Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-11-28-Speech-3-066"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071128.15.3-066"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
". −
Mr President, the Commission’s communication on flexicurity has triggered an important and useful discussion throughout the Union. I thank the rapporteur, Mr Christensen, and the other Members who have taken an active part in discussing flexicurity.
Mr President, I believe that, with the exception of these few reservations, the report is a useful, relevant contribution to the discussion about flexicurity, and once again I would like to thank the European Parliament for it.
Thanks to your efforts and cooperation with the other parliamentary committees, the European Parliament will be able to adopt a resolution that will significantly support the approach that the Commission has proposed. In our society, security depends on change. Now we must coordinate ways to seek new forms of security: better skills, the ability to find new jobs, modern protective measures adapted to the new labour market.
In recent years, for every job that has been lost in Europe in the industrial sector, four new jobs have been created in other sectors. The most important question is how to gain control over these shifts and how to manage this change successfully. We must also pose the question of the reasons for labour market segregation in a number of Member States.
I very much welcome the report that you are considering today. This report recognises that flexicurity can be a strategy for labour market reform. The text also supports the four-part policy structure formulated for flexicurity by the Commission. I can also fully support the proposal relating to common principles mentioned in paragraph 15 of this report. Your proposals take approximately the same direction as the proposals made by the Commission in its own communication. I understand your desire for some issues, such as measures to combat insecurity, to be explained more precisely. However, I believe that the principles must be concise and that they must be viewed from the standpoint of the whole communication.
I would also like to welcome the European social partners’ agreement with the analysis of labour market problems; their analysis was presented at the recent Tripartite Social Summit in Lisbon on 18 October 2007 and, among other things, also looked at flexicurity. This agreement indicates that social dialogue can bring concrete results. Indeed, you have referred to this joint analysis in your motion for a resolution.
Now I would like to reply to some of the critical views expressed in your report. I know you go on to say that discussion about flexicurity should be more balanced. First of all I would like to remind you that the Commission’s communication is the result of intensive dialogue between all the stakeholders and careful consultation with leading specialists in this field. I am convinced that the Commission’s approach is balanced, since the objective is to support flexibility and security simultaneously and, as has already been said, as two elements that are synergetic and in no way inconsistent.
It is obvious that discussion of flexicurity must not be misused to move towards labour market deregulation. On the contrary, flexibility and mobility must aim higher: that is, towards better jobs, towards a better balance between work and family and private life, a more efficient economy as a whole. As you know, in the next few weeks the Council will make a decision on common principles of flexicurity. After that, national discussions scheduled by all the stakeholders will continue, making it possible to pursue flexicurity strategies at the national level with regard to the specific features of individual states. I am confident that the individual stakeholders will ensure that a balanced approach can be achieved in the area of flexicurity.
As far as costs are concerned, it should be appreciated that the costs connected with a flexicurity policy are much lower than the concrete benefits in terms of a more dynamic labour market and reduced unemployment. Moreover, in a number of instances, it will mean no increase in financial costs, but more efficient use of available resources instead.
I would also like to react to the paragraph of the report in which it is stated that the open-ended contract should form the basis of a social security system. The Commission’s intention is in no way to reduce the importance of the open-ended contract. However, I believe that we should adopt more general systems of social security, which would apply both to open-ended contracts and to part-time employment: in short, the intention is that these forms of employment should also be provided with adequate social security cover, not that open-ended contracts should be weakened."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples