1. LAMAS October 2018 Agenda Item 4.1 LMI Review – main scenarios

2. OUTLINE
I. Background II. Main Scenarios – initial proposals III. LAMAS consultation IV. Timetable V. Proposal

3. I. Background
Since 2016, ESTAT.F3 engaged in revision of the existing legislation in the field of business-based labour market surveys (LMI Review)
Steps taken so far:
Consolidation of the acquis
Consultation of compilers (LAMAS-LMI)
Consultation of users on their needs
1st meeting of the dedicated Taskforce: TF 'LMI Review'
Benchmarking exercise with the United States (Bureau of Labour Statistics) and Canada

4. I. Background Important notes:
All possible future changes in the legislation should have limited impact on response burden in general (both response units and NSI's)
Changes in the legislation to take place in mid- to long term (5-7 years minimum)

5. II. Main Scenarios – initial proposals
3 possible scenarios developed by Eurostat for each dataset (SES, LCS, LCI and JVS):
Scenario 1 - fine tuning of the current requirements
Scenario 2 - moderate changes
Scenario 3 - complete recast

7. III. LAMAS consultation
Scope: LAMAS delegates from Member States
22 countries answered, namely: BG, EE, RO, IE, SI, PT, BE, LU, SK, ES, CY, CZ, FI, LV, AT, HU, NL, DE, FR, PL, DK and LT
This presentation focuses on the scenarios that would represent a change compared with the current situation

8. IV. Timetable
10-11 October 2018: LAMAS-LMI provides guidance on the main scenarios to be further explored by TF 'LMI Review'
13-14 February 2019: TF 'LMI Review' meets for the second time
October 2019: LAMAS-LMI discusses the final report submitted by TF 'LMI Review'

9. SES-scenario 1
SES S1.C1: statistical unit = local unit (observation unit)
SES S1.C2: NACE Rev. 2 section O mandatory
C1: In fact ES is in favour of investigating (see comments)
C2: in fact all countries are in favour of investigating (see comments)

10. SES-scenario 2 SES S2.C1: small units (1+) mandatory
SES S2.C4: timeliness = T+15 months
C1: BG, EE, LV, LT in favour of investigating
C4: BG in favour of investigating

11. SES-scenario 3:
SES S3.C3: statistical unit = local kind of activity unit (LKAU)
SES S3.C4: frequency = annual
SES S3.C5: reference month = February or April [instead of OCT]
SES S3.C6: timeliness = T+11 months
C3: support from AT
C5: support from NL

12. Proposals for SES (to be / not to be investigated):
SES S1.C1: statistical unit = local unit (observation unit)
SES S1.C2: NACE Rev. 2 section O mandatory
SES S2.C1: small units (1+) mandatory
SES S2.C4: timeliness = T+15 months
SES S3.C3: statistical unit = local kind of activity unit (LKAU)
SES S3.C4: frequency = annual
SES S3.C5: reference month = February or April [instead of OCT]
SES S2.C6: timeliness = T+11 months

13. LCS-scenario 1:
LCS S1.C1: statistical unit = local unit (observation unit)
LCS S1.C2: NACE Rev. 2 section O mandatory
C1: ES in favour (see comments)
C2: EE, LV, LT in favour (see comments)

14. LCS-scenario 2: LCS S2.C1: small units (1+) mandatory
LCS S2.C4: timeliness = T+15 months
C1: In fact BG, EE, LV, NL, LT in favour
C4: EE, LV, LT in favour

15. Proposals for LCS (to be / not to be investigated):
LCS S1.C1: statistical unit = local unit (observation unit)
LCS S1.C2: NACE Rev. 2 section O mandatory
LCS S2.C1: small units (1+) mandatory
LCS S2.C4: timeliness = T+15 months

16. LCI-scenario 1:
LCI S1.C1: statistical unit = enterprise (local unit accepted)
LCI S1.C3: timeliness = T+60 days [currently T+70 days]

17. LCI-scenario 2:
LCI S2.C1: timeliness = T+65 days [for small countries + full breakdown for all countries] and T+45 days ['flash' - for large countries, only total economy without NACE breakdown]
LCI S2.C2: variables = TXB still optional but hours worked made mandatory
C1: in fact SI, LU (+ may be DK) should be in favour as not concerned. DE opposes to t+65 => t+70 in the final proposal + FR in favour
C2: EE in favour finally (see comments)

18. LCI-scenario 3:
LCI S3.C1: statistical unit = kind of activity unit (KAU)
LCI S3.C2: variables = both TXB and hours worked made mandatory
C2: EE in favour finally (see comments). Support from PT.

19. Proposals for LCI (to be / not to be investigated):
LCI S1.C1: statistical unit = enterprise (local unit accepted)
LCI S1.C3: timeliness = T+60 days [currently T+70 days]
LCI S2.C1: timeliness = T+65 days [for small countries + full breakdown for all countries] and T+45 days ['flash' - for large countries, only total economy without NACE breakdown]
LCI S2.C2: variables = TXB still optional but hours worked made mandatory
LCI S3.C1: statistical unit = kind of activity unit (KAU)
LCI S3.C2: variables = both TXB and hours worked made mandatory

20. JVS-scenario 1:
JVS S1.C1: statistical unit = enterprise (local unit accepted)
JVS S1.C2: NACE sections O, P, Q, R and S ('public sector') made mandatory for all countries (including DK, FR and IT )
JVS S1.C3: size of a statistical unit = 1+ as mandatory for all countries (including FR, IT and MT )
C1: EE in favour finally (see comments)
C2: EE, LV, LT, NL in favour (not concerned). FR, DK strongly against.
C3: EE, LV, LT, NL in favour (not concerned). FR, DK strongly against. Support from ES, AT, PL

21. JVS-scenario 2:
JVS S2.C1: breakdown by ISCO 2 digits = mandatory for 1 quarter per year
JVS S2.C2: breakdown by NUTS 1 = mandatory for 1 quarter per year
JVS S2.C3: statistical unit = local unit
C1, C2: Support PL.

22. Proposals for JVS (to be / not to be investigated):
JVS S1.C1: statistical unit = enterprise (local unit accepted)
JVS S1.C2: NACE sections O, P, Q, R and S ('public sector') made mandatory for all countries (including DK, FR and IT )
JVS S1.C3: size of a statistical unit = 1+ as mandatory for all countries (including FR, IT and MT)
JVS S2.C1: breakdown by ISCO 2 digits = mandatory for 1 quarter per year
JVS S2.C2: breakdown by NUTS 1 = mandatory for 1 quarter per year
JVS S2.C3: statistical unit = local unit
S2.C1 & S2.C2: alternative sources to be explored at EU level (EURES)

23. V. Proposal LAMAS is invited:
To take note of the work carried out so far by the TF 'LMI Review' and of its need for guidance from LAMAS on the main options to be examined in its further work;
To take a forward-looking approach as the revised LMI legal basis is to be implemented in 5 years minimum;
To endorse the timetable proposed
To select the scenarios/components to be further investigated by TF

24. Thank you for your attention!