COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity Grid Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Recommendation on individual learning accounts
Date: 2021-12-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: EU employment policy, access to education, adult education, continuing education, continuing vocational training, economic recovery, employment aid, labour force, training leave, updating of skills

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 10.12.2021  SWD(2021) 368 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity Grid Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Recommendation on individual learning accounts  {COM(2021) 773 final} - {SEC(2021) 417 final} - {SWD(2021) 369 final} - {SWD(2021) 370 final}  
 
 
1.  Can the Union act? What is the legal basis and competence of the Unions’ intended action? 

1.1 Which article(s) of the Treaty are used to support the legislative proposal or policy initiative? 

The  envisaged  legal  basis  is  Article  149  combined with  Article  292  TFEU.   It  allows  for  non-binding 
measures in the field of employment aimed at providing comparative analysis and advice as well as 
promoting  innovative  approaches.  It  contributes  to  the  implementation  of  article  145  TFEU, 
according to which “Member States and the Union shall (…) work towards developing a coordinated 
strategy  for  employment  and  particularly  for  promoting  a  skilled,  trained  and  adaptable  workforce 
and labour markets responsive to economic change”. 

1.2 Is the Union competence represented by this Treaty article exclusive, shared or supporting in 
nature? 

In the case of employment policy, the Union’s competence is shared.  This follows from Article 4(1), 3 
and 6 TFEU.  Subsidiarity does not apply for policy areas where the Union has exclusive competence as 
defined in Article 3 TFEU1. It is the specific legal basis which determines whether the proposal falls 
under the subsidiarity control mechanism. Article 4 TFEU2 sets out the areas where competence is 
shared between the Union and the Member States. Article 6 TFEU3 sets out the areas for which the 
Unions has competence only to support the actions of the Member States. 

2.  Subsidiarity Principle: Why should the EU act? 

2.1 Does the proposal fulfil the procedural requirements of Protocol No. 24: 

-  Has there been a wide consultation before proposing the act? 
- 

Is there a detailed statement with qualitative and, where possible, quantitative indicators 
allowing an appraisal of whether the action can best be achieved at Union level? 

The  stakeholder  consultation  included  targeted  consultation  events  and  the  public  consultation.  
Stakeholders  could  send  comments  on  the  Commission’s  inception  impact  assessment  as  well  as 
provide written statements, in response to the targeted consultations and the public consultation. 

The Inception Impact Assessment was available online for public feedback between 23 March 2021 
and 20 April 2021. 23  contributions were  received, mostly from trade unions (9), NGOs (5) and EU 
citizens (3).  12-week public consultation was launched on 23 April through an online questionnaire 
(including both open-ended and closed questions), which ended on 16 July. 216 respondents replied 
to  the  consultation  comprising  78  citizens,  26  public  authorities,  46  business  associations  and 
enterprises,  26  trade  unions  and  40  NGOs/other  respondents.  The  majority of  answers  came  from 
Belgium (35), of which 23 belonged to EU-level organisations, followed by Italy (24). 38 stakeholders 
submitted position papers in the context of the public consultation.  

Starting with a high-level forum on individual learning with nearly 800 participants from 48 countries 
on  4-5  March  2021,  the  Commission  also  conducted  targeted  consultation  events  with  different 
groups  of  stakeholders.  This  included  consultations  of  the  social  partners,  the  Employment 
Committee  (EMCO),  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee 
(EESC), the European Quality Assurance in vocational Education and training (EQAVET) network, the 

1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008E003&from=EN  
2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008E004&from=EN  
3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E006:EN:HTML  
4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12016E/PRO/02&from=EN  

1 

 
 
                                                           
 
 
Public Employment Service (PES) Network, the Advisory Committee for Vocational Training (ACVT)/ 
Directors  General  for  Vocational  Training  (DGVT),  and  the  the  European  Qualifications  Framework 
and  Europass  Advisory  Groups  and  Euroguidance  Centres.  The  ACVT  adopted  an  opinion  on  the 
initiative on 16 August 2021.  

The explanatory memorandum and the impact assessment both contain a section on the principle of 
subsidiarity, as further explained under question 2.2. Throughout the impact assessment, qualitative 
and, where possible, quantitative indicators are provided to allow for an appraisal of this issue. 

2.2 Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying the 

Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the conformity with the 
principle of subsidiarity? 

In  the  impact  assessment,  Section 3  explains the  necessity  and  added  value  of  EU  action,  which  is 
summarised  in  the  explanatory  memorandum.  While  the  initiative  is  expected  to  support  and 
accelerate  national  efforts,  it  will  fully  respect  the  principle  of  subsidiarity,  by leaving  decisions on 
key design parameters to the Member States, notably decisions on the funding source, the amount 
of entitlements, priority target groups or eligible training opportunities. 

While Member States can take measures to improve the situation at national level, an EU initiative 
can  support  and  accelerate  national  efforts  by  sharing  experiences  and  promoting  innovative 
approaches.  It  can  also  help  set  expectations  and  create  trust  among  Member  States  and 
stakeholders for an increase in public and private investment in skills, sending the message that all of 
them  will  contribute  to,  and  benefit  from,  the  shared  asset  of  a  skilled  EU  labour  force.  84%  of 
respondents to the public consultation agreed that the initiative could also lead to a more efficient 
use of EU funds for skills development. 

The  initiative  can  facilitate  access  to  training  for  the  growing  number  of  EU  citizens  who  reside  in 
another EU Member State, contributing to labour mobility within the EU and a further integration of 
the  single  market.  The  initiative  can  also  contribute  to  creating  a  level  playing  field  for  companies 
operating  on  the  single  market  by  enhancing  the  quality  and  transparency  of  the  training  market 
across the EU.  

Article  149  TFEU  precludes  measures  which  would  lead  to  a  harmonisation  of  the  laws  and 
regulations of the Member States in this area, respecting subsidiarity by allowing Member States to 
adapt the measures taken to national circumstances. 

2.3 Based on the answers to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action be 

achieved sufficiently by the Member States acting alone (necessity for EU action)? 

The proposed action aims to support Member States in their national reforms and investments to 
tackle common challenges. In the absence of supporting EU action, progress is expected to be 
insufficient and uneven. 

(a)  Are there significant/appreciable transnational/cross-border aspects to the problems being 

tackled? Have these been quantified? 

The proposed action aims to support Member State national reforms to tackle common challenges 
concerning  low  participation  in  adult  learning  mainly  in  national  context.    However,  the  problems 
have transnational aspect. Limited transparency about training offers and uncertainties about their 
quality and recognition can be expected to create particular challenges for EU citizens who reside in 
another Member State and companies operating on the single market. Moreover, a skilled EU labour 
force is a shared asset benefitting all EU Member States in view of increasing intra-EU labour mobility 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
and economic inter-dependency on the single market.  

(b)  Would national action or the absence of the EU level action conflict with core objectives of 

the Treaty5 or significantly damage the interests of other Member States? 

In its Conclusions of 25 June 2021, the European Council welcomed the ambition from the European 
Pillar  of  Social  Rights  Action  Plan  and  the  Porto  Declaration  that  at  least  60%  of  all  adults  should 
participate  in  training  every  year  by  2030.  The  analysis  in  the  impact  assessment  suggests  that 
progress is unlikely to be sufficient in the absence of EU level action to support national actions. 

(c)  To what extent do Member States have the ability or possibility to enact appropriate 

measures? 

Most Member States have identified increasing participation of adults in learning as a priority in legal 
acts, policies, or strategies and have taken measures relevant to the general and specific objectives 
of the proposed action.  However, the past experience shows that progress, overall and across groups 
of adults, is uneven. The proposal aims to support Member State’s reform and investment efforts by 
providing them with a commonly agreed framework for the key functional elements needed to make 
progress. 

(d)  How does the problem and its causes (e.g. negative externalities, spill-over effects) vary 

across the national, regional and local levels of the EU? 

While the extent of the problem varies across EU Member States, the underlying problem drivers of 
insufficient financial support for training and limited incentives and motivation of individuals to take 
up training are common across the EU. They result from underinvestment in training stemming from 
its  costs  being  concentrated  while  its  benefits  are  shared  widely  (positive  externalities),  and  from 
information  problems  concerning  training  availability,  quality  and  recognition  of  training  in  the 
labour market.  

(e)  Is the problem widespread across the EU or limited to a few Member States? 

The  problem  is  wide-spread  across  the  EU.  This  is  reflected  by  the  fact  that  adult  learning 
participation fell short of the EU level target for 2020 that had been set in the Council Conclusions of 
12  May  2009  on  a  strategic  framework  for  European  cooperation  in  education  and  training  (“ET 
2020”) in 21 of 27 Member States. In addition to being low, participation in adult learning is unequal 
and  strongly  depends  on  the  labour  market  status,  employment  relationship,  company  size, 
educational attainment and the exposure of sectors or occupations to automation. As documented in 
the impact assessment this problem is -to varying degrees- present in all Member States. All Member 
States received country-specific recommendations on skills in the context of the European Semester 
in either 2019 or 2020. 

(f)  Are Member States overstretched in achieving the objectives of the planned measure? 

No, the  qualitative  and  quantitative  analysis of the  impacts of  the  recommended measures  on  the 
Member  States,  in  particular  the  economic  and  social  impacts,  do  not  suggest  that  the  Member 
States are overstretched (Section 6 of the impact assessment). 

(g)  How do the views/preferred courses of action of national, regional and local authorities 

differ across the EU? 

In  the  public  consultation,  a  large  majority  of  respondents  agreed  that  this  initiative  addresses 

5 https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en  

3 

 
 
                                                           
relevant  constraints  to  training  and  expected  positive  impacts,  with  particular  strong  agreement 
among Member States with lower participation rates. In the targeted consultations, social partners 
sought reassurance that the implementation of either policy option will not come at the expense of 
support for training provision by employers, and social partners and public authorities pointed to the 
diversity  of  existing  national  arrangements  to  support  training.  The  proposed  Recommendation 
complements  existing  training  provision  and  leaves  Member  States  with  sufficient  room  of 
manoeuvre for implementation according to national circumstances, notably concerning the funding 
of  training  entitlements  or  governance  arrangements  to  ensure  the  quality  and  labour  market 
relevance of training offers eligible for funding.  

2.4 Based on the answer to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action be 

better achieved at Union level by reason of scale or effects of that action (EU added value)? 

EU action can increase the chances that national reforms in the Member States achieve the common 
objectives. 

(a)  Are there clear benefits from EU level action?  

Yes,  EU  level  action  would  set  a  clear  and  common  framework  for  the  Member  States  for  their 
national  reforms  to  close  gaps  in  the  access  to  training  and  increase  individuals’  incentives  and 
motivation to takeup training. It would increase the chances of reaching the Union’s ambition from 
the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights  Action  Plan  and  the  Porto  Declaration  that  at  least  60%  of  all 
adults should participate in training every year by 2030, alongside other actions from the European 
Skills Agenda and at Member State level. 

(b)  Are there economies of scale? Can the objectives be met more efficiently at EU level (larger 

benefits per unit cost)? Will the functioning of the internal market be improved? 

While the focus of the initiative is on supporting Member States’ national reforms, these reforms can 
benefit  from  a  common  EU  framework  that  facilitates  mutual  learning.  More  than  8  of  10 
respondents to the  public consultation agreed that it could also lead to a more efficient  use of EU 
funds for skills development. Enhancing the  quality and transparency of the training market across 
the EU improves the functioning of the single market by supporting labour mobility and contributing 
to a level playing field for companies operating on the single market.  

(c)  What are the benefits in replacing different national policies and rules with a more 

homogenous policy approach? 

The proposed action does not replace well-functioning national policies, but supports Member State 
reforms to complement them. Recommendations have been derived on the basis of comparative 
analysis to identify innovative approaches to tackle the common challenges, as outlined in the impact 
assessment. 

(d)  Do the benefits of EU-level action outweigh the loss of competence of the Member States 
and the local and regional authorities (beyond the costs and benefits of acting at national, 
regional and local levels)? 

Given the choice of the proposed instrument (Council Recommendation, see Section 3.1 of this 
document), there is no loss of competence of the Member States and the local and regional 
authorities.  

(e)  Will there be improved legal clarity for those having to implement the legislation? 

4 

 
 
The proposal improves clarity on how Member States can integrate “demand side” financial support 
to individuals with ongoing implementation efforts on existing EU Recommendations that focus on 
the “supply side”. This concerns notably the Recommendations on VET, Upskilling Pathways and the 
validation of non-formal and informal learning. 

3.  Proportionality: How the EU should act 

3.1  Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying the 

Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the proportionality of the 
proposal and a statement allowing appraisal of the compliance of the proposal with the 
principle of proportionality? 

The content and the proposed instrument (Council Recommendation) of the proposed action are 
proportionate to its objectives. As outlined in the impact assessment, the main arguments are the 
urgency of the up- and reskilling challenge in view of the digital and green transitions, the ambition 
of Member States to increase adult learning participation levels significantly by 2030 beyond levels 
that can reasonably be expected to be reached under the baseline scenario, and Member States’ 
ambition to strengthen their provisions on individual training entitlements and ensure their 
transferability during professional transitions (as stated in the revision of the Employment Guidelines 
of 13 October 2020). 

3.2 Based on the answers to the questions below and information available from any impact 
assessment, the explanatory memorandum or other sources, is the proposed action an 
appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives? 

Yes. The proposed action would provide Member States with a framework for the key functional 
elements needed to achieve its objectives. It would not make recommendations on design aspects 
that are best left to Member State’s consideration in light of national circumstances.    

(a)  Is the initiative limited to those aspects that Member States cannot achieve satisfactorily on 

their own, and where the Union can do better? 

The  recommendations  are  limited  to  the  aspects  needed  to  reach  the  objectives  of  the  initiative. 
Important design aspects such as the funding source, amount of training entitlements or governance 
arrangements  to  ensure  the  quality  and  labour  market  relevance  of  training  offers  are  left  to  the 
Member States.   

(b)  Is the form of Union action (choice of instrument) justified, as simple as possible, and 

coherent with the satisfactory achievement of, and ensuring compliance with the objectives 
pursued (e.g. choice between regulation, (framework) directive, recommendation, or 
alternative regulatory methods such as co-legislation, etc.)? 

Yes. A Council Recommendation would provide a common framework for action that could serve as 
basis  for  subsequent  analysis  of  reforms  and  progress.  It  would  create  political  ownership  by 
Member States of commonly agreed recommendations on the concrete elements that can help them 
to make the necessary progress towards the agreed targets on adult learning participation.  

(c)  Does the Union action leave as much scope for national decision as possible while achieving 
satisfactorily the objectives set? (e.g. is it possible to limit the European action to minimum 
standards or use a less stringent policy instrument or approach?) 

Yes.  The  initiative  is  limited  to the  key  functional elements  needed  to  achieve  its  objectives,  while 

5 

 
 
leaving  many  important  design  aspects  to  the  Member  States.    The  recommendation  to  set  up 
personal  accounts  for  training  entitlements  is  proportionate  because  such  accounts  allow  to  de-
couple training entitlements  from their original funder and give  individuals full ownership over the 
entitlements, which is essential to ensure the transferability of entitlements. Personal accounts also 
facilitate flexible funding models with cost-sharing across different funders of training entitlements 
and modulated support by target groups, accommodating a wide range of possible national funding 
and implementation models.  

(d)  Does the initiative create financial or administrative cost for the Union, national 

governments, regional or local authorities, economic operators or citizens? Are these costs 
commensurate with the objective to be achieved? 

The impacts related to the costs of the initiative have been analysed to the extent possible (Section 6 
and Annex 3 of the impact assessment). The analysis suggests that the benefits of the recommended 
measures (notably in the form of higher productivity and wages) would outweigh their costs within a 
few years after implementation. 

(e)  While respecting the Union law, have special circumstances applying in individual Member 

States been taken into account? 

Yes. No recommendations are made on the source of funding for training entitlements in order to 
accommodate the different national traditions, including concerning the role for collective bargaining 
in  the  provision  of  training  entitlements.  The  impact  assessment  analyses  possible  differential 
impacts  across  Member  States  depending  on  their  estimated  levels  of  adult  learning  participation 
under the baseline scenario and concludes that the benefits  of the recommended measures would 
outweigh their costs also in Member States with already relatively high adult learning participation. 

6