Mr President, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, it is my duty to present to the House a proposal for a regulation concerning the labour-cost index. This proposal is based on Article 285 of the EC Treaty, a new provision introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam. In particular, this article lays down that the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251, shall adopt measures for the production of statistics where necessary for the performance of the activities of the Community. Article 285 goes on to stipulate that Community statistics are to be compiled in accordance with the principles of impartiality, reliability, objectivity, scientific independence, cost-effectiveness and statistical confidentiality and that their compilation must not entail excessive burdens on economic operators. The framework here is one of codecision procedure, and the European Central Bank has requested that this statistical instrument, this labour-cost index, be an indicator to be taken into account when drafting the monetary policy. The Economic and Financial Affairs Council (Ecofin) meeting on 29 September 2000, adopted an action plan on the statistical requirements of the economic and monetary Union, which includes a project to draw up provisional statistics on labour costs. I ask that this project be presented at the earliest possible date. At the present time we already have an index of labour costs. The index was created during the 1990s by the Statistical Programme Committee, but it has no legal basis, and the way in which it is calculated leaves a lot to be desired in terms of how recent the figures are, its coverage and comparability. The underlying notion of the European Central Bank’s request and the Commission’s proposal is that the cost of labour is one of the causes of inflation. The European institutions responsible for economic, employment and monetary policy therefore need to have regular reliable indicators of labour costs. This opinion is debatable and I also believe that it is shared by one committee within the Commission and rejected by another. As far as low pay is concerned, the argument against the aforesaid opinion is that several Member States have a minimum wage which is increased in response to rises in the cost of living and not vice versa. Nonetheless, it is useful for the European Union to have a macroeconomic indicator of labour costs, which can be a particularly valuable tool for management and labour representatives in their negotiations on the formulation of collective agreements, etc. The aim of the proposal is to establish a common framework for the production, transmission and evaluation of comparable labour-cost indices. That is the objective of Article 1. These costs are defined as the total quarterly costs incurred by the employer in the employment of labour (Article 2). The data must be broken down by economic categories. Four indices will be established: an index relating to total labour costs, another index showing labour costs, excluding bonuses, which are not paid regularly, then an index of wages and salaries and, lastly, an index of the combined amount of social security contributions plus taxes paid by employers less the subsidies they receive as compensation for direct labour costs. On this last point, it should be noted that it is often the government which sets the level of these contributions and that it cannot therefore be claimed that inflation is fuelled by pay rises alone. The data for the labour-cost index are to be compiled on a quarterly basis (Article 5(1)) and must be supplied in index form within 70 days of the end of the reference period (Article 6(1)). Transition periods may not extend more than two years from the date of entry into force of the regulation (Article 9(1)). In implementing the regulation, including the adoption of decisions on derogations from its provisions, the Commission is to be assisted by the Statistical Programme Committee. Here are a few points to consider. Analysis of labour costs is undoubtedly an important factor, as I have said, in terms of the macroeconomic perspective. It may, however, raise some questions. This index will ultimately have to be refined through the creation of a separate index for total cost excluding expenditure on vocational training for which the employer is responsible. There is also the possibility, for which provision is made in an amendment tabled by my group, of taking hourly productivity into account and of postponing the first deadline for the submission of an assessment report until 31 December 2003, in order to permit an analysis based on a period of operation which takes account of a possible transition period. For technical reasons, this matter was not raised in committee, and so we were compelled to table this amendment belatedly. Please excuse me, but I realise that my time has run out. I am not used to these timed reports and have exceeded my allotted slot by one minute and eleven seconds. At such a late hour, I appreciate that this is a reprehensible abuse of your tolerance, and for this I apologise again.

Political group: Verts-ALE