Projev
Speech
Discours
Prague 5 February 2009
Speech by Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister of Labour and Social Affairs P.
Nečas at informal meeting of Ministers for
Family Affairs
Speech by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Labour and Social Affairs Petr Nečas
at informal meeting of Ministers for Family Affairs on 5 February 2009 in Prague
Dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen,
It is an honour for me to welcome you to today’s meeting in Prague. This is already the
second time in the recent days that we have been brought together in this configuration. I am
glad that in this way we will be able to take up the initiative of the French Presidency, which
held a similar meeting in Paris in September 2008.
During the approximately two hours which are ahead of us, our principal aim will be to
openly discuss the Barcelona Objectives and the implementation of these Objectives in the
field of pre-school childcare in terms of the greatest possible quality of care. This I would like
to emphasise – I only too often have the impression that the interest of the child is not always
central to our actions. The Barcelona Objectives were adopted prior to the enlargement of the
European Union in 2004. No wonder, then, that seven years later the Czech Republic is
reopening this issue as one of the new Member States currently holding the Presidency. Last
October the European Commission published a report on the implementation of the Barcelona
Objectives and this, together with the questions sent to you by the Czech Presidency, can
form the basis for our discussion.
kontakt: Jana Říhová, tisková mluvčí pro předsednictví, Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí ČR
tel.: +420 221 922 249, GSM: +420 725 761 147 ; e-mail: [email protected] , www.mpsv.cz
www.eu2009.cz
Over the last years, family policy has become one of the principal priorities of government
political programmes in many Member States including the Czech Republic. This tendency is
not surprising. We are currently faced with very unfavourable demographic trends and a
general decline in prestige of parenthood and family life. Here, the lack of compatibility
between family and employment is often seen as a major problem, and very rightly so.
Drawing a line between social success and professional career means that it is becoming all
but impossible for parents with small children to meet the ever-growing demands on
employees while carrying out their parental duties.
The solution is often seen in relieving families of their care-giving function. The less
troublesome the family life, the easier it will be for both parents to put their ideas of
professional growth into practice. The way to achieve this is through supporting non-parental,
particularly collective care facilities. After all, this approach is in line with the goals for a high
level of employment under which parents with small children are to be placed on the labour
market as soon as possible. This idea also underlies the requirement to create a wide range of
care facilities for children aged under 3 and under 6 years, which is one of the Barcelona
Objectives adopted by the European Council in 2002.
I do not in the least wish to question this outline of a solution, as some reactions to the Czech
Presidency priorities in this area have tried to allege. I merely want to refer to several points
which in my opinion justify – and given the need to respect the principle of democratic
legitimacy even require – a serious debate on the existing Barcelona Objectives.
1. The Barcelona Objectives were approved by the European Council in 2002 without the
participation of the new Member States that joined the EU in 2004. And yet this very
question, closely related to the extremely sensitive issue of childcare, is an area to which the
new Member States can contribute their own specific historical experience and knowledge.
The Czech Republic, too, has ample experience with a developed system of collective
childcare under totalitarian dictatorship – and with the consequences of this system, both
positive and negative. I believe that with the situation thus changed, it is right and desirable to
launch a discussion about the Barcelona Objectives in which the new Member States will be
able to fully participate.
2. Most of the EU Member States do not meet the Barcelona Objectives. They won’t have met
them even by 2010. Moreover, a number of Member States cannot meet them. The reason is a
lack of demand. And this is also the case for the Czech Republic. Building care facilities in
places where families prefer a different form of childcare seems illogical. And controlling
demand from Brussels by reducing parental leave and allowances is unthinkable,
notwithstanding the fact that this area falls under the remit of the Member States. European
red tape already does not go down well with EU citizens and that kind of pressure from
Brussels would hardly improve its reputation. Besides, surveys covering the whole of the EU
show sharp differences in priorities in terms of reconciliation of family and employment
across Europe – and especially between old and new Member States and between northern
and southern Europe. This is why objectives which were fully understandable in 2002 are
much more problematic in the circumstances of 2009. This is yet another reason for launching
a debate.
kontakt: Jana Říhová, tisková mluvčí pro předsednictví, Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí ČR
tel.: +420 221 922 249, GSM: +420 725 761 147 ; e-mail: [email protected] , www.mpsv.cz
www.eu2009.cz
3. I don’t want to dispute the rightfulness of the goals of raising employment. However, it is
necessary to consider other factors, such as the freedom of families and the best interest of the
child, as well as the results of paediatric and psychological surveys. It is not possible to
concentrate only on quantitative objectives, in the name of the employment policy, and
disregard the quality of childcare. This element should thus become part of all measures in the
area of childcare.
4. It is in line with the Beijing agenda, as well as the objectives of the gender equality policy
to consider the unpaid work of parents while caring for their children as a socially relevant
alternative of equal value to gainful employment. It is the only way to do away with the
traditional stereotype that sees the woman taking care of the children as “doing nothing” and
recognises only the work done by the man – the breadwinner. The former attitude challenges
the image of caring parents as “unemployed”, which must be returned back to employment
under the employment policy. This is another reason to open the debate on the Barcelona
Objectives and possible changes to them.
5. The Czech Presidency builds on the principle of freedom for families. The decision on how
children should be taken care of must be left with the families alone. Opting for home-based
childcare should not be automatically seen as wrong. Let’s not put quantity above quality. A
mere statistical increase of the number of children under the age of three placed in day care
being considered a success says in fact nothing about the quality of the upbringing, emotional
satisfaction of the child, the quality of life of the mother and the child. Tensions between the
social pressure stressing a successful career and the demands of childcare may be solved in
other ways. One solution may be to strip home-based childcare – be it carried out by a father
or a mother – of the label of unworthy activity and social failure. Another precondition is that
it is appreciated fairly. Here we are again faced with the fact that childcare falls under the
jurisdiction of the Member States. High-quality family policy should primarily respect the
wishes of the family, should it be an early return to employment, or home-based childcare. All
forms should be on equal footing.
6. Dear colleagues, you might not be convinced by the arguments which I have presented so
far. This only proves that there are differing views as far as childcare and family policy is
concerned. This is understandable, considering our specific cultural, political and historical
traditions and experiences of individual countries and regions. Due to the fact that the
Barcelona Objectives were adopted in the framework of the coordination of national policies,
the question arises if it is really appropriate to set quantified objectives. We do not wish to
dispute or trivialise the bold model of Scandinavian family policy or recent measures taken by
the German government. Each country has its right of choice. By the same token, no one
should criticise the decision of those countries that fail to fulfil the Barcelona Objectives and
do not intend to increase efforts for their fulfilment. There are countries whose citizens, based
on their historical experience, are not interested in placing their children in day care. The
wording of the Barcelona Objectives says that while fulfilling the objectives it is necessary to
consider the demand and national conditions. Isn’t it therefore better that individual countries
proceed at their own discretion, in line with the subsidiarity principle? It is correct to argue
that joint support for the growth of employment is necessary, but let me say that it has nothing
to do with the Barcelona Objectives.
kontakt: Jana Říhová, tisková mluvčí pro předsednictví, Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí ČR
tel.: +420 221 922 249, GSM: +420 725 761 147 ; e-mail: [email protected] , www.mpsv.cz
www.eu2009.cz
The launching of the discussion of the Barcelona Objectives does not indicate doubt of the
existing efforts of the Member States to meet these objectives; neither a “step backwards” nor
even a return to the “conservative model”. It simply means that we acknowledge the fact that
it is necessary to respect a number of other factors. It is impossible to search for generally
applicable simple formulas in a global society. A measure that is successful in one country
may be doomed to failure in advance in another country. As I have already outlined, the
problem of complementarity of family and employment does not imply a single correct
solution that could be successfully “imposed” on families. Support of collective care facilities
is not mutually exclusive with respect for parental care. However, as it is not possible to
require introduction of a common and single support system of home parental care, it is also
not suitable to establish a universally valid and quantified model of collective care support.
Respect for cultural differences, the freedom of individuals and families, democratic decisionmaking and for the will of the citizens – such are the pillars of a democratic state, and I dare
say, also of the European Union. Providing the highest possible number of new alternatives
for families and individuals should be our objective. On the contrary, establishment of
universally applicable formulas valid for each individual are a thing of the past and a definite
step backwards.
Dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen,
I hope that the outlined problems and issues have clarified, at least in broad strokes, why the
Czech Presidency decided to launch particularly the issue of the Barcelona Objectives and
their relevance at today’s meeting. I could also mention a number of other topics and reasons,
including the economic crisis we are facing right now, which is also a challenge to search for
new ways of achieving economical growth. However, respect for the interests of the
individual Member States, which are presently represented by you, is the fundamental
principle.
Before I conclude my speech and give the floor to Commissioner Špidla, I will repeat the
questions that we have provided for you as source materials for today’s discussion. Let us try
to think about these questions:
•
•
•
•
Do you think that the European Employment Strategy should accentuate the
requirement for taking into consideration the child’s best interest and apply it to the
relevant policies?
If so, what measures can be adopted for this purpose? Is it suitable/desirable to
consider a change in the wording of the Barcelona Objectives in the area of childcare
for children at pre-school age?
Do the Barcelona Objectives sufficiently respect the subsidiarity principle, the
differences in historic experience and the social reality of the individual Member
States?
Do you think that appreciation of so-called non-formalised work performed
predominantly by women as a form of intergenerational solidarity could contribute to
equality between women and men? If so, what measures can be adopted in this area on
EU level and on the level of the Member States?
kontakt: Jana Říhová, tisková mluvčí pro předsednictví, Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí ČR
tel.: +420 221 922 249, GSM: +420 725 761 147 ; e-mail: [email protected] , www.mpsv.cz
www.eu2009.cz
I hope that my introductory speech will open a fruitful discussion, which is a condition for
reaching any consensus.
Thank you for your attention.
kontakt: Jana Říhová, tisková mluvčí pro předsednictví, Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí ČR
tel.: +420 221 922 249, GSM: +420 725 761 147 ; e-mail: [email protected] , www.mpsv.cz
www.eu2009.cz