The European Parliament's Employment and Social Affairs Committee (EMPL) on 16 July 2026 debated the Commission proposal for a Council Recommendation on fighting housing exclusion, broadly endorsing its preventive and housing-led approach but diverging sharply on whether the instrument should be made binding and backed by dedicated EU funding.
Gabriele Bischoff (S&D) and Maria Ohisalo (Greens/EFA) criticised the non-binding nature of the recommendation, with Bischoff calling for binding targets and Ohisalo for common benchmarks and better data. Leila Chaibi (The Left) regretted the lack of binding status and proposed a European housing-first programme. Isabelle Le Callennec (EPP) stressed that financing should come from the existing Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), while Bischoff and Chaibi demanded dedicated EU funds. On evictions, Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (S&D) and Konstantinos Arvanitis (The Left) pushed for stronger prevention measures, but Commission official Jiri Svarc argued that the term 'housing exclusion' already prioritises prevention. Housing first was widely supported, though Ohisalo and Chaibi wanted it more central. Jana Toom (Renew) and Marc Angel (S&D) raised concerns about criminalisation and anti-discrimination gaps; Svarc referred to broader Commission strategies. Next steps include Council work under the Irish Presidency, with EMPL and the housing committee cooperating.
The debate revealed a moderate split between centre-left and left-wing MEPs pushing for binding targets and new EU funds, and the centre-right EPP favouring existing MFF resources. The Commission's recommendation, if adopted, would provide non-binding guidance to member states, limiting its direct impact but potentially shaping national policies. For EU producers in the construction sector, a stronger EU push could stimulate demand for affordable housing, while national authorities would face pressure to align with EU benchmarks without legal obligation. Civil society groups may see the recommendation as insufficient without binding targets, while EU taxpayers would bear no direct cost unless new funds are created.
45