REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the statistics relating to vocational training in enterprises
8.2.2005 - (COM(2004)0095 – C5‑0083/2004 – 2004/0041(COD)) - ***I
Committee on Employment and Social Affairs
Rapporteur: Ottaviano Del Turco
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the statistics relating to vocational training in enterprises
(COM(2004)0095 – C5‑0083/2004 – 2004/0041(COD))
(Codecision procedure: first reading)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2004)0095)[1],
– having regard to Articles 251(2) and 285(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C5‑0083/2004),
– having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A6‑0033/2005),
1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;
2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;
3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.
Text proposed by the Commission | Amendments by Parliament |
Amendment 1 Recital 6 (new) | |
|
(6) This Regulation should take account of the definition of 'people at a disadvantage in the labour market' given in the guidelines for the Member States' employment policies, |
Justification | |
This new recital is needed to provide a definition of 'groups that are disadvantaged' in the labour market, something which is lacking in the present proposal for a regulation (see Article 3(1)(h)). According to the guidelines for the Member States' employment policies, people at a disadvantage are those 'facing particular difficulties on the labour market, such as early school leavers, low-skilled workers, people with disabilities, immigrants, and ethnic minorities'. | |
Amendment 2 Recital 7 | |
(7) Particular attention has to be given to the training at the workplace as a crucial dimension of lifelong learning. |
(7) Particular attention has to be given to the training at the workplace and during working hours, both these aspects being crucial dimensions of lifelong learning. |
Justification | |
It is important to enable training to take place at the workplace during working hours, given that training and work are linked, the idea being to make training a motivation, without entailing excessive demands on workers’ time. | |
Amendment 3 Recital 13 | |
(13) The measures necessary for the implementation of this Regulation should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission. |
(13) The measures necessary for the implementation of this Regulation should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission. These measures should take into account the available capacities within the Member States for data collection and processing. |
Amendment 4 Article 2, letter (c) | |
(c) 'second Continuing Vocational Training Survey (CVTS2)’: second European survey of continuing vocational training in enterprises carried out in 2000/2001 in all Member States for the reference year 1999. |
deleted |
Justification | |
This amendment is needed in the interests of consistency with Amendment 12, which deletes the annex concerning gross sample sizes. | |
Amendment 5 Article 3, paragraph 1, letter (c) | |
(c) the role of social partners in ensuring adequate continuing vocational training in the workplace; |
(c) the role of social partners in ensuring all aspects of continuing vocational training in the workplace; |
Justification | |
This amendment is needed to prevent evaluations that are completely arbitrary and difficult to quantify in statistical analysis. Nevertheless, it seeks to guarantee the role of the social partners in ensuring all aspects of continuing vocational training in the workplace. | |
Amendment 6 Article 3, paragraph 1, letter (f a) (new) | |
|
(fa) the effects of public measures on continuing vocational training in enterprises; |
Justification | |
This amendment is necessary to include the effects of public policies in the analysis of continuing vocational training. This will make it possible to verify the origins of funding for vocational training. | |
Amendment 7 Article 3, paragraph 1, point g | |
(g) equal opportunities to access continuing vocational training in enterprises for all employees, with specific respect to gender in particular; |
(g) equal opportunities to access continuing vocational training in enterprises for all employees, with specific respect to gender and specific age groups in particular; |
Amendment 8 Article 3, paragraph 1, letter (h a) (new) | |
|
(ha) vocational training measures geared to different types of employment contract; |
Justification | |
This amendment is needed to update the report and include different types of employment contract in the analysis of vocational training. | |
Amendment 9 Article 3, paragraph 1, letter (j) | |
(j) the evaluation of continuing vocational training in enterprises. |
(j) the evaluation and monitoring procedures of enterprises as regards continuing vocational training. |
Justification | |
This change is needed to prevent evaluations that are completely arbitrary and difficult to quantify in statistical analysis. It would be more appropriate to analyse the evaluation and monitoring procedures relating to vocational training. Monitoring is particularly important in verifying the effectiveness of training. | |
Amendment 10 Article 5, subparagraph 1 a (new) | |
|
Having regard to the specific national size distribution of enterprises and the evolution of policy needs, Member States may extend the definition of the statistical unit in their country. The Commission may also decide to extend this definition in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 14 if such extension would enhance substantially the representativeness and the quality of the result of the survey in the concerned Member States. |
Justification | |
This change is needed to allow for the inclusion in the regulation of enterprises with fewer than ten workers where the specific economic circumstances of the country so require. According to Eurostat statistics, enterprises with fewer than ten workers in the Europe of 25 account for an average 90% of enterprises and employ 27.49% of workers. In some countries, however, such as France, Belgium, Finland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, Malta and Italy, this percentage is substantially higher. In Italy, for example, enterprises with fewer than ten workers account for 96.85% of enterprises and employ 57.65% of workers. The amendment therefore seeks to enable Member States to extend the definition of the statistical unit in their country, if they so wish, and to allow the Commission to decide to extend this definition in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 14 | |
. | |
Amendment 11 Article 6, paragraph 2 | |
2. Through a survey the enterprises are asked to give correct and complete data within the prescribed deadlines. |
2. Through a survey, the enterprises are called upon to give correct and complete data within the prescribed deadlines. |
Justification | |
The aim is to oblige enterprises to provide correct and complete data within the prescribed deadlines, rather than simply asking them to do so. | |
Amendment 12 Article 6, paragraph 3 | |
3. The Member States may make it compulsory for enterprises to reply to the survey. In case of a compulsory survey enterprises shall be obliged to give correct and complete data within the prescribed deadlines. |
3. The Member States shall lay down the modalities for enterprises to reply to the survey. |
Justification | |
The aim is to require the Member States to oblige enterprises to reply to the survey. However, it allows individual countries to lay down the procedures for enterprises to do so. | |
Amendment 13 Article 7, paragraph 1 | |
1. The survey shall be a sample survey. Sample sizes shall be in the range of those used in CVTS2 listed in the Annex. |
1. The survey shall be a sample survey. |
Justification | |
This amendment is needed in the interests of consistency with Amendment 12, which deletes the annex on gross sample sizes. | |
Amendment 14 Article 7, paragraph 3 | |
3. Sampling and precision requirements, specifications of the NACE and size categories into which the results can be broken down shall be determined by the Commission in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 14. |
3. Sampling and precision requirements, the sample sizes needed to meet these requirements, specifications of the NACE and size categories into which the results can be broken down shall be determined by the Commission in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 14. |
Justification | |
This amendment is needed in the interests of consistency with Amendment 12, which deletes the annex on gross sample sizes. Sample sizes will be determined by the Commission assisted by the Statistical Programme Committee, in accordance with Article 14 of the proposal for a regulation. | |
Amendment 15 Article 8, paragraph 1, point (a) | |
(a) training and non-training enterprises; |
(Does not affect English version.) |
Justification | |
(Does not affect English version. | |
) | |
Amendment 16 Article 8, paragraph 1, point (b) | |
(b) different forms of training. |
(Does not affect English version.) |
Justification | |
(Does not affect English version.) | |
Amendment 17 Article 9, paragraph 3 | |
3. The Commission (Eurostat) shall assess the quality of the data transmitted. |
3. On the basis of the reports referred to in Article 9(2), the Commission (Eurostat) shall assess the quality of the data transmitted with particular regard to ensuring the comparability of the data between Member States. |
Amendment 18 Annex | |
Rounded gross sample sizes in CVTS2 |
deleted |
Country | |
Gross sample size (rounded) | |
| |
Belgium | |
4 000 | |
| |
Denmark | |
2 800 | |
| |
Germany | |
10 200 | |
| |
Greece | |
4 400 | |
| |
Spain | |
11 500 | |
| |
France | |
8 100 | |
| |
Ireland | |
2 100 | |
| |
Italy | |
13 900 | |
| |
Luxembourg | |
1 300 | |
| |
Netherlands | |
8 000 | |
| |
Austria | |
6 900 | |
| |
Portugal | |
9 200 | |
| |
Finland | |
3 100 | |
| |
Sweden | |
5 800 | |
| |
United Kingdom | |
4 000 | |
| |
Justification | |
The annex is out of date, since it does not include the new Member States and the gross sample sizes are based on the second CVTS survey carried out in 200/2001. The annex should therefore be deleted and the Commission allowed to determine the sample sizes for individual Member States with the assistance of the Statistical Programme Committee (in this connection see amendment 11). |
- [1] OJ C 98,
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
I. Introduction
The policy of lifelong learning is a basic component of the European employment strategy (as already acknowledged at the Lisbon European Council in 2000) and figures in all the Member States’ national action plans.
However, above and beyond the general political commitment to this policy, efforts need to be focussed on effective application and follow-up. The statistics reveal an alarming situation. The total number of workers engaged in continuing training in 1998 was 8%, yet by the end of 2003 the figure had risen to only 8.5%. Furthermore, because these figures refer only to the Europe of 15, they are irrelevant to the situation in the enlarged Europe.
A legal basis at European level for compiling comparable data which give a true picture of continuing vocational training must be seen as an essential element for significantly improving Europe’s commitment to effective follow-up of this policy.
With this in view, your rapporteur feels it is necessary to make the current proposal for a regulation as precise and binding as possible.
II. Regulation on the statistics relating to vocational training in enterprises
The regulation establishes a common framework for the protection of Community statistics on vocational training in enterprises.
The first enterprise survey of continuing vocational training (CVTS1) was conducted in 1994. The survey was part of the action programme for the development of continuing vocational training in the European Community (FORCE) based on Council Decision 90/267/EEC of 29 May 1990. The second survey (CVTS2) was conducted in 2000/2001 in all the Member States, Norway and nine candidate countries.
The implementation of both CVTS1 and CVTS2 was based on ‘gentlemen’s agreements’ between Eurostat and the EU Member States. After the implementation of CVTS2, Eurostat and the EU Member States decided to provide a legal basis for data collection within the European statistical system in the form of a European Parliament and Council regulation.
Because CVTS is the only source of statistical information at international level on continuing vocational training in enterprises, the regulation seeks to provide for the collection of data on training in enterprises at regular intervals within the European statistical system. In particular, it aims to develop a method that will place cooperation with enterprises in the Member States on a stable footing and improve the quality and comprehensiveness of data.
III. Remarks on the rapporteur’s proposed amendments
The rapporteur welcomes the political decision taken by the Member States and Eurostat to provide a legal basis for the collection of data on vocational training in enterprises in the form of a European Parliament and Council regulation. The rapporteur is also aware of the urgent need for this regulation to enter into force so as to help place cooperation with enterprises in the Member States on a stable footing and improve the quality and comprehensiveness of data.
He nevertheless believes that a number of amendments are needed to ensure that the regulation is truly binding on enterprises in all the Member States and can produce as accurate a picture as possible of the situation of vocational training in enterprises. These amendments are essentially designed to:
4 require Member States to compel enterprises to reply to the survey, while nevertheless giving individual countries the freedom to determine the relevant procedures.
4 provide a definition of ‘groups at a disadvantage on the labour market’, since this is lacking in the current proposal for a regulation (see Article 3(1)(h)).
4 prevent the possibility of evaluations that are totally arbitrary and difficult to quantify in a statistical analysis (Amendments 3 and 6).
4 include in the regulation enterprises with fewer than ten workers where the specific economic circumstances of the country concerned so require. According to Eurostat statistics, enterprises with fewer than ten workers in the Europe of 25 account for 90% of all enterprises, but employ 27.49% of workers. In some countries, however, such as France, Belgium, Finland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, Malta and Italy, this percentage is higher. In Italy, for example, enterprises with fewer than ten workers amount to 96.85% and employ 57.65% of workers.
4 update the survey to include new and different forms of employment contract in the analysis of vocational training.
4 include the effects of public policies in the analysis of continuing vocational training.
4 delete the annex, which is not up to date, since it does not include the new Member States and the growth sample sizes are based on the second CVTS survey conducted in 2000/2001.
PROCEDURE
Title |
Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the statistics relating to vocational training in enterprises | ||||||||||
References |
COM(2004)0095 – C5‑0083/2004 – 2004/0041(COD) | ||||||||||
Legal basis |
Articles 251(2) and 285(1) EC | ||||||||||
Basis in Rules of Procedure |
Rule 51 | ||||||||||
Date submitted to Parliament |
17.2.2004 | ||||||||||
Committee responsible |
EMPL 16.9.2004 | ||||||||||
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s) |
BUDG 16.9.2004 |
ECON 16.9.2004 |
|
|
| ||||||
Not delivering opinion(s) |
BUDG 1.2.2005 |
ECON 13.9.2004 |
|
|
| ||||||
Enhanced cooperation |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
Rapporteur(s) |
Ottaviano Del Turco 20.9.2004 |
| |||||||||
Previous rapporteur(s) |
|
| |||||||||
Simplified procedure |
| ||||||||||
Legal basis disputed |
|
|
| ||||||||
Financial endowment amended |
|
|
| ||||||||
Discussed in committee |
24.11.2004 |
31.1.2005 |
|
|
| ||||||
Date adopted |
1.2.2005 | ||||||||||
Result of final vote |
for: against: abstentions: |
22 1 0 | |||||||||
Members present for the final vote |
Jan Andersson, Philip Bushill-Matthews, Ole Christensen, Derek Roland Clark, Ottaviano Del Turco, Harald Ettl, Richard Falbr, Ilda Figueiredo, Stephen Hughes, Jan Jerzy Kułakowski, Sepp Kusstatscher, Jean Lambert, Elizabeth Lynne, Mary Lou McDonald, Thomas Mann, Jiří Maštálka, Ana Mato Adrover, Csaba Őry, Jacek Protasiewicz, Anne Van Lancker, Gabriele Zimmer | ||||||||||
Substitutes present for the final vote |
Jamila Madeira, Dimitrios Papadimoulis, Leopold Józef Rutowicz, Eva-Britt Svensson, Georgios Toussas | ||||||||||
Substitutes under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote |
| ||||||||||
Date tabled – A6 |
8.2.2005 |
A6-0033/2005 | |||||||||
Comments |
... | ||||||||||