Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-07-10-Speech-2-081"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070710.7.2-081"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, with this debate we are winding up several months of discussions in the European Parliament on the issue of modernising labour law to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It has been quite an emotional and sometimes heated debate, but this is not really surprising, seeing as it is an issue affecting almost every European, regardless of their age, walk of life or place of living.
There are over 60 amendments to the report in its present form. Almost half of them support the approach of creating new jobs. I hope that the results of the voting will be satisfactory enough to enable me to recommend that this House adopt this report, and that it will be an important vote in the debate which the European Commission started by publishing the Green Paper in November last year.
However, intensive discussion has not been confined to this House. The publication of the Green Paper has given rise to wide public debate throughout the European Union, and has involved numerous trade unions, employers’ organisations, local businesses and workers’ organisations and various non-governmental initiatives both in the old and in the new Member States.
During these months, I have gained the impression that the majority of the participants in the debate agree that changes in labour law are necessary because of the challenges brought by this century. What challenges were they referring to? There were four main challenges. Firstly, the positive and negative consequences on European economies of advancing globalisation. Secondly, the rapid development of the service sector, which is rapidly giving rise to new jobs both in the new and old Member States, although these differ in nature to the jobs once created by industry. The third challenge is the sea change in technology, and particularly new communications technology, which is having a major effect on our present way of working. Another great challenge is demographic change, which even now has radically changed the situation in the European jobs market, and will change it even more radically in the near future.
Whilst there has been broad agreement that change is necessary, what direction these changes should take is not quite so clear-cut. Some MEPs have been in favour of greater flexibility in European regulation, arguing that this will increase employment and reduce unemployment. Others, by contrast, support a greater protective function for labour law. Some MEPs support greater harmonisation of national legal systems, saying that this is a requirement of the process of creating a single European market. Others steadfastly support the principles of subsidiarity, citing differences in the traditions and models prevailing in various Member States, and underlining that such diversity is a good thing because it allows best practice to be found through a practical exchange of experience, and is preferable to new, usually inflexible community regulation.
The initial draft of the report that I prepared as a draft position of the European Parliament, favoured greater flexibility and opposed harmonisation. It also proposed clauses giving a positive assessment of the influence of ‘atypical’ forms of employment on job creation in the European Union and challenged Member States to apply active employment policy methods and support adaptability designed to protect people rather than specific existing jobs.
In the introductory draft report, I also pointed out the need to improve EU and national regulations to free businesses and citizens from unnecessary costs and red tape. I pointed out in addition that excessively restrictive labour law may discourage enterprises from taking on new employees, even at times of economic growth. Furthermore, I drew attention to the key significance of education to improve the chances of workers and the unemployed of finding new jobs. In this context, I proposed that we appeal to the European Commission, Member States and employers to invest in lifelong learning and improve the quality of education for young people, in particular as regards the needs of local and regional jobs markets.
Finally, I drew attention to the great importance of mobility in improving the situation on the European labour market. That is why I proposed challenging Member States to remove the barriers imposed on the citizens of other Member States and opening up their domestic labour markets.
The first draft of the report provoked a lively reaction from fellow MEPs. The heated debate and the 490 amendments proposed to the original text were subjected to further discussion and negotiations with all political groups. At this point, I would in particular like to thank my colleagues from the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, and in particular Ole Christensen and his advisors, for their contribution.
The result of the negotiations was put to the vote at an extraordinary meeting of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs on 18 June in Strasbourg. I must admit that the result of the vote was not completely what I myself had wished for. I also have the impression that we lost a considerable contribution put forward by myself in the initial draft which, in my view, was not properly addressed in subsequent debates, which was that any reform of the labour market, including the reform of labour law, should serve to create new jobs in Europe in order to effectively face up to the challenge of the 17 million people who are currently out of work. These high unemployment levels are a direct threat to the values on which the European social model is based, and we must do everything we can to radically reduce them."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples