C Explanatory memorandum by Ms Karamanli,
rapporteur for opinion
1. The report by the Committee on Economic Affairs and
Development gives a very good description of the dual role played
in the current economy by young people (between the ages of 15 and
24, according to the definition put forward by the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
Note):
they represent a considerable advantage for the competitive economies
and, at the same time, because of their lack of seniority and work
experience, constitute a more vulnerable group on the labour market,
especially in times of crisis. The rapporteur believes that global
competitiveness puts young people at a disadvantage, as they are the
first to be affected by economic crises as a result of the frequent
use made of temporary, and therefore insecure, work contracts.
2. The comprehensive explanatory memorandum written by the rapporteur
contains a detailed analysis of the different youth unemployment
situations and the difficulties that young people can encounter
in entering the labour market. On the one hand, it describes the
different groups of young people, who are not all affected in the
same way, depending on their level of training and personal situation:
notably “high performers”, “poorly integrated new entrants”, “youth
left behind”, and “those returning to education”. On the other hand,
it elaborates, in a differentiated manner, the possible solutions
to youth unemployment which may have positive effects, but at the
same time produce undesirable side effects, such as the development
of efficient apprenticeship systems which benefit both companies
and young employees, but which can be counterproductive if companies
use them inappropriately and tend to exploit apprentices earning
low wages. In this respect, the quality of internship and apprenticeship
programmes should be a public policy priority.
3. From a social point of view, it is particularly commendable
that the draft resolution mentions in such a detailed manner the
causes of low employment rates amongst young people and the measures
to be employed at national level. Thus, the text highlights the
mismatch between the qualifications of young people and labour market
needs, as well as the eroding public spending on employment. It
then lists, amongst the principal measures to be taken, the promotion
of better qualifications and skills, of more mobility, of improved
access to job offers and apprenticeship schemes, as well as a greater
interaction between employers, state employment agencies and young
jobseekers. However, as rapporteur for opinion, I believe that certain
elements of the explanatory memorandum could be better reflected
in the text of the resolution.
4. In order to better illustrate the difficulties that young
people encounter in a professional context and the urgent nature
of the situation, reference should be made to the most important
challenges they are confronted with (first, rapid access to the
labour market, then access to more stable employment in the medium
term) and the consequences of unemployment for young people and
for society as a whole, which are described very well in the explanatory
memorandum. I would also suggest including in the draft resolution
the above-mentioned distinction of different categories of young
people concerned, in order to show that political measures must
be adapted to the specific focus group. The urgent need to provide
a political response to this issue should, moreover, be expressed
in the draft resolution, which speaks only of a “medium-term priority”
for the moment, instead of picking up on the idea expressed in paragraph
34 of the explanatory memorandum which refers to a problem that
“will penalise society as a whole in the future if nothing is done
now”.
5. Furthermore, the Assembly should be careful in its wording
to avoid any misinterpretation of these recommendations. For example,
the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee has reservations
regarding what could be interpreted as a “security” argument in
paragraph 7 of the draft resolution which says that there is an
“overarching long-term interest in European states … to support
the European Union and Council of Europe action … in order to help
southern Mediterranean countries to fully tap their development
potential and offer their youth a better future”, and links this
proposal directly to the large-scale emigration of qualified young people.
A similar misinterpretation, suggesting a “security” argument, could
also be made with regard to paragraph 5.
6. It is indeed the duty of the Council of Europe to “export”
its expertise and its values, but this should not be done with the
aim of preventing an aggravation of problems in Europe. Support
should be provided to non-member countries in order to increase
respect for human rights in Europe’s partner countries which have numerous
relations and interdependencies with member states. In this connection,
I would refer to Resolution 1779 (2010) on co-operation between
the Council of Europe and the Maghreb countries in the field of
social cohesion, which states in paragraph 4: “In these times of
world economic crisis, the Assembly is convinced that the Council
of Europe should continue to regard social cohesion as an essential
factor of democratic stability and that all endeavours to promote
the Organisation’s values beyond its boundaries should embody a
social component.”
7. Paragraph 8.6. of the draft resolution, which proposes “to
help lifestyle change for the disadvantaged or vulnerable young
people” through different measures, does not seem very precise and
certainly deserves to be better linked to the main objective of
the report, which is to facilitate young people’s access to an active
and fulfilled life based on stable employment. I would therefore
suggest making the paragraph concerned a bit clearer.
8. Lastly, I would like to draw attention to the emphasis placed
on the concept of “flexicurity” in paragraph 8.10 of the draft resolution.
There is no doubt that this concept is currently being strongly
promoted by the European Commission and, in its view, lies at the
heart of labour law modernisation policies in each member state
in order to stimulate a new impetus for employment and growth. Nonetheless,
the concept is still challenged in some member states and is sometimes
implemented in very different ways.
Note Given that the young belong to
the category of people who are most affected by precarious employment
and that certain measures being implemented as part of flexicurity
strategies are not favourable to their training or their sustainable
integration into the job market, the recommendation of this concept
without further definition seems risky and inappropriate.
9. For example, a recent report by the French
Conseil d’analyse économique (Council
for Economic Analysis), published in 2010, comments that, in recent
years, the employment market certainly adapts more quickly to cyclical
variations, but at the cost of severe inequalities which end up
reducing overall performance. Given that those employed on insecure
or flexible contracts would have little access to training, and
therefore little hope of improving their “employability”, the long-term
consequences would be a loss of “human capital”.
Note I therefore suggest that the term
“flexicurity”, which masks a whole series of complex and sometimes contradictory
policies, should not be used as such “in isolation”, but must be
put into context and defined in greater detail.
10. The last changes I wish to propose are aimed at specifying
certain of the measures that could be envisaged by member states.
Thus, in my view, not only fiscal measures, but also social measures
(concerning social security contributions) can encourage companies
to offer better perspectives to young people (Amendment H). The
preoccupation of states must be, to the same extent, to enhance
the access to employment for young people and to verify that their
jobs are somewhat stable and of quality, which implies good working
conditions, fair remuneration and possibly perspectives for integration
into the labour market, and jobs which offer young people professional
perspectives. A first, long-term contract is not necessarily a guarantee
of employment of quality for young people (Amendment I). This aspect
should also be underlined in a separate paragraph (Amendment K):
the priority of states must be to facilitate the creation of jobs
for young people which guarantee them dignity, financial security
and perspectives for professional evolution based on the improvement
of their competences and experience. Finally, a certain number of
states and territorial authorities have implemented, with success,
programmes of assisted employment allowing young people to fulfil
tasks of general interest or new activities leading to job creation
in the long run. More frequent use of such measures should be promoted
by the Assembly in its text (Amendment J).
