
yours or ours of the Social Platform… they can intervene
being recognised in their specific role.

And when it comes to the social protection schemes…
yes, everybody welcomed in times of crisis the so called
automatic stabilisers but six months later everybody
seemed to have a problem of amnesia and to have forgotten
that this also was an investment and that we had
to invest after the crisis and before entering the next
one. You cannot tackle only its economic and social approaches…
it is also the question of necessity, we have
to anticipate. There must be a margin of manoeuvre…
and there is a necessity of having the possibility to reply
to the needs.
So when it comes to care, and it was often the question
of care, I can say and I would like to invite you because
the Social Platform has dared and had the courage to
put as the scene for our annual conference the question
of care. And what did we discover ? We discovered the
reality which is yours.
That means that when you translate care by pflege to
German or something else in Italian or Spanish, it is not
just a question of language. It is much more than language;
it is a question of concepts.
And therefore, there is a necessity if you want to develop
further European policies in this field that we get an understanding
of what it is that we are speaking about.
And there is a second question. It is always easy to say,
yes, the Lisbon Treaty is the constitutional frame… yes,
we agree upon that… Yes, there’s a lot of progress made
but on the other side, I think it is also necessary to put
another question on the agenda.
Where do we dare to put more Europe on the agenda ?
Where can Europe promote something and where we
should leave it behind ? It is not always easy to say, it’s
for the Member States to decide. It depends on the local
or on the regional realities.
It is very much a question on how to put transversality in
the social sense at the heart and at the core of European
policies…
And I think we now have a chance, at least I could hear
it in your interventions, to speak about the EU 2020
Strategy when it comes to the flagship programmes.
There is a debate now and what should be the poverty
flagship and the question for us, as Social Platform, integrating
the diversity of 42 different organisations – and
COFACE being one of them.
It is not so much the question of a social OMC, which
is necessary in the member countries, having the possibility
also for all stakeholders to contribute. It is much
more the question to see what are the concrete steps
to contribute to eradicate poverty and this is a question
for European policies. And this where we feel that
at the moment being it is quite open and we wait for
something significantly concrete… and it seems that
we have to wait over this week end because next week
there’s a roundtable on poverty and it’s foreseen that
the Commission comes up with clearer and more visible
proposals.
Eight minutes is a long time to think positive so I will
make it short and say that it’s important that social NGOs
keep high on their agenda the necessity to invest in care
infrastructures and that we add, and this the common
struggle with the unions, the question of quality jobs in
particular when it comes the question of care and the
health field because we know that the number of the
working poor in this sector in particular is significant and
when it comes to migrant workers.
Also; we have to continue our work on the social of the
quality of care services as I said because quality care
services is about affordability, accessibility, sustainability
and is about centred care and it needs recognition
of its particular role…
I won’t speak of the negative side of austerity programmes…
or the necessity to invest in social infrastructures.
We all have in mind the famous quote from
a famous President of the US who always said ‘ it’s the
economy, stupid ’… perhaps we can change this paradigm
and say instead ‘ it’s the social, stupid !’
Thank you.
connY ReuteR
panel > conny reuter
59

60
panel > anna Záborská
panel
Anna Záborská
President of the Family Intergroup of the European Parliament, European People's Party (SK)
Thank you Mr Director,
Mr President,
Ladies and gentlemen representing the different
family organisations and European institutions,
You have asked me to give you some thoughts on
how European policy could support the family.
I should simply like to make some observations in
light of the agenda of next week’s plenary session
when we shall be discussing a number of reports
relating to different points in the life of families.
Childbirth, which requires maternity leave for
mothers, recognition of work, the right to a minimum
income.
Social Europe is far from being complete; we need
your support to deliver a Union that recognises the
key role of the family for its future.
We need family associations that encourage policy
makers to do more. We have to play up the positive
aspects of the family; that is our shared task.
There is a vast gap between political aims and institutional
reality. In the European Parliament, 736
MEPs divided between 27 national delegations and
7 political groups have been trying for two years to
reach a common position on improving maternity
leave. You, Mr Director, know all about that.
We are all agreed on the need to protect young
pregnant mothers and their children. Idealism
comes cheap.
But, when it comes to entrenching the true value
added of the European social model into the
Community acquis, the policymakers here in
Brussels and in the other capitals, dig their heels
in remarkably hard.
All national and European institutions concur that
facing up to the demographic challenge is an absolute
necessity.
No-one is now oblivious to the risk of social security
systems collapsing. But opinions are divided
on how to offer young women and young fathers
the economic and financial reassurance needed in
relation to childbirth.
Another non-moralistic basic issue is the added
value of the European social model. What cost is
society as a whole prepared to pay for mothers to
care for their newborn children ? In other words,
for policymakers the decision to found a family
and welcome children revolves first and foremost
around a cost-benefit equation.
But no one starts a family for the money and benefits
they can get out of it.
The European institutions are unable to conceive
citizens as other than taxpaying workers in an employment
relationship.
Happiness is not just about being part of a workforce.
A second example reflects European social
policy towards women in insecure jobs and the
right to a guaranteed minimum income.
All families must be able to be started in decent
economic and financial conditions. Politics has allowed
policy measures to be taken to act against
unstable employment. But you cannot imagine
how hard-fought a battle it has been in the relevant
committees to get the concept of homemaker’s
work introduced into that relationship, even
if only once.
There is no way... the institutions have discriminated
against women by denying a free choice
between two equivalent alternatives.
A final example is a report currently under consideration
in the FEMM Committee, dealing with the
reconciliation of family and working life to combat
juvenile delinquency.

Basically, the question is :
Do work-family life balance policies really give parents
more time for the family ?
Our daily findings are that the prevailing flexicurity
no longer allows it. But it is essential to recognise
in costed-out economic terms the investment that
mothers and fathers make in raising young people
as a real investment for the common good and welfare
of future generations.
In conclusion, can the common policy contribute
to inclusion of the family ? The first thing it can do is
to do justice to women, men and families. The policy
must play up the positive aspects of the family.
We are confronted by the demographic challenge
and striving to preserve the value added of the
European social model. We want to tackle social
inequalities, to achieve balanced work-life policies
that allow a real choice between equivalent alternatives,
and so on.
But we fear to mention the family in the public institutional
discourse. And I am speaking from my
experience in the European Parliament, where the
family comes across more as a hindrance to individualisation
on the employment market, especially
in connection with the free movement of workers.
Or should we be laying down rules for international
divorces ? But the problem today is the lack
of families.
This is why politicians need to accentuate the positive
of families. I am not talking about misplaced
romanticism, I know about this from my own
experience.
Politics today treats the family and rearing children
as primarily problems to be addressed by individualisation
or outsourcing childraising. And yet the
family is the key place where future generations
are brought up.
There is no shortage of endorsement for this. No
policymaker has the courage to take decisions that
give practical effect to that support for the family.
That is why I say to you : we need you. We need
family organisations !
Make your voice heard and come to meet your
MEPs, but also your national MPs, to explain to
them the discrimination that the family is exposed
to today.
Thank you.
anna záboRská
panel > anna Záborská
61

62
panel > emmanuela tassa
panel
Emmanuela Tassa
DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, European Commission
Thank for the invitation and the opportunity to
present the work of the European Alliance for
Families.
I think that in order to answer to the question we
must start from what needs to be done for families
in the coming years. To me there are two priorities:
1) Promoting conditions supportive of those
who wish to have children or already have children
or other dependents and 2) Promoting equal opportunities
for children in order to allow them to
develop their full potential. This requires tackling
issues such as poverty, poor education, marginalisation
and so on…
Most of these issues are addressed at European
level through the Open Method of Coordination, as
broadly speaking social policies are a competence
of the Member States. The role of the Commission
in this is to provide policy coordination, analyses
and monitor progress made by the Member States.
Combating poverty and promoting active inclusion
are very high on the political agenda of the
EU, as the Commissioner also reminded yesterday.
The Europe 2020 Strategy has just reaffirmed these
principles. It has introduced a specific headline
on poverty and is preparing the creation of the
European Platform against Poverty which should
facilitate broader integration across policy areas
at EU level.
The European Alliance for Families is however not
directly involved in the OMC. So how does it contribute
to the two priorities I have mentioned ?
Its focus is mutual learning from the families’ point
of view. I think that this family perspective is the
real added value of the Alliance. And it is through
this mutual learning that it can influence the development
of a common EU approach to family
policies.
Let me briefly recall how the Alliance operates.
The exchange of information is promoted at various
levels.
First, there are the regular meetings of the Expert
group of demographic issues. The group is composed
by experts nominated from the different
countries and independent experts. The scope of
these meetings is broader but many are focused on
family relevant issues. The reflections of the group
feed into the Demography Forum which is held
every two year. In order to exchange ideas with
a larger public there are also stakeholders seminars,
open particularly to interested NGOs. COFACE
is one, others are for instance Eurochild and the
European Women’s Lobby.
Ad hoc regional seminars are also organised and
they are more or less relevant for the Member
States depending on the specific competencies of
the local governments in the country.
Then there are more analytical meetings within the
Network of family policies that, as the name suggests,
are only about family policies.
And finally there are smaller meetings, the best
practice workshop that focus on the presentation
of country specific experiences followed by
a discussion about the possibility to transfer the
scheme to other national contexts.
In order to share information with a larger audience
there is a webportal. It contains country profiles,
studies, news and events related to family
policies. There is also a rich section on best practice
examples. Some of these were co-financed by the
Social fund and other European programmes. As
you know there is no specific funding for families,
but families can be helped notably through financing
of reconciliation measures. In total, almost 3 billions
of euros are available from 2007 to 2013 for
measures related to reconciliation of work and family
life and for childcare.
We tried to help to make the best use of the resources
available through the production of an
informative brochure on how to access the social
fund resources for financing family friendly
projects, like improving childcare provision.
The last key assignment for the Alliance is research.
This is why the EAF has for example financed the
development and extension of the OECD family
database. This database is an interesting source
of data and information on family policies and it
is very helpful for benchmarking and positioning
countries.

The Alliance was also involved in the FAMILY-
PLATFORM project. It is a new interesting format
where researcher, NGOs and policy makers work
together to develop a (policy relevant) research
agenda on families. As far as I know, this is the
second experiment after the one on Urban social
cohesion. But I will not say more as this will be presented
later in detail by Prof. Uhlendorf.
What more or what else can be done in the future ?
We are presently doing an internal assessment
of possible areas of improvement. Certainly, we
will work to improve the visibility of the process
and to involve a larger number of stakeholders.
I would like to highlight that our activities are largely
demand-driven so they heavily rely on the inputs
received from Member States.
The Commission had committed to report on the
achievements of the Alliance after three years, so
by the end of 2010. Therefore a questionnaire was
circulated among the expert group and stakeholders
and the activities of the alliance received a generally
positive feedback. COFACE also had positive
comments and they, as also other respondents,
had an interesting suggestion to search for a
deeper relation with the Social open Method of
Coordination. Many elements are already there…
So I personally think that this is a very interesting
suggestion that is worth considering, however
as you know details on the future of the Social
Method of Coordination and the relation with the
Platform against Poverty will only be clarified by
the end of the year.
I will conclude reminding you of an important
event at the end of November that is the
Demography Forum. As usual, some of the sessions
will be devoted to family related issues so certainly
it will provide a good opportunity for high level
reflections on family policies.
Thank you for your kind attention.
eMManuela tassa
panel > emmanuela tassa
63

64
panel > uwe uhlendorff
panel
Uwe Uhlendorff
Project Coordinator, FAMILYPLATFORM, Technical University of Dortmund
background
FAMILYPLATFORM =
“ Social Platform on Research for Families and Family Policy ”
❙ The aim is to build a research agenda for EU and Member States
with scientists and stakeholders (CSO, including policy makers);
❙ “EU-Research Road Map” 2011-2013 with indicative distribution
of Societal Challenges and Topics for the future Work Programme.
Facts
❙ Support Action financed by the EU Commission, DG Research;
❙ Duration : 18 months;
❙ Consortium of 12 participants (9 European research organisations
and 3 civil society organisations : COFACE / MMM / FDAF).
Objectives
❙ Compilation and review of existing research on family life;
❙ Identification of research gaps;
❙ Finding key policy questions and fundamental research issues :
Family life in Europe in 2035;
❙ Research agenda: recommendations for further research;
❙ Creation of a “ feedback loop ” between different groups;
❙ Help policy makers how to meet future challenges…
❘ By completing research findings European-wide;
❘ By engaging into the Foresight Approach;
❘ Recommendations for establishing research programs
(EU level and Member States).
challenges for Policy and research
1. How could Policy support family transitions in life course ?
Transitions (to parenthood, children entering school, children leaving home,
caring for elderly…) have become…
❙ More problematic;
❙ More frequent;
❙ More strongly connected to individual decisions;
❙ Shaped by the demands and the problems of economic systems.
Research issues e.g.
❙ Family planning, namely perspectives regarding transition
into motherhood/fatherhood and their expectations;
❙ Greater understanding of family formation, transitions and trajectories,
including the decision-making processes and reasons underlying
or delaying family transitions (such as the transition to parenthood,
to conjugal life or to divorce);
❙ Process of transition to parenthood in conditions of poverty.
2. Doing Families in a Complex Society :
How to support families to manage their all day life ?
Challenges : parenting, education, gender concepts, variety of family forms…
Research Issues :
❙ Interactions between people within the family regarding everyday life;
❙ Understand the daily and biographical shaping of common life
as a family.
3. Care Arrangements :
How could social care be provided in future Europe ?
❙ Quality and balance between public and private care arrangements;
❙ Social innovative forms;
❙ Recognition of unpaid care,
❙ Quality of social services.

4. Social innovations regarding a better work-life balance :
Suggestions for Policy to ease the “ rush hours ” in the lifecycle of families eg :
“ Time Care Insurance ” or a “ time credit ” account of several years designed for
individuals to take care of other people (young and old), to be invested over
the course of family life.
5. Poverty, inequality and segregation :
❙ How to tackle poverty and social inequality ?
How to enhance family friendly environments ?
❙ Deeper understanding of social inequalities between families;
❙ Understand more about the role of families in reproducing social
inequality across the generations;
❙ Understanding of the linkages between Policy and inequalities
between and within families.
6. Intergenerational solidarity and communities :
How to encourage social networks ?
❙ Intergenerational solidarity and community support
seem to be one of the backbones of support for families;
❙ Importance of urban planning;
❙ Local alliances for families (public–private-partnership).
Housing, environment and community development :
need for thorough and comprehensive urban planning that includes :
❙ Analysis of how close families live, work and go to school;
❙ Housing and neighbourhood planning;
❙ Public spaces (i.e. playgrounds);
❙ Public and private transportation;
❙ Neighbourhood networks.
7. Family life Arrangements and well-being of children :
Research Issues :
❙ Conflicts between the best interests of children
and those of their parents;
❙ Mental disorders of children and youth;
❙ Growing mobility and immigration.
How does it impact the children and adolescents’ wellbeing ?
❙ The perspective of children on leave arrangements;
❙ The involvement of grandparents in everyday childcare;
❙ Custody arrangements after divorce from the perspective of children;
❙ “ What is child-wellbeing ? ”
Thank you !
uWe ulhendoRFF
panel > uwe uhlendorff
65

66
Honourable Ministers,
Distinguished representatives of the EU institutions,
Friends,
It falls to me, according to the agenda, to deliver what
is called a “ keynote speech ”. It is a somewhat lofty description,
but one whose value as this Conference ends
is to point it towards aims to be achieved, and options
to be identified.
These few words are meant to be yours – you, the
members of the family organisations linked together in
COFACE. Yours because the general gist of this speech
was discussed in the Administrative Council meeting
held the day before yesterday; yours because since then,
we have endeavoured to bring in the ideas, experiences
and comments you have made in plenary sessions and
the four themed workshops.
Everything you have said has been faithfully noted
down at each stage of our two-day Conference, and I
should like to take this opportunity to thank the four
chairs and two rapporteurs of the four workshops for the
difficult job they have accomplished with such celerity
and accuracy.
Yesterday, I concluded my words of welcome with the
hope that this meeting would be interactive, above all
tolerant and in a word, constructive. And the wealth of
cogent discussions you have produced give me to believe
that constructive it truly has been, and they are
what I shall try to pull together here.
closing speeches > Yves roland-gosselin
closing speeches
Yves Roland-Gosselin
President of COFACE
I should like to talk around three points. Firstly, a few
facts, some hallmark features of our shared activity. Then
I shall look – and this will be the longest section – at
what we want to do in connection with the European
Union. The third point will be more personalised, with
a few words on how we do things, and what we ought
to do differently.
I. Let us first look at some basic points that unite us. The
first thing we find is that the family still tops the scale of
values in all polls or surveys; whenever a survey of key
values is done in Europe, the family always ranks among
the top three, if not top.
This is also in line with one of the points made by Ms
Záborská, the Honourable President of the Intergroup
on Family, Child Welfare and Intergenerational Solidarity
in the European Parliament : do not fear to use the
word “ families ” because it is a word and a concept that
Europeans are keen on. Let us play it up !
The second thing everyone is agreed on is that during
our lifetime, the family forms the basic unit of society. It
is the place where socialisation first takes place, the first
setting for solidarity between individuals of different
generations. It is where the child’s first joys and equally
their first pain or suffering occur. Our families have
shaped and raised us all, and each of us can recognise
within themselves what I have just described.
The third point is more about the focus of this Conference,
entitled “ social inclusion of families ”. A few figures
offer a clear illustration of this issue.
Of a total of 495 million inhabitants of the European
Union in 2008, 85 million are experiencing or at risk of
poverty; that means – and this is important – 17% of the
population !
Again : 20% of these are children or young people under
18, and 19% are persons aged 65 and over.
Finally, 35% of lone parent families are in a vulnerable
situation !
These are facts. These are the findings. They are shocking.
II. Family organisations have a duty to make a showing,
be active and inventive among the various organisations
and associations that operate in the different
Member States as well as with European institutions to
tackle what are unacceptable poverty and social exclusion.
That being so, their having been linked together
for the past fifty years within a confederation, COFACE,
has made them from the 1960s onwards one of the active
components of civil society in dealings with the
Commission and the European Economic and Social
Committee, as well as an active and heeded partner
in the Social Platform (which links together European
Social NGOs) of which it is a founding member.
Now, we are well aware that politically and legally the
Union has never established a family policy, notwithstanding
a raft of very family-friendly pronouncements,
especially from the European Parliament; indeed, it was
this institution which adopted the Resolution of 9 June
1983 on European family policy, on a proposal from the
then President of COFACE, the great Founding President
Joseph Gilles.
On the other hand, COFACE welcomes the creation of the
European Alliance for Families by the Council of Heads
of State or Government (the highest authority of the
Community Institutions) at its June 2007 meeting at the
end of the German Presidency. It also welcomes the profamily
trend discernible in various debates and Reports
or Communications to come out of various Institutions.

Against this dual backcloth, COFACE has focused on
identifying the family dimension in all Community and
national policies and activities, in order to address the
needs of families in all their diversity, particularly the
most economically vulnerable families, such as for example,
lone parent families, families with a disabled child or
other care-needer, or large families.
To do this, COFACE systematically sifts through all instruments
and initiatives that come out of the Institutions’
different departments, referring them on to its five working
groups comprised of elected representatives from
various associations with the invaluable assistance of the
Secretariat staff in order to end up with a policy position
adopted by the Administrative Council; so it is that in
the past three years, we have adopted 45 positions on a
wide range of issues.
To sum up, our approach is based on two principles :
working out what instruments best address families’ interests
– i.e., “ family mainstreaming ” – and giving detailed
thought to, then democratically adopting, policy positions.
A number of issues to which we have given input
through opinions to consultations or spontaneous remarks
are currently on the Union agenda. They include
in no particular order :
❙ Maternity leave and parental leave;
❙ The strategy for people with disabilities and care
needs and their families;
❙ The gender equality strategy (COFACE’s Bureau has
itself gone gender-equal with a male President and
Vice-President, and two women Vice-Presidents !);
❙ Tackling domestic violence;
❙ The recommendation on poverty and child welfare
(in which respect we support the declaration on
child poverty by the Trio of Spanish, Belgian and
Hungarian Presidencies);
❙ Services of general interest;
❙ The Internet, i.e., everything needed to help families
in understanding the new information technologies
(which as we saw this morning need to be extended
to all walks of life if they are not to create exclusion);
❙ The many issues related to consumption, the
problem of families drowning in debt, sustainable
development, housing, pensions, child nutrition
standards, labelling, and so on…
Let me now turn more specifically to a few issues that
are high on our agenda.
First, demography. This coming 22 and 23 November,
the Commission will be holding the third European
Demography Forum to which as every year COFACE
will give input. What does the recent DG Economic and
Social Affairs report have to say about Europe’s ageing
population ?
In 2008, there were 85 million over-65s.
By 2060, there will be 151 million – i.e., nearly double !
The over-80s accounted for 22 million people in 2008;
This will have tripled to 61 million by 2060 !
And then, obviously, we come to fertility rates. The
European average is currently 1.52 but seems to be trending
upwards slightly : to 1.57 in 2030 and 1.64 in 2060.
The significant thing is that all these three figures are
still below the 2.1 population replacement rate needed.
According to this research, all Member States will see their
fertility rates rise except where it is already above 1.8 – i.e.,
France, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, the United Kingdom
and Finland, where it will decline or remain stable.
By contrast, it should rise most in Slovakia, Poland and
Lithuania.
On current trends, of course…
This therefore takes us down what some might call a
pro-natalist road. But I say it is not ! We are simply arguing
for respect for the free choice of families. And all
population-related surveys show that most European
couples would like to have more than one more child,
and that this difference between the reality and the desire
is based on economic reasons. It is therefore up to
the national or EU authorities to see about improving
the economic and social circumstances, and so respond
to citizens’ demands.
Another big policy is support to persons with disabilities
and to people with care needs. This is one of the banner
issues of our member associations’ activities.
Our aim is to enable free choice between living at home
(alone or with one’s family) and in specialised provision.
closing speeches > Yves roland-gosselin
67

68
This choice should be based on the “ COFACE triangle
” already referred to in a recent Commission
Communication and mentioned today by the Minister,
and summed up in three letters – R, S, T.
R for financial Resources. Benefit and tax schemes which
vary with individual states’ family policies must make allowance
for the existence of disabled children or people
with care needs in a family.
It was said this morning – and I concur – that families
are an investment in the future, the celebrated “ social
capital ”; and how invaluable they are in situations where
support is needed, whatever the lifeplace chosen !
S for Services. Quality, affordable (every word counts !)
services are essential. These services tend to be provided
by capable and dedicated staff, to whom every credit
must be given. It was said this morning that this sector,
which is destined to expand in light of future demographic
developments, is a source of new jobs; it may
well be, including in the property development sector,
provided these services remain about providing assistance
and not just making a profit.
The financial aspect is connected with this; it is also often
down to the family, with one of the couple having to
stop work to look after their child or parent.
T for Time. Time management is an overriding need
for organising family life where there is a care-needer :
working hours that fit in with care providers’ closing
times, extra time-off to cover carers’ days off, etc. There
is a great deal of persuasion and negotiations still to be
done with the social partners, legislators and policy makers
before these ideas get fully taken on board.
closing speeches > Yves roland-gosselin
I do not want to leave this topic without a word about
“ family carers ”; I wish to pay a very great tribute to
families with disabled children, siblings who may feel
themselves on the wrong end of a perceived favouritism,
parents who have no outside life.
The members of the COFACE-HANDICAP association
here today created the Charter for Family Carers which
aims to get recognition for these carers; it unifies their
definition and demands, including with regard to the
pension points they should earn.
We need to spread this Charter about again, extending
it on some counts to families with an elderly person in
their midst. We must promote it in our own countries,
get it recognised so that legislators make it legally
enforceable.
On this point, it was said this morning that family carers
should not be competing with but complement
professionals; and that professional carers could even
conceivably train family carers. That is a perspective is
it not that could be examined in partnership with the
union representatives for this sector.
Another issue we are deeply committed to which we
have already taken policy positions on but which, like
the previous one, is an area where action is the sole responsibility
of the States and the EU is work-family life
balance.
The three principles – R, S, T, – apply on all points here: to
family allowances, to childcare services – sometimes incompany
ones –, parental, maternity and paternity leave,
and the opening hours of childcare provision, schools
and the rest.
Allied to this are two issues on which COFACE campaigns
alongside other associations, particularly in the Social
Platform.
One is our concern about the role of men in sharing
family responsibilities; some years back, we published
a little red book based on the work done by seven of
our member organisations. It enjoyed a great success. It
examined the respective situations of men and women
in the different countries covered, and suggested various
changes that might be encouraged.
Also, in close conjunction with other partners, we are
pressing for a reduction in or preferably end to the gender
pay gap. The fact that we still have one is nothing
short of a scandal given how many years both Parliament
and associations have been calling for this.
III. The third and final part of my speech is about taking
a good look at ourselves, looking at how we have
worked and thinking how would could do it better. This
is what I called “ how we do things ” or the institutional
perspective.
As to the internal “ mechanics ”, first of all, I think they are
tried and tested and we are doing it right. As I said, they
meet the principles of open debate and democracy. We
need to focus our attention elsewhere.
There are discernible shortcomings in the legislative
process. There are issues that we have already addressed
with our friends in the Commission or Parliament but
which have still not been adopted; maternity and paternity
leave is a case in point, which is in the EP’s pending
tray ahead of Council.

So it is also with the implementation of the European
Alliance for Families – something we set great store
by! But there is still no real European Observatory on
National Family Policies…
Another case in point, already mentioned, is the Charter
for Family Carers. It has been put about and presented,
but getting recognition for family carers is very hard going
at both national and European levels…
Faced with these shortcomings, we have to dig our heels
in, making the point to the Member State and EU policymaking
authorities that we have adopted this or that
opinion, introduced this or that initiative three or four
years ago.
So, the first thing is – keep up the pressure !
Secondly, we need to engage with the national and
European parliaments. The Family Intergroup has been
renewed for the new parliamentary term, and I should
like to thank Ms Záborská again for being here; you told
us that you need us, and we also need MEPs. This means
that we will work together very well, because we are
calling on one another.
But we also need to work together with other MEPs. We
have not done that enough. We need to reach out more
to the MEPs of the different parliamentary groups.
The various parliamentary committees discuss a wide
range of instruments; the thing to do is to call the attention
of their members to the family dimension of what
they are discussing. And there we are back at mainstreaming
again…
Turning back to our different Member States, let me
address myself to the elected representatives of family
associations here today: each of you needs to make
representations to your MEP, calling attention to this or
that aspect of instruments coming up in the next parliamentary
session. This local action depends on the highly
efficient team of permanent staff in Brussels keeping you
informed in detail on the agenda items and if need be reminding
you of the position adopted by COFACE on them.
Doing this will make your MEP more accountable to his
or her constituency as well as being a practical way of
contributing to European integration at the sharp end.
The next major opportunity to finesse our approach to
European and national MPs could find a focus in the future
work on the “ EU2020 Strategy ”.
Finally, the relations between COFACE and the Council is
another area where we need to improve our approach
by striking up contacts more ahead of time with future
EU presidencies. I am thinking here of my two Belgian
and Hungarian neighbours, as well as Poland from 1 July
2011. Better groundwork for each presidency’s half-year
would enable us to plan for debates, even to suggest
topics, in short, to do a better job for the families that it
is our privilege to represent.
Let me end this lengthy keynote speech – which is a mix
of observations, hopes and a roadmap – with a proposal
that we will be formalising in the coming weeks to be
sent to the relevant Community bodies.
2014 will be the 20 th anniversary of the International Year
of the Family.
We propose that the EU should celebrate that anniversary
by appointing 2014 “ European Year of Families ”.
Honourable Ministers, Ladies and gentlemen, Friends,
thank you for your attention.
Let me now hand over to the Honourable Ministers for
the closing speeches.
Yves Roland-Gosselin
closing speeches > Yves roland-gosselin
69

70
Honourable Minister,
Mr Chairman of the Social Affairs Committee
Chairs,
Mr President,
Ladies and gentlemen,
I joined you yesterday afternoon for the opening of this
splendid conference and my partners and friends in
COFACE very kindly asked me to come back to close the
event, so it is an immense and unalloyed pleasure for me
to be here with you all.
First, may I again say how infinitely grateful I am to
COFACE for having the goodness and great ability to
make such an excellent job of organising this conference
and especially for the very great quality of the speakers
and discussions.
As I said yesterday, the topics chosen resonate particularly
with me. The wealth of discussions and activities
that took place yesterday and today have easily met not
to say exceeded the joint aims we started out with.
After these 3 particularly packed and productive halfdays
and following the various proposals made by
COFACE in particular as well as other organisations and
participants, I wanted to come back to a number of
points in particular.
First, let me say how much I appreciated the presentation
of COFACE’s triangle of principles, which aims to
mainstream the family dimension across other European,
national and regional policies.
closing speeches > melchior Wathelet
closing speeches
Mechior Wathelet
Belgian Secretary of State for Family Policy
I think that triangle – composed of adequate family financial
resources, quality services for families and time
available to families – very neatly encapsulates the different
aspects for which we have to continue working
together in the months and years to come.
Where adequate financial resources for families in these
testing economic times are concerned, the fact of my
being Secretary of State for Budget and Family Policy in
no way divides my loyalties, but rather makes me take
great pains to keep a focus on them both in Belgian discussions
and in those I may be involved in at European
level. It is a big challenge, and the balance is not always
easy to get right, but I stand four-square behind the view
taken this morning that these difficulties must not in any
way leave our families worse-off or more vulnerable.
So, I agree with COFACE about the need to preserve
and develop our social protection system as well as all
the measures taken by my colleague, the Deputy First
Minister in charge of EPSCO for the EU Presidency, Joëlle
Milquet, in order to promote sustainable quality jobs,
while ensuring equality of opportunity and the workfamily
life balance.
I also wholeheartedly concur with what my colleague
Philip Courard is doing in the fight against child poverty.
I am also delighted at and commend the Hungarian
Presidency’s plans to actively pursue this priority on the
EU agenda.
Where giving effect to this first principle of the triangle is
concerned, I would like to come back to a measure that
was mentioned this morning and I feel most strongly
about – moving to an objective system for calculating
maintenance payments. Legislation has recently been
passed in Belgium to provide an objective basis for that
calculation and respond to families’ real needs. What the
EU now needs to do is to further develop the recognition
of judgments in civil matters and their enforcement in
the context of citizen mobility that we must continue
to support.
Secondly, I would also like briefly reconsider the issue
of time needed by families in order to promote a better
balance between work and family life.
The different types of leave we have now must now
be further improved in quality and quantity. We made
tangible progress last year in Belgium with maternity,
parental and paternity leave with more flexible possibilities
for taking leave. Specific flexibility for taking maternity
leave by self-employed mothers was also provided
by allowing a free choice of when to take the weeks
after the first two weeks – which must be taken consecutively
– within 5 months after childbirth. As regards
European Union developments, I welcome the adoption
of the Parental And Child-Rearing Leave Directive of 8
March 2010 which has to be implemented no later than
8 March 2012.
Coming back to a concrete proposal made this morning,
from an equality approach I also support longer paternity
leave and making part of it compulsory.
As for the third side of the triangle, the quality of services
offered to families, I am particularly keen that their
future development should take into account changes
in family structures. I am of course thinking of childcare
provision, access to and quality of education but also
assistance to more vulnerable groups like the elderly
and the disabled.

To this effect, I firmly support measures to improve the
position and recognition of carers in the family.
Furthermore, to encourage the health protection, respect
and well-being of elderly people and to act more
effectively against the various forms of abuse they may
face, I set up a task force of front-line experts and academics.
Its work resulted in late July in the development
of a Charter on well-being for the elderly, which is available
on the website http://www.respectdesaines.be and
is intended to ensure more effective prevention of the
different forms of violence that our elderly people may
suffer from, such as loneliness, institutional violence, but
also violence from other family members.
To conclude, I also wanted to talk about the cross-cutting
approach of family policy.
As I said at yesterday’s opening ceremony, this is the aspect
that I am trying to gradually introduce in Belgium,
and now I have the opportunity to do it at European
level, again squaring with the context of COFACE’s work.
This approach is what in particular prompted my moves
to have a family tribunal set up to simplify and clarify the
treatment of family cases.
After a vast amount of combined work by experts from
the court system, we completed a comprehensive
scheme. The collapse of our Government has unfortunately
prevented the proposal from being adopted as
yet. But the work has been done, and we shall be looking
to put it into effect in the months to come.
Also based on this cross-cutting approach, I have, since
taking office as Secretary of State for Family Policy, been
backing the establishment of a Family Observatory. That
being so, I particularly support the development of the
European Alliance for Families as a platform and database
of family policies within the European Union. To
my mind, it is the perfect network for supporting the
dissemination and exchange of best practices in family
policy. Perhaps COFACE could be involved so as to bring
its full expertise and know-how to it.
The Open Method of Coordination carried out at
European Union level is also an excellent way of working
and interacting in a matter that has remained largely
national. This method is also operating in the current
consultation on the 2020 Strategy – an initiative that has
opened the debate on the role of families in particular in:
❙ Creating knowledge-based growth values which are
not just about the sum of euros produced but rather
human values and personal commitment;
❙ Promoting empowerment in an open society
through access to and improved levels of education,
tolerance and putting in place mechanisms that
allow time for supporting young and older people;
❙ The development of an economy committed to
educating and protecting families as consumers and
tackling the digital divide;
❙ Effective governance of the Union and developing
effective learning of citizenship, the fundamental
role of families.
These, to my mind, are very important lines of work
which we must continue to work towards together in
the months and years ahead, looking to your proposals
and the implementation of the EU 2020 Strategy.
Again, thank you all for your invaluable contributions
and the detailed, informed views that have been given.
Let me now hand over to my Hungarian colleague, whom
I wish every success in the forthcoming presidency and
with whom I plan to work closely in the handover period.
MelchioR Wathelet
closing speeches > melchior Wathelet
71

72
Tisztelt Államtitkár úr,
Elnök úr,
tisztelt előadók és vendégek!
Köszönet a meghívásért, a tartalmas konferenciáért,
a nagyszerű szervezésért.
Úgy gondolom, az elmúlt két nap során számos
megközelítésből beszéltünk arról, hogy
Európa valamennyi tagállamában nagyon
fontos, sőt egyre fontosabb szerepe van a
családpolitikáknak. Van azonban egy tényező,
amelyről nem ejtettünk szót, noha
ez véleményem szerint nagyon fontos : ez
a tényező nem más, mint a családok lelki
dimenziója. A közelmúltban két, megrázó
méretű ipari katasztrófa érte a világot : egyfelől
a Chilei bányászok esete, másfelől a
közelmúltban Magyarországon a vörösiszap
tragédiája. Számomra mindkét eset arra
mutatott rá, hogy azok az emberek, akiket
Chilében a bánya romjai alatt rekedtek, és akik
Magyarországon egyik pillanatról a másikra
elveszítették mindenüket, nem tudtak volna
ilyen helytállásról tanúbizonyságot tenni, ha
nincsenek mögöttük családjaik. A családok
lelki ereje nemcsak a bányászokra hatott, hanem
rajtuk keresztül az egész chilei nemzetre
kihatással volt. A családi háttér, a család lelki
támogatása nélkül bizonyára mindannyian
feladták volna a küzdelmet.
closing speeches > miklós Soltész
closing speeches
Miklós Soltész
Hungarian Secretary of State for Social, Family and Youth Affairs
Dear Mr Secretary of State,
Mr Chairman,
Honoured Lecturers and honoured Guests,
Thank you for inviting me, and thank you
for this comprehensive conference, for its
excellent organisation.
I think during the last two days we discussed
several aspects of family policies
that are very important for each member
state of the European Union, and are becoming
even more important. However,
there is a factor that we did not mention,
though according to my opinion it is very
important : this factor is nothing else but
the mental strength provided by the families.
Recently two grave industrial disasters
shocked the world : one of them was the
case of the miners in Chile, and the other
one was the alumina sludge spill tragedy
of Hungary. These disasters highlighted for
me that those people, who were trapped
under the ruins of the mine in Chile, and
those people in Hungary, who suddenly
lost everything, would have not been able
to go through their ordeal as they did, if
their families had not supported them. The
mental and spiritual strength of the families
had an impact not only on the miners,
but through the miners it had an impact
on the nation of Chile as a whole. Without
the support of families and without the
mental support of the families, probably
all of them would have given up the fight.
A családok ügye, a családok érdekeinek, a
családi dimenziónak a folyamatos figyelembe
vétele elengedhetetlen a politikai döntések
meghozatala során. A család közjó, a
társadalom alapegysége. Meggyőződésem,
hogy ha meg tudjuk erősíteni a család intézményét,
akkor a gyermekvállalás és a demográfiai
folyamatok terén is pozitív hatások
várhatók. Ezen feladat szükségességére
irányították rá a figyelmet Elnök úr adatai is.
Az új magyar kormányzat kiemelt célja a
családok megerősítése. Ennek érdekében
átalakítjuk az adórendszert, amelyben meg
fognak jelenni a családi kedvezmények :
ennek összege egy, illetve két gyereknél közepes,
míg a harmadik gyerek esetében jelentős
mértékű. Ezen túl olyan intézkedéseket
hozunk, amelyek a családi élet és a munka
összeegyeztetését szolgálják, részmunkaidős
programokat indítunk be és a gyermekek
napközbeni ellátását biztosító intézményi
struktúra átalakításával és bővítésével
hozzájárulunk a gyermekvállalás növekedéséhez.
Miniszterelnökünk, Orbán Viktor
szavaival élve kormányunk célja, hogy 10 év
alatt 1 millió új munkahely és legalább 1 millió
kisgyermek szülessen meg. A munka és a
család egyensúlya nálunk Magyarországon
tehát nem csak az egyének, a családok szintjén
elérendő cél, hanem nemzetgazdasági és
társadalmi szinten is.
When making political decisions we must
take into consideration the issue of families,
the interests of families and the family dimension
on a continuous basis. The family
is a common good, is the basic unit of the
society. I firmly believe if we will be able to
reinforce the institution of the family, then
positive developments may be expected in
the areas of willingness to have children and
demographic processes as well. The data
presented by the President also directed
attention to the essential nature of this task.
The priority of the new Hungarian government
is to strengthen families. To accomplish
this we are transforming the taxation
system, where family allowances will be
introduced : the amount of these allowances
will be of a medium level in the case
of families with one or two children, while
in the case of a third child these allowances
will be significant. In addition to this, we
will introduce measures for harmonising
family life and work, we will start part-time
work programs and by transforming and
extending the institutional structure of
children’s day care we will encourage people’s
willingness to have children. Quoting
the words of our Prime Minister, Mr Viktor
Orbán “ the goal of our government is to
establish 1 million new workplaces and to
encourage the birth of at least 1 million
children within 10 years ”. Therefore the
balance between work and family here
in Hungary should be achieved not only
on the individual and family level, but on
national economic and social levels as well.

Ebben a szellemben a trio elnökség magyar
szakaszában prioritásként fogjuk
kezelni a demográfiát és családügyet.
Köszönöm a trio másik két tagállamának,
Spanyolországnak és Belgiumnak, hogy ők
is aktívan foglakoznak a demográfiai kérdésekkel,
akár az aktív idősödés kapcsán,
akár a gyermek jólét és most a COFACE konferencián
a családügy kapcsán. A magyar
elnökség alatt a munka és a családi élet
összeegyeztetésére és annak demográfiai
folyamatokra gyakorolt hatására szeretnénk
fókuszálni, hiszen kormányunk hosszú
távú célja is ezzel függ össze : növekvő foglalkoztatottság
növekvő termékenységgel.
A magyar katolikus egyház 2011-re meghirdette
a családok évét. Ehhez kapcsolódik az
a magyar EU elnökségi elképzelés, amely
egy tematikus, figyelemfelkeltő hét megrendezésével
szeretné ráirányítani a figyelmet
a népesedési és családügyi kérdésekre.
Március utolsó hetében szeretettel várjuk
Önöket Magyarországra, ahol a tematikus
hét keretében szakértői, tudományos, civil
és egyházi konferenciák, valamint figyelemfelkeltő
lakossági programok és kampányok
megrendezését tervezzük, amely bízunk benne,
hogy nem csak Magyarországon, hanem
egész Európában rá irányítja a figyelmet a
családügy és a népesedési kérdések fontosságára.
Április 1-én a családügyi miniszterek
informális ülésén közös, európai közleményt
szeretnénk kiadni a témával kapcsolatban.
Ehhez kérem az együttműködésüket, a támogatásukat
és megtisztelő részvételüket.
In this spirit, in the Hungarian part of the
Trio Presidency of the EU, we will focus on
demography and the issue of the families
as priorities. I am grateful to the other two
Member States of the Trio Presidency, to
Spain and Belgium, that they also actively
address the issues of demography, both
regarding active ageing and child welfare,
as well as now, at the COFACE conference,
from the aspect of family affairs. During
the Hungarian Presidency we wish to focus
on harmonising work and family life
and the impact of this harmonisation on
demographic processes, since the long
term goal of our government – increasing
employment with increasing productivity
– is closely related to these issues as well.
The Hungarian Catholic Church announced
that 2011 will be the year of families. The
Hungarian EU Presidency's intention to organise
a thematic, awareness week for the
purpose of directing attention to the issues
of demography and family affairs is also
connected to this. You are invited to come
the last week of March to Hungary, where
in the framework of a thematic week we
plan to organise professional, scientific,
civil and church conferences and community
awareness programs and campaigns.
We hope that these events will draw attention
to the importance of family affairs
and demographic issues not only within
Hungary, but throughout Europe. On April
1 st , at an informal meeting of Family Affairs
Ministers, we wish to issue a joint European
declaration concerning this issue.
Mindezeken túl, Elnök úr szavaira reflektálva
szeretném Önöket megerősíteni abban,
hogy Magyarország is elkötelezett amellett,
hogy az Európai Unió 2014-et a Családok
Európai Évének nyilvánítsa ki. Többek között
ennek eléréséért is tevékenyen fogunk
dolgozni az elkövetkező hónapokban.
Belga államtitkár társamnak köszönöm még
egyszer, hogy felkarolta ezt a rendkívüli eseményt.
Köszönöm a figyelmüket és bízom
benne, hogy hamarosan újból találkozunk
Magyarországon !
Miklós soltész
I ask for your co-operation, support and
your honourable participation in this
regard. In addition to all the above, reflecting
on what the President has said, I
would like to confirm that Hungary is also
committed to the European Union declaring
the year 2014 to be the European
Year of Families. We will work actively in
the coming months – among others – to
achieve this.
I would like to thank again my colleague,
the Belgian Secretary of State, that he supported
this extraordinary event. Thank you
for your kind attention and I do hope that
we will meet again soon, in Hungary !
Miklós soltész
closing speeches > miklós Soltész
73

74
Brussels, 18 th October, 2010 – The Confederation of Family Organisations
in the European union (COFACE) has urged the leaders of European institutions
to proclaim 2014 as the European Year of Families, which is also the
20th anniversary of the International Year of the Family. This appeal was
made during the closing stages of the European Conference for Families,
which was held on 14 th and 15 th of October this year at Egmont Palace
in Brussels, with the support of the Belgian Secretary of State for Family
Policy and within the framework of 2010, the European Year for Combating
Poverty and Social Exclusion.
The President of COFACE addressed the audience, which was made up of
representatives from European institutions, European NGOs, representatives
of the social partners and political leaders in the presence of Her Majesty
Queen Paola of Belgium. “ The commitments made within the framework of the
European Year 2010 are crucial to increasing COFACE’s influence at a moment
when we are convinced that family support is the most effective means of preventing
poverty and social exclusion, particularly where children and young people
are concerned. The second aim of our conference is to examine the family dimension
of European policies by means of debates supported by video testimonials,
presentations by family policy specialists and contributions from family organisations
acting at national level, but also to establish a road map for a Europe that
promotes social inclusion ”, reminds COFACE President, Yves Roland-Gosselin.
“ I have really and truly been won over by the COFACE triangle approach, which promotes
services, time and resources as the three fundamental pillars of any family
policy ”, declared State Secretary Melchior Wathelet. “ As the spokesperson for
Belgian Presidency of the EU and the Belgian Secretary of State for Family Policy,
I can only express my joy that the key message in this conference is that families
represent the greatest investment for the future of the Union. In collaboration with
our Hungarian counterparts who will take up the torch in the months to come, we
are making every effort to ensure that families remain central to political concerns.
For in order to achieve effective governance in the EU what better place than the
family core to develop European citizenship ? ”, added the Secretary of State.
press release 18 October 2010 > 2014 : european Year of families ?
press release 18 October 2010
2014 : European Year of Families ?
The European Commissioner in charge of employment, social affairs and inclusion,
László Andor, was also present at the conference and took part in
the Commission’s firm commitment concerning family policy. “ I am in favour
of strong, social, cross-dimensional policies in the EU. This principal defines the
guidelines for my term of office because I believe that political action should not
come down to playing with abstract ideas. It involves responding to the expectations
of our European citizens – these men, women and children who are directly
– or even indirectly – suffering from the devastating effects of the crisis. ”, declared
Commissioner Andor. “ I thank COFACE for having invited me to this conference
and I congratulate them on their choice of subject. I am convinced that all members
of COFACE share my concerns and that together we will succeed in substantially
improving matters ”.
The Hungarian Secretary of State for Social Affairs, Miklós Soltész, also reiterated
the commitment of his country towards families. “ The Hungarian Presidency
will be a presidency that will add to the progress of our Belgian colleagues. We
will make families our focus, particularly highlighting the demographic aspect ”
insisted Secretary of State Soltész. “ Not only will we support COFACE’s initiative
to make the year 2014 the European Year of the Family, but we will also defend it
fervently throughout our presidency ”.
“ I can already tell you that in Hungary, the year 2011 will be entirely devoted to
families. We have planned to hold an expert forum about the subjects of disability
and family carers and we also intend to have an interactive platform, which will
deal with these matters. We plan to bring together all 27 Ministers in charge of
Family Policy in order to draft an opinion project about demographic matters.
I will take advantage of this opportunity here to invite COFACE to participate in
this meeting. Finally, I would like to heartily thank COFACE for this conference
and for having reminded us how important it is that the EU considers the family
dimension in all its policies”.

participants list
Speakers and Chairs
Her majesty Queen Paola Queen of Belgium BE
vermeulen Caroline Secretary of HM Queen Paola BE PR@kppr.be
alitOlPPa-niitamO Anne Chair of the COFACE Working Group Education and Information and Communication Technologies FI anne.alitolppa-niitamo@vaestoliitto.fi
andOr László EU Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion – European Commission EU laszlo.andor@ec.europa.eu
besOZZi Carlotta Director of the European Disability Forum EU carlotta.besozzi@edf-feph.org
casteX Françoise Member of European Parliament – Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats FR francoise.castex@europarl.europa.eu
cOmitO Anna Maria Chair of the COFACE Working Group Inclusive policies for disabled and other dependent persons and their families IT a.comito@tin.it
driesKens Annemie Chair of the COFACE Working Group Family and Social policies BE gezinspolitiek.secretaris@gezinsbond.be
FOrssen Katja Professor at the University of Turku FI kafors@utu.fi
HelsPer Ellen Lecturer, London School of Economics UK E.J.Helsper@lse.ac.uk
HOremans Ludo President of the European Anti Poverty Network BE ludo.horemans@antwerpen.be
lOurdelle Henri Advisor, ETUC FR hlourdel@etuc.org
nilssOn Staffan President of the Group III, European Economic and Social Committee EU staffan.NILSSON@eesc.europa.eu
PaulY Roger President of Gezinsbond BE algemeen.voorzitter@gezinsbond.be
Plasman Dominique General Secretary of Femmes prévoyantes socialistes BE dominique.plasman@mutsoc.be
reuter Conny President of the Social Platform EU conny.reuter@solidar.org
revenu Nicolas Chair of the COFACE Working Group Consumer protection, services and public health policies FR nrevenu@unaf.fr
rOland-gOsselin Yves President of COFACE FR yvesrg@scarlet.be
rØnnest Jørgen Chairman of the Social Affairs Committee, Business Europe EU JRR@da.dk
sOltÉsZ Miklós Minister of State for Social, Family and Youth Affairs HU Edina.joo@szmm.gov.hu
sWiecKa Beata University of Szczecin (Poland) PL beata.swiecka@wzieu.pl
tassa Emanuela Directorate General of Employment and Social Affairs, European Commission EU emanuela.tassa@ec.europa.eu
ulHendOrFF Uwe Project coordinator, FamilyPlatform Project DE uuhlendorff@fb12.uni-dortmund.de
vignOn Jérôme President of the Semaines Sociales of France FR Vignon.jerome@gmail.com
WatHelet Melchior Belgian Secretary of State for Family Policy BE info.wathelet@wathelet.fed.be
ZÁbOrsKÁ Anna Chair of the Family Intergroup at the European Parliament – European People’s Party SK anna.zaborska@europarl.europa.eu
participants list > Speakers and chairs
75

76
participants list > participants
participants list
Participants
abOlina Liga Ministry of Welfare of the Republic of Latvia LV Liga.Abolina@lm.gov.lv
agius Silvan International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association – ILGA-Europa EU silvan@ilga-europe.org
andrianne Philippe Cabinet de Melchior Wathelet, Secrétaire d'État à la Politique des Familles BE philippe.andrianne@wathelet.fed.be
badura Heinrich Europäische Akademie für Lebensforschung, Integration und Zivilgesellschaft – EALIZ AT heinrich.badura@ealiz.eu
baraJas Felix General Directorate for Social Policy, Families and Childhood – Ministry of Health and Social Policy ES fbarajas@msps.es
basuYau Fiammetta Association des Paralysés de France – APF FR fiammetta.basuyau@neuf.fr
bissieres Muriel Directorate General of Employment and Social Affairs, European Commission EU muriel.bissieres@ec.europa.eu
bOmbasset Caroline Mouvement mondial des mères
bOulanger Pascale Cabinet de Melchior Wathelet, Secrétaire d'État à la Politique des familles BE pascale.boulanger@wathelet.fed.be
brincat Katya Family Mediation Coordinator – SPF Justice MT
brOmbO Pierluigi Comité économique et social européen – CESE EU Pierluigi.brombo@eesc.europa.eu
buFFetaut Stéphane Comité économique et social européen – CESE EU stephane.Buffetaut@eesc.europa.eu
burnY Gauthier TexTure s.a. BE gb@texturedesign.eu
casara Sara Falcéc
cascOn Far Mercedes The Family Watch BE merchemilenio@hotmail.com
cHabbert Delphine Ligue des Familles BE d.chabbert@liguedesfamilles.be
cHabert Gabrielle Forum européen des femmes – FEF BE g.chabert@forumeufemmes.eu
cHanina Valentina European Association for the Education of Adults – EAEA BE eaea@eaea.org
cHarrOn Florian COFACE Secretariat EU secretariat@coface-eu.org
cHicHarrO Maria Uncear ES mchicharro@uncear.org
cHrYsOgelOs Emmanouil Supreme Confederation of Multichild Parents of Greece – ASPE GR xrysogelosmanolis@yahoo.gr
cOcOZZa Liliane Réseau Européen d’Action Sociale – ESAN BE liliane.esan@skynet.be
cOrnelissen Raphaël Cabinet de Melchior Wathelet, Secrétaire d’État à la Politique des familles BE raphael.Cornelissen@wathelet.fed.be
cOsta Michela COFACE Secretariat EU mcosta@coface-eu.org
d'addatO Agata Eurochild EU Agata.daddato@eurochild.org
dantin Gérard European Economic and Social Committee – EESC EU gerard.dantion@eesc.europa.eu
dastrevelle Françoise Ligue des Familles BE f.dastrevelle@liguedesfamilles.be
de belleFrOid Françoise Mouvement mondial des mères – MMM Europa EU fm.debellefroid@skynet.be
de bergeYcK Julie Mouvement mondial des mères – MMM Europa EU home@debergeyck.be
de blic Marie Confédération nationale des associations familiales catholiques – CNAFC FR mariedeblic@orange.fr
decancK Steven Cabinet de Melchior Wathelet, Secrétaire d’État à la Politique des familles BE Steven.DeCanck@wathelet.fed.be
degrand - guillaud Anne Directorate General of Employment and Social Affairs, European Commission EU anne.degrand@ec.europa.eu
de lannOY Stéphanie Fondation Kepha / Forum européen des femmes – FEF BE stlannoy@hotmail.com
de lesPinaY Marie Veronique New Women for Europe BE newwomenforeurope@gmail.com
delgadO Marién Uncear ES mdm@uncear.org
de liedeKerKe Anne-Claire Mouvement mondial des mères – MMM Europa EU anneclaire@mmmeurope.org
de rOecK - isebaert Ann Gezinsbond BE annisebaert@hotmail.com

desmarets Anne Cabinet de Melchior Wathelet, Secrétaire d'État à la Politique des familles BE anne.desmarets@wathelet.fed.be
de smet Luc Gezinsbond BE directiescs@gezinsbond.be
desmet Bert Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel BE bert.desmet@hig.be
devillers Jacques COFACE BE jacquesdevillers@yahoo.fr
de WascH Eric Gezinsbond BE dewasch.eric@scarlet.be
ducenne Caroline Aidants Proches BE Caroline.ducenne@aidants.be
dumOn Wilfried VLEVA / Kuleuven BE wilfried.dumon@soc.kuleuven.be
duPe Jean Familles de France FR jeandupe2@wanadoo.fr
d'ursel Nathalie New Women for Europe BE Nathaliedurs@gmail.com
everard Aline Femme/Homme&Foyer BE fhf@belgacom.be
Farrer Linden COFACE Secretariat EU lfarrer@familyplatform.eu
FeriZOvic Dijana GOPA-Cartermill (Web Portal of the European Alliance for Families) BE dferozevic@gopa-cartermill.com
Fierens Françoise Cabinet de Melchior Wathelet, Secrétaire d'État à la Politique des familles BE Francoise.Fierens@wathelet.fed.be
FuresZ Tunde Political Councellor HU Edina.joo@szmm.gov.hu
gambrelle Aliette Union nationale des associations de parents, de personnes handicapées mentales et de leurs amis – UNAPEI FR a.gambrelle.cnaf@wanadoo.fr
gerard Olivier UNAF FR ogerard@unaf.fr
gHOOs Marie-Thérèse COFACE BE mthghoos@skynet.be
gilibert Noël Fédération nationale Familles Rurales FR infos@famillesrurales.org
gOFFinet Françoise Institut pour l'égalité des femmes et des hommes – IEFH BE francoise.goffinet@iefh.belgique.be
gOnZalO castellanOs Ana Forum Européen des Femmes – FEF EU anagonzaloc@gmail.com
grabner Peter Family Initiative SL andreja.grabner@vike.si
HaFFner François ASBH Spina-Bifida FR spina-bifida@wanadoo.fr
HibO Sarah Femmes prévoyantes socialistes – FPS BE sarah.hibo@mutsoc.be
Hiila Helena Väestöliitto, The Family Federation of Finland FI helena.hiila@vaestoliitto.fi
HildingssOn Maria Fédération des associations familiales catholiques en Europe – FAFCE BE m.hildingsson@fafce.org
HOel Anne European Public Health Alliance – EPHA EU anne@epha.org
HrastniK Bojana Jovin District Court Judge – SPF Justice SL
HucKert Nicole European Commission EU Nicole.Huckert@ec.europa.eu
HuFnagel Gerlinde Nova Zena, SK AT wyae.gerlinde@gmail.com
ivens Anthony Children in Wales (representing Eurochild) GB tony.ivens@childreninwales.org.uk
iversen Sven Association of German Family Organisations – AGF DE iversen@ag-familie.de
Janssens Annie Gezinsbond BE internationaalsecretariaat@gezinsbond.be
JelineK Josef SONZ CZ jsf.jelinek@gmail.com
JOYeuX Henri Familles de France FR henri.joyeux@wanadoo.fr
JulemOnt Ghislaine Centre d’action laïque – CAL BE gju@skynet.be
KaPela Teresa Trzy Plus PL Teresa.Kapela@3plus.pl
KircHenbauer Julius FairValue Corporate & Public Affairs FR jkirchenbauer@fairvaluecc.com
participants list > participants
77

78
Kisban Kriszta Head of Secretariat, Ministry of State for Social, Family and Youth Affairs HU Edina.joo@szmm.gov.hu
Klinger Maria Pro Familia HU klinger70@gmail.com
KOndratas Skirma Vice Minister of Social Security and Labour of Lithuania – SPF Justice LT
KOrmanO Laura Väestöliitto, The Family Federation of Finland FI laura.kormano@vaestoliitto.fi
KOrmOsne debreceni Zsuzsanna National Association of Large Families – NOE HU kormos.zsuzsa@noe.hu
KOvacs Gabriella European Commisson – ANDOR Cabinet EU Gabriella.KOVACS@ec.europa.eu
lambert Denis Ligue des Familles BE d.lambert@liguedesfamilles.be
lang Mechtild Association of Catholic Organisations of Austria – KFÖ AT info@familie.at
laY Gregory COFACE BE gregolay@hotmail.com
laY Lallie COFACE BE gregolay@hotmail.com
laY William COFACE Secretariat EU wlay@coface-eu.org
le HOdeY-de licHtervelde Colette Forum européen des femmes – FEF BE c.delichtervelde@forumeufemmes.eu
lerOY Liliane Femmes prévoyantes socialistes – FPS BE liliane.leroy@mutsoc.be
livadOPOulOs Spiridon Legal Counsellor of the Secretary General for Gender Equality – SPF Justice GR
lOmastrO David Cabinet de Melchior Wathelet, Secrétaire d’État à la Politique des familles BE david.lomastro@wathelet.fed.be
lubs Marie-T. Egmont Riir BE mtlubs@gmail.com
magOtteauX Julien Cabinet de Melchior Wathelet, Secrétaire d'État à la Politique des familles BE julien.magotteaux@wathelet.fed.be
malscH Isabel Familles de France FR isabel.malsch@orange.fr
mareKOva Slavomira Club of Large Families SK slavomira@netkosice.sk
marmaneu Emilio Conf. española de familiares de enfermos de Alzheimer y otras demencias – CEAFA ES direccion@ceafa.es
marQues Andreia
mataraZZO Annamaria Department for Family Policies, Presidency of the Council of Ministers IT a.matarazzo@governo.it
matei Aniela National Scientific Research Institute for Labour and Social Protection of Romania RO aalexandrescu@incsmps.ro
meauZe Françoise Confédération nationale des associations familiales catholiques – CNAFC FR gmeauze@hotmail.fr
melard Anne AGE Platform Europe EU anne.melard@age-platform.eu
mendeZ Elvira Asociación Salud y Familia ES emendez@saludyfamilia.es
miet Philippe Association des Paralysés de France – APF FR philippe.miet@apf.asso.fr
mOdeva Roumjana Women and Mothers against Violence BG r.modeva@gbg.bg
mOlisse Noël COFACE BE noel.molisse@skynet.be
mOnet Daniel ASBH Spina-Bifida FR daniel.monet@wanadoo.fr
nanKOva Mariela Women and Mothers against Violence BG mariela_nankova@abv.bg
nielsen John-Hebo Joint Council for Child Issues – JCCI DK johnhebo@webspeed.dk
O’callagHan John Irish Countrywomen’s Association – ICA IE office@ICA.ie
ParasKevas Marie-Anne European Commission, DG EMPL EU Marie-Anne.Paraskevas@ec.europa.eu
Parra Nina German Federal Ministry of Family Affairs DE Nina.parra@bmfsfj.bund.be
PedraZZani Davide Associazione Italiana Genitori – AGe IT davide.pedrazzani@age.it
PereZ Ana COFACE Secretariat EU aperez@coface-eu.org
participants list > participants

Pitance Benoît Cabinet de Melchior Wathelet, Secrétaire d'État à la Politique des familles BE Benoit.Pitance@wathelet.fed.be
POtZinger Elisabeth Association of Catholic Organisations of Austria – KFÖ AT info@familie.at
POYHOnen Päivi University of Helsinki FI paivi.m.poyhonen@helsinki.fi
Quevit Anne Fonds du Logement Wallon BE contact@flw.be
rabemiaFara Nirina APPLICA BE nr@applica.be
rasKOv Petar Permanent Representation of Bulgaria to the EU BG
ricHardsOn Dominic OECD EU Dominic.Richardson@OECD.org
riOndinO Michele Pontificia Università Lateranense IT micheleriondino@hotmail.com
riviere Meriadec Union nationale des associations familiales – UNAF FR meriadec.riviere@finances.gouv.fr
rObben Marina International Federation for Family Development ES marinarobben@gmail.com
rOdrigO Jesús Conf. española de familiares de enfermos de Alzheimer y otras demencias – CEAFA ES direccion@ceafa.es
rOland-gOsselin Jacqueline COFACE FR yvesrg@scarlet.be
sabatier Marie-Chantal Union nationale des associations de parrainage de proximité – UNAPP FR contact@unapp.net
samaras Paraskevas Pancyprian Organisation of Large Families – POP CY parisam9@logosnet.cy.net
sancHeZ Catherine Union nationale des associations de parents, de personnes handicapées mentales et de leurs amis – UNAPEI FR Catherinesanchez2@gmail.com
sanduleasa Bertha National Scientific Research Institute for Labour and Social Protection of Romania RO aalexandrescu@incsmps.ro
santOnOcitO Gaetano Associazione italiana per l’assistenza agli spastici – AIAS Monza IT santonocito@aiasmonza.it
scHaFFHauser Lise Marie Union nationale des associations de parrainage de proximité – UNAPP FR president@unapp.net
scHmalZried Martin COFACE Secretariat EU mschmalzried@coface-eu.org
scHOningH Insa Association of German Family Organisations – AGF DE info@eaf-bund.de
scialdOne Antonio Istituto per lo Sviluppo della Formazione Professionale dei Lavoratori – ISFOL IT a.scialdone@isfol.it
searY Bill COFACE UK bill@seary.org
simOnin Céline Union nationale des associations de parents, de personnes handicapées mentales et de leurs amis – UNAPEI FR c.simonin@unapei.org
smet William Cabinet de Melchior Wathelet, Secrétaire d'État à la Politique des familles BE William.Smet@wathelet.fed.be
sOcias Ignacio The Family Watch ES isociasp@gmail.com
sOrZanO Maria Valencian Regional Office in Brussels ES msorzano@delcomval.be
stamOulis Dimitrios Supreme Confederation of Multichild Parents of Greece – ASPE GR dstamoulis@yahoo.com
sZantai Krisztina Permanent Representation of Hungary to the EU HU krisztina.szantai@kum.hu
tavaZZani Franca Associazione italiana per l'assistenza agli spastici – AIAS IT franca.tavazzani@aiasmilano.it
tHerrY Christiane Familles de France FR christiane.therry@familles-de-France.org
tOmbinsKa Agnieszka ZDR3+ BE a.tombinska@op.pl
trnOvec Stanislas Club of Large Families SK trnovec@gmail.com
turdO Benedetta European Commission EU Benedetta.TURDO@
van den bOsscHe Chantal Women in Europe for a Common Future – WECF NL Chantal.vandenbossche@wecf.eu
van mallegHem Guy Aidants Proches BE guyvanmalleghem@hotmail.com
van Oldeneel Louise Femme / Homme & Foyer BE fhf@belgacom.be
van WiJK-van de ven Marie-Louise Alliance européenne d'organisations féminines catholiques – ANDANTE EU andante@planet.nl
participants list > participants
79

80
verHas Christel Gezinsbond BE Christel.verhas@gezinsbond.be
vYras Kyriakos Pancyprian Organisation of Large Families – POP CY kyriakos@vyras.com
Wall Liz Irish Countrywomen's Association – ICA IE office@ICA.ie
Wallut Laurent UNAF FR Laurent.wallut@gmail.com
Wautier E Mouvement mondial des mères – MMM Europa
Wegner Katharina Diakonisches Werk der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland DE Wegner@diakonie.de
WelssenbOcK Elisabeth Permanent Representation of Austria to the EU AT Elisabeth.weissenboeck@bmeia.gv.at
WinOgradsKY Agnes Fédération des associations familiales catholiques en Europe – FAFCE EU agneswino@gmail.com
ZaHarlieva Mitka 1 st Secretary of Mrs Popova, Bulgarian Minister – SPF Justice BG
ZegHicHe Hayet COFACE Secretariat EU hzeghiche@coface-eu.org
participants list > participants

COFACE is supported under the European Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity – PROGRESS (2007-2013).
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=327&langId=en

17 rue de Londres
B - 1050 Brussels
T. +32 2 511 41 79
F. +32 2 514 47 73
secretariat@coface-eu.org
www.coface-eu.org
www.TexTureDesign.eu