Mr President, the European Union’s employment strategy states that the fight against unemployment is being taken into consideration in European-level policy. This is desirable in itself. It is realistic. For the broad guidelines of economic and monetary policy have a real impact on employment at European level. And it is desirable if we wish to curb the sort of competition which is based on reducing social aspects to the lowest bid and also the growth of inequality between regions and between social groups within the economic Union. European employment strategy, however, in the form in which it has been laid down, has been progressively implemented since the Luxembourg Summit and is characterised by dubious ideological foundations and a not particularly dynamic conception of institutional practices. To hear some people speak, you might wonder why we even need a policy on employment. Yesterday’s debate on macroeconomic dialogue showed this: you might think that a policy of monetary stability would be sufficient. No one has yet proved the validity of the premise that it would be enough to guarantee monetary stability and overall competitiveness for employment to follow. Our last debate in Strasbourg on the subject of Michelin and the restructuring of firms was an opportunity for us to develop our doubts on the subject. Once it has been said that European economic policy should have employment as its goal, once this is laid down in law and is proclaimed loud and clear, without ever checking the validity of the affirmation in a realistic and pragmatic way, then the subordination of the social to the economic is being written in the stone of the Treaties, finally reducing the social aspect to the task of managing each and every one of us in our competition for a place in a labour market which is getting tighter and tighter. The result of this economics-based, minimalist approach is that any debate on the means of creating jobs, running counter to this liberally inspired dogma, is ruled out, virtually prohibited. Is it conceivable that out of twenty-two guidelines on employment, there is not a single one on the effective reduction of working hours. Not one is on public investment. And even the mention of active support for local initiatives on employment is limited and any attempts to examine the quality and sustainability of jobs created are eliminated. We have to deal with the figures. It is essential to bring about a reduction in the number of registered unemployed in a Europe where the number of men and women living below the poverty line is itself not getting any less. Before mentioning the proposals of the Group of the , let me express one fear. Some circles in Europe appear to be overcome by a feeling of blind optimism, with their eyes riveted on the upturn in growth and only the officially recorded and registered unemployment figures. A considerable number of political leaders seem to forget that many of the jobs created are temporary, part-time jobs, are not chosen, are generally forced on women, and do not always afford the people employed in this way wages which take them above the poverty threshold. If we do not seriously evaluate the sustainable and qualitative nature of growth, there is a risk that we will underestimate the efforts which still need to be made in order finally to give the construction of Europe a social aspect. This is why we think it imperative to evaluate the success or failure of European employment strategy against the yardstick of the indicators measuring concomitantly the numbers of registered unemployed, standards of living and the quality of jobs created. It is only when we increase job security and reduce unemployment that we can see the European Union as representing real progress for its residents in terms of civilisation. As far as the are concerned, the selection of an ambitious European employment strategy should instigate a number of actions, most of which are currently ignored by the guidelines proposed by the Commission. The commitments undertaken in favour of the young unemployed and the long-term unemployed must be implemented at a faster rate, it is true. Job creation must be promoted by combining a number of policies supporting the development of sustainable activities. It is fundamental that local employment initiatives are favoured, that the cooperative, mutual and non-profit sector is supported by being guaranteed a status, that the third sector is truly recognised, including by means of public financing, this form of economy emerging between the traditional public sector and the profit sector, based on the creation of socially useful activities. Broad consultations and public debate must be undertaken in order to decide upon major public works: public transport networks, energy saving programmes, renovation and construction of housing, projects which create a great number of jobs and which benefit everyone’s quality of life. Finally, working hours must be reduced, that taboo subject, which we are not allowed to discuss in Europe. We must find the resources to specifically evaluate the initiatives to reduce working hours which are being implemented in any case, in an equitable or inequitable manner, more or less across the whole of Europe. And to make real progress, we must really bank on the intelligence of the community. It is essential to implement a policy whereby community projects and unemployed people’s associations are acknowledged. It is necessary, at the very least, to preserve their rights to allowances and grants in full. We urge that you give your enthusiastic support to two amendments contributing towards this, numbers 30 and 31, on which I shall ask the presidency for voting by roll call. Finally, institutional practice must be changed so that we really bank on democratic debate and the commitment of all the parties involved. We must find legal bases at the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference for the whole chapter of social and civil dialogue.

Political group: Verts-ALE