Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 10 July 2007 - Strasbourg

13. Modernising labour law to meet the challenges of the 21st century (continuation of debate)

  President. – The next item is the continuation of the debate on the report by Jacek Protasiewicz on modernising labour law to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

  Thomas Mann (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, despite considerable time pressure, the rapporteur Mr Protasiewicz has achieved a compromise that strikes a balance between security and flexibility in current labour law. Some formulations, however, are still not precise enough, such as those in Article 35, which gives varying definitions of a worker’s status under labour law. How is the principle of ‘self-employed at noon, employed in the evening’ supposed to function? Economically dependent self-employed workers are also self-employed when they have one single employer. They are usually people making their living from micro businesses, and they are responsible for a large proportion of work places in the EU. Attempts to make a clear-cut delineation between employees and the self-employed in my country, Germany, in the 1990s resulted in a collapse of new business start-ups and thousands of micro businesses.

I have the greatest doubts regarding the joint and several liability for general and principal undertakings, which gives rise to many practical problems. General undertakings are burdened with state tasks. They are being subjected to further red tape and considerable costs. For this reason I have tabled an amendment that will clearly remove such far-reaching obligations.

In a further amendment I underscore the competence of the European Union and its Member States for labour law, as provided for in Articles 127 and 137 of the EC Treaty. We must reject any further regulation or harmonisation at European level.

I recommend that we vote in favour of the report tomorrow when the amendments have been included, not least because of the rapporteur’s efforts to be so balanced.

  Jan Andersson (PSE). – (SV) I should like to thank all those involved, the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs, for the constructive work they have done in the committee in order to produce a report around which we can substantially unite. We must consider this report in the light of the global challenges and of demographic developments that mean we have to transform Europe. I have said it before and I shall say it again: the Commission has begun at the wrong end.

The important thing is security in the face of change. What is most important, then, is not labour law, but having an active labour market policy. Our concern should be with education, lifelong learning and sound employment security arrangements so that individuals can, in one way or another, transfer to new jobs in their old company or to a new company. This development must be seen as something positive, rather than as a threat. The Commission therefore started at the wrong end by challenging labour law. Sound labour law is needed in Europe if employees are to feel secure.

What is the situation at present? We have growth and an increase in employment in Europe. That is positive. However, we also see another development. There is an increase in the number of poor and insecure jobs that fail to provide a decent living and that, for example, offer poor working conditions. That is something that we must get to grips with, and we do not do that by impairing labour law. We do it, rather, by tackling the bad jobs and making them better and more secure so that they more closely resemble standard full-time jobs. That is the route we must take.

The Commission then also concentrated on individual labour law, and that was unfortunate. Collective labour law plays a huge role in many European countries. The social partners have a large part to play in labour law. It would not be out of place also to draw attention to collective labour law and the important work done by the social partners in the form of the social dialogue.

  Elizabeth Lynne (ALDE). – Mr President, I would also like to congratulate the rapporteur and thank him for his cooperation. This debate is about the future of labour law and we must recognise the current reality, which is that there has been an increase in non-standard contracts and that we must focus on employment security rather than on job security.

I do not believe we should be calling for a definition of worker at EU level. That should be left up to Member States. As far as collective bargaining is concerned, it still has a very significant role to play, but we must make sure that people who do not belong to a trade union have a way into the process. As, too, should small and medium-sized enterprises.

At the moment, the Commission’s list of social partners is short, and I believe it fails to truly take into account the views of SMEs, which are in many ways the engine room of Europe’s economy. I urge everyone here to vote for the ALDE Group’s amendments.

  Konrad Szymański (UEN), – (PL) Mr President, I shall be brief: I congratulate the rapporteur, but not the majority of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, which has brought us these amendments to the report. The jobs market is changing – new professions, new technologies and the growing share of services mean that new forms of employment will appear.

The left’s anxieties regarding worse paid and less secure jobs is usually erroneous. The real problem is the spread of inflexible solutions which hinder the creation of new jobs and condemn a large group of people to unemployment, and the transposition of such negative experience to countries which have a very competitive jobs market.

The red tape facing firms delegating workers within the European market is nothing more than a modern form of protectionism, aimed mainly at the new Member States, as shown by the examples of the Vaxholm and Viking Line cases, which went all the way to the European Court of Justice.

For these reasons, if the amendments proposed by the members of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats are implemented, by the rapporteur as well as by others, this report will not be able to count on my support.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, the daily examples we have seen of exploitation of workers in Portugal and in other European Union countries such as Holland and Romania, where Portuguese people are also involved, demonstrate that the intention, in the name of modernisation of labour law, is to facilitate dismissals by altering notice periods, costs and procedures applicable to individual and collective dismissal, and the very definition of unfair individual dismissal in order to destroy current contractual relationships.

They also want to make alterations to working hours and organisation, with all the consequences in the attack on collective contracting itself and the organisation of the workforce. Placing employers and workers on the same side of the scale of contractual provisions in what is supposedly a modern organisation of labour devalues the need to protect secure employment and the rights of the weakest link in labour relations: the workers who need their jobs and their salaries to survive.

As was demonstrated in Guimarães on the 5 July, the workers are fighting these serious proposals.

  Ana Mato Adrover (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, I would like to begin by congratulating Jacek Protasiewicz on the efforts he is making to find consensus and I hope that he will be successful tomorrow.

There is no doubt that a joint reflection was needed on what the rules for regulating the labour market mean, and I believe that the Green Paper has offered a good opportunity to do that.

New challenges and problems have arisen since the Luxembourg Summit, such as immigration and the ageing of the population, and in 1997 – we remember the objective was simply to incentivise the creation of jobs. Today, in an era of greater economic dynamism, we are advocating not just full employment but also high-quality employment.

By that I mean that we are seeking better working conditions, greater business management efficiency, reconciliation of family and working life, life-long learning and also stability. That is where I have my first reservation about the report.

Stability cannot be incompatible with part-time contracts. The report rules out this kind of contract and only advocates full-time contracts, forgetting how necessary part-time contracts, which can be indefinite and stable, are to the reconciliation of work and family life.

The report also criminalises and forgets temporary contracts, which are crucial and irreplaceable in certain sectors, such as tourism, catering, construction and agriculture, in which it would be unthinkable to draw up indefinite contracts, given the role they play.

Another reservation I would like to stress is that we know that labour systems vary enormously from one country to another. So do industrial relations, and it is therefore very difficult to produce joint legislation at European level.

We are more in favour of subsidiarity, and also the open coordination method and agreement amongst social agents. Naturally, we do not want to give the Commission a blank cheque to act on labour law issues without taking account of the different countries and the different characteristics that each of them have.

  Françoise Castex (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it was time, I think, that the European Union took up this debate and we can be pleased with the initiative of the Green Paper. Nonetheless, I fear that this initiative is not necessarily good news for European workers. The Green Paper is to be criticised as much for the method adopted as for the guidelines that it proposes.

First of all, concerning the method: I deplore that this consultation does not conform to the procedure laid down in Article 138 of the Treaty, which gives a particular status to the social partners when it is a matter of social policy. This derogation from the procedure is moreover denounced by the European Trade Union Confederation.

Next, the subject matter: a Green Paper must be impartial. It has to ask questions without giving answers a priori. The European Commission, however, makes claims that are patently ideological. That is the case when it criticises the traditional model for creating an obstacle to employment. It is the case again when it states that protection against redundancy is an obstacle to the dynamism of enterprises and lists work insecurity as evidence of modernity.

There exists in Europe and in international law enacted by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) principles and fundamental rights which must be respected. The open-ended contract must be confirmed as being the rule. The employee must be protected by legislation or collective bargaining or both. That is why, and I insist, collective bargaining must remain the major source for working out labour law.

A word, finally, on the concept of flexicurity, set up as a principle. As defined here, it introduces a major imbalance in the distribution of competences between the European Union and the Member States. The European Union would impose flexibility and would leave to Member States alone the responsibility for ensuring the security of employees. Our fellow citizens want a Europe that protects their rights and their social model. Let us not give them the image of a Europe that destroys their social acquis. Their adherence to the European project is at stake, let us not forget it.

  Ona Juknevičienė (ALDE). – (LT) There are two important issues in the document prepared by Mr Protasiewicz: 1) Non-standard employment contracts, 2) the concept of employee.

When non-standard employment contracts are applied, instances of employee discrimination occur. They are not provided with adequate social guarantees. However, flexibility helps firms adapt to market changes, and it helps employees balance their personal and professional lives.

Many Lithuanians work in the construction industry in the UK having registered as independent workers. In reality they work for construction firms, just like other workers. However, they do not have equal employment, social and other guarantees. The definition of an employee should be based on his real situation in the workplace and during working hours. Our goal is an effective labour market, in which a person would find suitable employment, and firms would find suitable employees. The document we are considering today is a contribution toward achieving this goal.

  Mieczysław Edmund Janowski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to thank Mr Protasiewicz for tackling the important issue of the adaptation of labour legislation to contemporary requirements. Although we know that there is no Community labour code, the European Union should nevertheless inspire positive and competitive changes and some standardisation in the area affecting labour law.

I would like at this point to bring in an extract from the position of the Polish Solidarity trade union regarding the Green Paper which says that while the main basis for work should continue to be a contract of employment of indefinite duration, which guarantees the proper protection of the permanence of employment relations, it does acknowledge the definition of a dependent worker to cover all persons working in conditions of dependence on a contractor, including some people providing work on the basis of civil law contracts. This should be tied in with a clear definition of self-employment.

I would like, at least in summary form, to raise a number of important issues: distance working, particularly work for young parents and the disabled, and the need to eliminate differences in pay between men and women doing the same work. The key words today should be: employment, flexibility, security. It is, however, not words, but people that are important – on the one hand, those people who wish to earn a living for their family by performing hired work, including the unemployed, and on the other, people who are employers – both private and public, and those who feel responsible for resolving our increasingly global problems.

  Edit Bauer (PPE-DE). – (SK) I agree with the opinion of those who would not like to live in an environment where labour law would exclusively reflect the needs of competition.

Undoubtedly, new economic trends result in the need for a more flexible labour market, which is associated with a higher proportion of atypical and non-standard labour contracts. The underlying question in this context is: Who should assume the new and greater risks of a more flexible labour market? The issue is not just one of greater protection for ‘outsiders’, as individuals or their families will have to bear the risks, and social losses will prove disproportionately large without a new approach based on the introduction of a win-win model. Just think of the problems associated with the demographic crisis. It is difficult to find a solution. So far, there seem to be more questions than answers, both at European and Member State levels.

A new paradigm appears to be necessary in the area of labour law, but not only in the narrow sense of the term. Originally, the concept of ‘flexsecurity’ was based on the assumption that individuals could and should adapt to the new conditions of a flexible labour market, but should not bear the risks ensuing from the new situation. Instead, they should be spread between the individual, employer and society. There is no doubt that seeking the right answers requires political courage. The courage to look for answers that will serve not only the interests of competition to the exclusion of all else, but will represent a new balance of values.

  Joel Hasse Ferreira (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to commend Mr Protasiewicz for having succeeded, with our help, in transforming his initial report into a Parliamentary report. A word, too, for Mr Christensen who organised a structured collective contribution on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. The report includes aspects that are central to the current European debate, such as the question of flexisecurity. I would point out that flexisecurity can only be achieved by means of an efficient and modern labour law in which collective negotiation and the existence of social partners are an important part of the approach to the concept.

Also important is the invitation to Member States to review and adapt their social security systems in order to complement the active labour market policies, namely life-long training and learning. I was delighted to present certain amendments relating to the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises as an important driving force for the creation and growth of employment in Europe, as well as for social and regional development. The strengthening of the role of the SMEs in improving labour legislation is important.

Also important is an improvement in coordination between national labour legislation and social inspections. This is indispensable for a more effective fight against the exploitation of immigrant labour. And we must also acknowledge the need to introduce sufficiently flexible working methods and hours to address the needs of the workers and the firms or institutions in which they work.

In this context, it is also important to point out and stress that all workers should be entitled to the same level of protection and that certain groups should not be excluded from higher protection levels from the outset, such as seafarers, crews on ships and off-shore workers. Before closing, I must make a point of emphasising the invitation extended by the European Parliament to its Member States to eliminate access restrictions to their labour markets, thereby improving the mobility of workers throughout the European Union and helping to achieve the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy more quickly.

Labour law can and should be modernised but it should strengthen, rather than calling into question, the social balance in each Member State, as well as European social cohesion.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). – (ET) Considering, first of all, Europe’s ageing society and, secondly, one of the most important objectives of the Lisbon strategy, i.e. achieving a high level of employment, I am convinced that the traditional model of employment relations is not necessarily suitable for employees with ordinary employment contracts concluded for an unspecified term.

In a turbulent society, employees must be able to adapt to changes and take advantage of the opportunities brought by globalisation.

Thus I find that alternative models of contractual relations can, in addition to other things, increase companies’ ability to channel the creativity of their labour, thereby also creating additional competitive advantages.

The best way to achieve the above is to use the open coordination method, which is a useful method of exchanging information about best practices in order to respond to shared challenges in a flexible and transparent manner.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the rapporteur for having the courage to examine this topic in such detail, and all of you for your attention.

  Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, the demographic problems faced by many countries of the European Union today have been caused, amongst others reasons, by the instability of young people. Today, for a young person to find a reasonably secure job, he or she has to prove their experience and provide the references employers demand. For this reason, many people do not decide to start a family until middle age, which obviously does not encourage large families, and Europe must think and act in order to ensure that its identity and Christian traditions survive and dominate in the coming years.

I would like to congratulate my colleague on a report which outlines the fundamental problems, while at the same time dedicating a great deal of attention to the stability of employment in the form of employment contracts of an indefinite duration, which ought to be the norm.

It is also important that Europe raise the restrictions on access to employment markets by the new Member States, particularly because these restrictions are imposed by the states that talk the most about European integration while they are in fact implementing extensive national interventionism.

  Richard Falbr (PSE). – (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I see no reason to adopt a conciliatory tone. There is too much at stake. The Green Paper on the modernisation of labour law has just one merit: it can easily be torn to shreds as an unbelievable concoction of half-truths and hypocritical observations. I should like to use my speech to ask a few questions.

Why was the report’s content not discussed with the social partners? Do they perhaps not exist at European level? Labour law has emerged and developed for 100 years in such a way that employees offering their services to employers could operate on a level playing field. Why does the Green Paper appear to suggest that the need to ensure such equality no longer exists? Why does the document not point out that a great deal of work is already being done outside the scope of labour law? Does the Commission view work as a commodity? Why does the Green Paper affirm so strongly that indefinite employment contracts are outdated and that 76% of Europeans agree with that statement? Why does the Green Paper also not propose to scrap the International Labour Organisation on the basis of everything it has adopted in almost 100 years? Could Mr Špidla tell me whether he knows that, with the exception of a few Member States, the hypocritical guidelines for increasing the role of the social partners cannot be fulfilled? Does he know that in a number of Member States the idea of social dialogue is a fiction and a means for the government to discredit the unions? All of which applies to the Czech Republic. Does he know that for those who have a precarious job, joining a union is virtually impossible? Does he know that work inspections in a number of countries exist solely on paper? This, once again, is true of the Czech Republic.

Particular mention must be made of the newly coined expression ‘flexicurity’, an example of European newspeak that is supposed to give the impression that it has nothing to do with ‘flexploitation’. This will apparently lead to fewer differences between insiders and outsiders on the labour market, so that everyone becomes outsiders.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, the Commission proposal for the future of labour law is an important step, even if we have to remember that the modernisation of employment legislation is primarily a matter for the Member States.

I bemoan the fact that this initiative by the Commission is very one-sided, and I am particularly sorry that this Green Paper totally ignores the colossal pay differences still to be found between women and men in the Member States of the EU.

The Commission is not interested in jobs in which women and men in different European countries could receive the same and equal treatment now we are in the 21st century. I would also have expected the proposal to have pondered ways to implement the eight directives on equality which the EU has adopted and which would guarantee pay equality between men and women.

I want to say finally that it is unfortunate that not a lot can be expected of the EU in the area of promoting equality between women and men.

  Wiesław Stefan Kuc (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, labour law is one of the most difficult documents, both as regards its legal aspects and in terms of content. It contains not only economic and legal, but also moral elements. Reconciling these elements is a tricky, and sometimes impossible, task, but we will try and reconcile them as much as possible.

What should labour law in the 21st century look like? It must meet the following conditions, including: firstly, it needs to be flexible, and be able to adapt to rapidly changing conditions. Secondly, it should protect workers and promote their development. Thirdly, it should protect the interests of employers and enable firms to develop whilst being as effective as possible. Fourthly, it must allow optimum use of labour resources. Fifthly, it must allow dialogue between workers and employers. And most importantly, the right to work must be equal throughout the European Union, and be applicable in all Member States.

  Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, an effort is being made through European legislation and the legislation of the Member States and through dialogue between the social partners to modernise the legal framework which will continue to give employers and workers every form of legal security and social protection.

The question is: are social protection and social integration consequences of or prerequisites to achieving the objectives of economic growth, full employment and social justice?

I accept the alternative role of the two targets in the sense of ‘which comes first, the chicken or the egg?’

Promoting economic growth and protecting the safety of workers must be joint consensual objectives from the planning level to the implementation level, with attention to the need for a flexible market and to strengthen safety, which is a two-fold challenge, so that we gather speed, in accordance with your proposal Commissioner, and play a leading role in an open, international, competitive environment, without betraying values or current social standards.

The new forms of optional employment and voluntary acceptance make it easier for groups with special characteristics, such as young people, elderly workers and women, to enter and remain on the labour market. Exchanging best practices on innovative arrangements safeguards the balance between professional and family life, with particular support for women and their triple duties.

Workers have different needs depending on their time of life and career prospects. Each Member State also has its peculiarities and different economic conditions and passes national legislation. European legislation is a supplement and complement for cross-border relations and for achieving a single free market.

We must not forget the possibilities of lifelong learning in combating unemployment and we must remember that, with confidence in relations between the state and the social partners, with respect for people’s dignity, serving social justice and avoiding conflicts, we shall increase European competitiveness and prosperity.

  Maria Matsouka (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, the debate on modernising labour law, where it was a substantive debate rather than a pretext, was an important opportunity to illustrate the radical differences between the right and the left wings.

The right wing interprets high rates of unemployment and poverty as a result of the inflexibility of labour law. It considers the black market as more or less inevitable and, in order to legalise all this, talks of flexibility with security. And what better than the Danish model? However, it can only be applied if there is full economic, financial and fiscal harmonisation between the Member States.

The report we are to vote on improves the initial draft on numerous points, thanks to the socialists’ global counter-proposal focusing on protection for workers, which is neither the cause of unemployment nor an act of charity. It is simply one of the most important pillars of economic growth and social justice.

Let us not deny the truth! In the face of the historically unprecedented increase in produced wealth and its dangerous unequal distribution for the benefit of employers, we must deepen the concept of labour law.

  Janusz Wojciechowski (UEN) – (PL). Mr President, fortunately the European Parliament has taken a holistic approach to the issue of employment law, and for this I express my gratitude to the rapporteur Jacek Protasiewicz, who has prepared a report of the highest quality.

I would like to take this occasion to mention the tragic position of foreign workers in many European Union countries. More slave or semi-slave labour camps have been discovered in particular countries. People looking for work abroad to earn their living fall into the hands of unscrupulous criminals who exploit, humiliate and sometimes murder them. This state of affairs is a disgrace for the European Union in the 21st century.

The European Parliament must make an appeal to all its members and to its labour inspection and law enforcement authorities to focus particular attention on the plight of foreign workers and to effectively counter their exploitation by criminals.

  Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE). – (NL) As you can see, we can still rely on eye contact, which is great. Mr President, it is good thing that we are debating labour law today, for the very reason that a number of things are changing within the labour market in Europe and in all our Member States.

Indeed, we can see that there is a huge need for flexibility to better anticipate the market needs, but also on the part of the employees themselves, because they often want to combine work with family, extended family and care commitments. This flexibility is needed, not least in a society whose share of old people is increasing while its share of young people is decreasing, and in which the ageing population probably no longer wants to work for the full 40 or 36 hours within the labour market, but would nevertheless like to keep its hand in with a less demanding job.

If, however – and this is why a debate is so useful – we want this flexibility, and recognise it as a benefit, this also means that from the beginning – and I regret the fact that Mrs Matsouka has left the Chamber, because she mentioned a debate between Right and Left, but is refusing to listen – we must, alongside this flexibility, put certainty in place on behalf of those who want to work in smaller and more flexible jobs and thus allow the labour market to function more effectively.

It is a shortcoming – which we may be able to rectify with the amendments which will be adopted in a moment – that the great good of flexibility is no longer recognised. This is something I regret. I also believe that we cannot leave it up to the market alone, because the market regulates itself. We must once again try to put flexibility in place, combined with proper certainties.

  Richard Howitt (PSE). – Mr President, there are over 1 million temporary agency workers in Britain, and more than 6 million across Europe, according to the Dublin Foundation. It is the biggest growing form of atypical work in the EU over the last 20 years, yet this is a group of workers denied employment protection under EU law.

In my own East of England constituency up to 80 000 migrant workers have come from the so-called accession-8 countries, the largest number anywhere in the UK. Many arrive thanks to employment agencies and too many suffer abuse, though not all of them. Take the agency workers identified by the Communication Workers Union contracted to British Telecom in Norwich, Ipswich and Brentwood who have missed out on two successive pay rises, get 16 – not 25 – days’ holiday, and are paid 50% less overtime compared with their permanent colleagues. Or the Bernard Matthews workers in Norfolk and Suffolk, 60% agency workers recruited in Portugal awarded just GBP 19 per day for six days when they were laid off in response to the bird flu outbreak.

To the Commission I say you offer ‘flexicurity’. We see, indeed we welcome, some of the flexibility, but where is the security if it is not for temporary agency workers? To the incoming Portuguese Presidency, there must be a sensible compromise in the qualifying period, but this is a directive that has never been voted on since EU enlargement. Put it to the vote, see where the majority is. The Government in the UK has said it will support the directive. So should the whole of Europe.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) The growth in employment is primarily due to SMEs and sole traders. These employers rank high in creating new job opportunities and increasing employment in Europe.

For that reason, and in view of the broad spectrum of labour traditions, business contracts and types of business in the labour markets of the EU Member States, the priority task of the EU must be to create European legislation that will strengthen the position of SMEs while creating new jobs through improvements to labour law.

Experience shows that, for example, the European Directive on Overtime, which has been objected to by many of the EU Member States, should not be incorporated into labour law and must be revised. The reason for this is that restrictions on overtime pose a threat to many sectors of the economy, whether we are talking about employees in the healthcare sector, mining, social services or the fire brigades.

This month, in my country (Slovakia) the national parliament passed a new Labour Law that provoked negative reactions in particular from SMEs. The government wanted to strengthen the position of the unions and extend their powers. The fact is that thanks to pressure from the opposition and employers’ groups, the original government proposal was amended significantly, establishing a balance of sorts between the competencies of unions and employers in the final bill. Moreover, an amendment from the SDKÚ-DS has succeeded in modifying the definition of the term 'dependent work' in a way that does not threaten sole traders. Thanks to more than 600 comments made during the preparation and dozens more in Parliament, it proved possible to amend the original proposal from Smer SD, and thus to avoid sending Slovak labour law back to the previous century.

The high unemployment rate in Europe, particularly in the New Member States, is a failure crying out for measures to be taken, and I therefore welcome the approach of the rapporteur, Mr Jacek Protasiewicz, whose report proposes solutions for fulfilling a vision of the 21st century. However, I am concerned by its wording following the vote in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, which I cannot support unless the amendments presented by the rapporteur on behalf of our political party (The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats) are adopted. Some parts of the draft report present an obsolete and unbalanced view of current problems on European labour markets, and for this reason the report attempts to protect only the employees. Such an interpretation of labour policy could lead to a situation where there will be nothing to protect them from, as they will be unemployed.

  Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that we should not view the Protasiewicz report divorced from the oral question and the motion for a resolution. I would like to thank both rapporteurs for their work.

Unfortunately, the posting of workers in the services sphere has still not got any unified Europe-wide standards. It also shows that the coordination of communication and the information flow between Member States and the competent authorities leaves much to be desired. Controls regarding this also still remain inadequate. A balanced relationship between freedom of movement and service provision, on the one hand, and worker protection on the other, is absolutely necessary. In my view, a regulation in this respect will be the simplest and most effective means of preventing social dumping.

Cooperation between Member States and information exchange must be promoted and tightened up, and appropriate control measures introduced. Additional detail in the Commission’s guidelines would be helpful here. To secure the protection and rights of workers, I propose that the host countries carry out the relevant checks and controls.

The Commission should therefore actively support cooperation between supervisory authorities of the Member States by implementing a permanent platform for trans-border collaboration. As regards business and employees, I also urge for a stronger involvement of the social partners on this issue. Only balance will bring more employment, and therefore greater welfare and security, for everybody in Europe.

  Monica Maria Iacob-Ridzi (PPE-DE). – Consider că acest raport este unul echilibrat şi care reflectă diversitatea relaţiilor de muncă de pe teritoriul Uniunii Europene, dar şi a poziţiilor politice faţă de un subiect care dă naştere unor discuţii aprinse.

Atingerea unui echilibru în relaţia dintre angajat şi angajator, în care ambele părţi au de câştigat, trebuie să fie o prioritate a Uniunii Europene. În acest cadru, al flexibilităţii şi al securităţii, angajatorul câştigă mai multă forţă de muncă, iar angajatul mai multă protecţie pentru tipul de contract flexibil.

Pentru România, unde avem un rezervor important de forţă de muncă în zona rurală, contractele de muncă flexibile sunt o soluţie pentru a intra pe piaţa muncii fără a pierde din drepturile sociale de care beneficiază angajaţii cu contract clasic. Aceasta ar asigura o integrare mai rapidă pe piaţa muncii a lucrătorilor din zona rurală, care vor putea să participe la creşterea economiei din anii următori şi să beneficieze de ea.

Apreciez atenţia pe care raportul o acordă sprijinirii familiei. Multe dintre aceste contracte flexibile sunt alese de femei care trebuie să facă faţă unei presiuni din ce în ce mai mari de a concilia viaţa profesională cu cea familială.

În sprijinul tinerilor aş fi dorit ca raportul să încurajeze mai mult utilizarea tehnologiei informaţiei şi a comunicării ca instrumente principale în modul de lucru. Munca la distanţă în condiţii de maximă mobilitate este o tendinţă deja prezentă pe care trebuie să o folosim în beneficiul celor mai bine pregătiţi pentru ea.

Pentru reducerea muncii la negru trebuie să încurajăm angajatorii să declare relaţiile de muncă fără să fie dezavantajaţi economic. O parte din acest fenomen este cauzată de restricţiile pe care unele state membre încă le menţin pentru lucrătorii din ţările care au aderat recent la Uniunea Europeană. Este o discriminare inutilă care creează atât probleme de administrare pentru statele respective cât şi riscuri pentru lucrători. De aceea consider ca eliminarea perioadelor de tranziţie impuse de aceste state membre va avea ca efect direct reducerea muncii la negru.

  Tadeusz Zwiefka (PPE-DE) – (PL) Mr President, modifying labour law in the European Union is important not only for safety and for job protection, but also has a major impact on employment levels. We have been involved in lengthy discussions about whether global competition requires changes in the current model of labour law. My view is that it definitely does.

For the last twenty years we have been observing a gradual and increasingly rapid retreat from the standard forms of labour law and the general model of employment. This phenomenon is a response to the challenges of globalisation, which is an independent process, and like it or not, it is up to us whether our societies make use of the opportunities that it provides.

Countering the negative aspects of globalisation requires much more flexible labour law, whilst retaining current levels of safety. We should remember that currently the level of employment security in the European Union is the highest in the world. We do not need to enhance job security any more, but need greater flexibility and mobility and liberalisation of the jobs markets in all Member States.

In spite of all regulation, flexibility is making inroads in our lives. Currently, 40% of all forms of employment are atypical, and these are responsible for 60% of new jobs. Ultimately, and this is the most hopeful sign yet, two-thirds of atypical forms of employment turn into the traditional form, that is, permanent contracts.

The traditional structures of labour law do not bear up to present-day realities. In modern service-based economies, or those based on SMEs, a more flexible and atypical approach may be the key to success.

Of course, flexibility is not enough if there is no worker mobility. For this reason, I appeal for the complete opening of the labour market in the European Union for workers from all Member States. We now know that the benefits of liberalising labour markets are enjoyed not just by the migrant workers, but also by the countries that decided to open their labour markets.

No economy can develop and be competitive without properly functioning enterprises capable of competing on the global market, and skilfully run by good managers and owners. But even the best-run firms cannot operate without a good workforce. Each needs the other to survive.

  Iles Braghetto (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the need to modernise labour law in the face of the innovations of the 21st century imposes genuine, demanding challenges on the existing labour market, especially on all those looking for a new job, a high-quality job, a job that ties in with other areas of their personal lives.

Marrying flexibility of work – which is a characteristic of a competitive, global market – with job security – a right/duty for every European citizen – requires us, as stipulated in the Lisbon Strategy, to make professional skills and abilities usable. This requires the necessary tools to be provided in order to make people desirable in the eyes of businesses, adjusting their technical and specialist training to the new technologies.

In European society there is an educational and training emergency that is preventing or slowing down the development of skills and knowledge. For the European Union, investment in human capital and in the training of young people is the best and most modern way to affirm the right to work. This is one of the challenges put forward by the Green Paper.

I thank the rapporteur for the work he has done in harmonising the various points of view that were expressed in the debate.

  Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I should like to start, if I may, by thanking the Commission for its very thoughtful Green Paper. The Commission’s work has given rise to this report, and its work has triggered this debate. I think the fact that it was written the way it was – and indeed that the Commission has consulted as widely and as richly as it has – has certainly added further richness to our own deliberations. I would certainly hope that, at the end of the vote tomorrow, after all the amendments have been voted on, the Commissioner in turn might consider it appropriate to thank Parliament for our positive response to its work, but we shall see how we do.

Mention has already been made of the rapporteur and the outstanding job that he has done and I would like to associate myself with those remarks. A lot of comments have been made by different colleagues about the word ‘flexibility’. I think the rapporteur has shown great flexibility in recognising the validity of concerns expressed by members of other political groups, but I think also that flexibility has been shown by the shadows in taking on board the position of the rapporteur. I would like to thank all of those for their work. Earlier in our debate, Mr Szymański said that he could not extend his congratulations to the work of the committee. I have some sympathy with those comments. I would just like to say to him that, in the context of limited time, the report that came out of the committee was in essence an interim report. I have every confidence that the report which will come out of this House tomorrow after the amendments will be on a substantially different basis and that a potentially divisive issue will end up giving a clearly united message.

Finally, I would like to ask the Commission, in its analysis of our discussions, to take a look at what is taken out of the report between the committee stage and this stage. I think that has a significant message. I should also like the Commission to consider what is left in. I want particularly to draw attention to paragraph 10 concerning the issue of working time and the need for greater flexibility for employees and employers alike. It is one thing to say that we need more flexibility. We invite the Commission to show that same flexibility in advancing that very difficult and sensitive file.

Finally, I would just like to mention our assistants, and here I mean not just assistants to us as MEPs, but also the assistants of our parliamentary groups. They are so often the forgotten heroes and heroines. I think that the work that they have done has been remarkable, especially in such a remarkably short time. So hopefully on behalf of all of you, I would like to thank and congratulate them for all that they have done.

  Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. – (CS) Mr President, honourable Members, it came as no surprise that the debate on labour law was far-reaching and profound, and often quite heated. That is natural because the issue of labour law is one of the most sensitive and lies at the very heart of the European social model. I am very pleased that the Green Paper formed the basis for this exceptionally thorough discussion. There were more than 450 different opinions, which far exceeds the normal amount when it comes to a public consultation on a Green Paper. It is also clear that the Green Paper does not purport to resolve the issue of labour law, but rather raises questions. The Commission will be assessing these questions and will subsequently issue responses.

I feel that the debate in this Chamber demonstrates that there are good prospects for consensus on some of the key elements. I should like to refer to some of those that I feel are particularly important. The first of these is the need for meaningful dialogue. Regardless of the fact that the level of social dialogue in some Member States is very low, I believe that this is a fundamental component. This is above all why we provide direct support for social dialogue within the framework of the European social fund, especially through the creation of administrative capacity for the social partners.

The second concern that should be highlighted is that labour law does not exist in a vacuum and that any debate on the subject will always be sensitive and will always impact on the social partners. I also think that the future development of labour law requires avoiding any measures that would lead to the disintegration of the labour market, increased employment insecurity or any reduction in workers’ fundamental rights.

It appears that the situation of workers who are formally self-employed but economically dependent on one main consumer or employer who is the source of their income must be resolved. Labour law must be proactively enforced in order to protect and support high-quality jobs and to combat undeclared work.

Honourable Members, some questions have arisen that are outside the main thrust of the debate, and which will probably not be answered even in the vote, so I should like to touch upon them. Let me stress that social protection is a precondition for full employment, rather a consequence thereof. Labour markets with very weak labour protection – as in developing countries, for example – do not provide sufficiently effective job creation. I should also like to emphasise that there is already a directive on the posting of workers, and we shall in due course be debating a number of interpretations of it. For this reason a certain standard already exists, even though one can easily imagine a different course of development.

The issue of employment agencies was also raised. I should like to point out that the Portuguese Presidency has more or less incorporated this issue into its programme and in the context of the Presidency we will be trying to make some much-needed progress. The description of the market development of employment agencies outlined by the honourable Member was, in my view, a very precise one. The dynamic of this market is clear, in common with some phenomena that can certainly be viewed as indicators of possible social dumping.

Honourable Members, the labour market is changing markedly and it is extremely important for us to find some general answers at EU level and more importantly in the Member States, which are in a position to enforce labour law, and which are capable of, on the one hand, supporting our overall capacity, effectiveness, competitiveness and strength as a society, and, on the other, guaranteeing appropriate security for workers in the 21st century. This is no easy task, but the debate has convinced me that your report does have a chance of being adopted, and I therefore await the final outcome with interest.

IN THE CHAIR: MRS ROTHE
Vice-President

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, 11 July 2007.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Bogdan Golik (PSE), in writing – (PL) Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Protasiewicz for his businesslike and difficult report. It is very important that we have started a public debate on the directions for the modernisation of labour law to meet the challenges of globalisation, persistent structural unemployment and demographic trends that do not benefit the European Union.

The world around us and the points of the report show that what we need today is an EU with a common policy to fight unemployment modelled on the common energy policy. A common policy is all the more necessary because it is a problem that even the wealthiest European states, such as Germany and France, where unemployment may soon reach 10%, are unable to deal with it.

I have my doubts regarding the proposal to adopt common regulations at EU level to create the foundations for a system of minimum social standards proposed in point S. In my view, the disparity between Member States is currently so great that the proposal is simply unworkable. Minimum quotas should be independently regulated by the Member States depending on their level of economic development, the situation on their labour market, and their traditions.

Much of data indicates that employment has grown thanks to ‘atypical’ contracts. The dilemma is therefore not on what basis a person is employed, but whether they are working or not. This should be the priority of the Member States and the entire EU in the coming years, with a special focus on young entrants to the jobs market, women, and elderly people.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PL) My heartfelt congratulations to the rapporteur on his report in which he provides a realistic analysis of the changes needed in labour law to bring it up to the challenges of the 21st century.

In my view, labour law is still anachronistic in particular countries, and irrelevant to the challenges of globalisation.

The modern world needs clear and flexible labour law. Workers should be able to benefit from lifelong education and training that adapts them to the requirements of the jobs market.

The main problem for the jobs market is the red tape required for enterprises, which holds back the developments of companies. Eliminating barriers in the SME sector means enhancing their competitiveness, resulting in an increase in jobs.

The modernisation of labour law should be based on active support for the jobs market. It should be based on promoting the starting and changing of jobs, as well as ongoing training for the jobs market. However, this should not be confused with excessively protective employment policy which results in the artificial maintenance of jobs which the market does not need, and which weakens the market position of the companies affected.

One of the main consequences of maintaining artificial employment is to maintain higher levels of staff costs, or holding back a worker’s development through lack of re-qualification and training opportunities, while on the other hand keeping jobs artificially usually leads to the gradual undermining of a business and its elimination from the market.

It is, therefore, important to actively promote jobs, rather than protect them at any price.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) Globalisation, the ageing of the population, acceleration of trade: so many challenges that will have to be taken up tomorrow even more than today.

No Member State can claim to manage these issues alone, and it is indeed through coordinated action with the European Union that the success of employment policy and social policy will be achieved. Also, I am pleased about the own-initiative report on modernising labour law, which is necessary to respond to the challenges of the 21st century. Its objective is more than praiseworthy, it is vital.

Work must be revalued, its legislative framework adapted to the times, and it will be necessary to allow those who wish to work to work, by developing attractive training, and those who are able to work more to do so, by offering more flexibility in negotiations between employees and employers.

Flexibility does not mean the end of protective rules, it means that these rules will be determined by free negotiation appropriate to everyone’s needs, needs which will be stated within a social dialogue that is encouraged.

France has already initiated this dialogue with the social partners, and it is with satisfaction, therefore, that I welcome this report, in line with the ambitions and actions undertaken in France.

  Csaba Őry (PPE-DE), in writing. – (HU) I consider the initiative of the European Commission to be a welcome and considerably courageous step, whereby it has opened up debate around modernising labour law. I am a proponent of a nuanced approach, and of balanced technical amendments. I do not consider it right that some people praise atypical forms of employment to the highest heavens and recommend to both national and Union legislators to recognise at a political level the priority of these atypical forms over the standard employment contracts of unlimited duration. I cannot accept that an atypical contract in itself should be considered of higher value simply because it is atypical.

On the other hand, I also do not consider it right if we were to try to use legislative, administrative or executive tools to force entrepreneurs to make wider use of standard employment contracts. We need to recognise that, under the circumstances of globalisation, our economies are obliged to face up to external economic constraints and must react to these in the interests of securing their continued operation.

Our approach to this difficult question will be a balanced one if we recognise that both standard and atypical forms of employment are justified. A wide range of possible forms of contract should be made available to entrepreneurs, and in face of the challenges of the 21st century, we need to give new answers to countless old problems as well. In the area of the further development of labour law, both the EU and national legislators have very important tasks to fulfil.