Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 12 January 2005 - Strasbourg

3. Programme of the Luxembourg presidency

  President. The next item is the Council Statement on the programme of the Luxembourg Presidency.

The President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg, has the floor, and I would like once again to express Parliament’s sadness at the death of her Royal Highness, the Grand Duchess Josephine-Charlotte of Luxembourg, Princess of Belgium.

  Juncker, Council. (FR) Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I must say, it is always a pleasure to come to Strasbourg, the very embodiment of the European city, a city that symbolises the reconciliation between France and Germany, a meeting point for so many European ambitions and an intersection of so many continental dreams.

In addition to my pleasure at being here, I have the honour today to present to Parliament – the elected representatives of the peoples of Europe – the priorities for the Luxembourg Presidency of the European Union. The Luxembourg Presidency follows that of our Dutch friends. I must pay heartfelt tribute to their hard work, their tenacity and their undeniable successes. The EU made significant progress under the Dutch Presidency. When it comes to an end, I hope to be able to say the same of the eleventh Luxembourg Presidency, which began a few days ago.

The experience of our previous presidencies might indeed prove to be valuable, but presidencies come and go and have different characteristics. When I was President of the Council of Ministers for the first time, in 1985, there were ten Members of the European Communities; when I was President in 1991, there were 12 ministers around the table; when I took over the Presidency in 1997, there were fifteen of us, and now there are 25 Member States. In 20 years the number of Member States has more than doubled.

The decision-making system has naturally become more complicated. What a joy and a pleasure, however, to see the countries of Eastern and Central Europe take their place in the EU, in view of the fateful decree that sought to drive a wedge between us for ever.

The experience of our various presidencies and of observing the successive presidencies of other countries has taught me two things. Firstly, the EU will not genuinely move forward if those holding the Presidency place their own national interests at the heart of their concerns rather than replacing them with the common interest, the best definition of the interests of everyone. It follows that the EU will not find genuine coherence, let alone harmony, unless we all respect the spirit and the letter of the Community method and the balance between the three institutions.

The Commission is not a touch judge solely in charge of monitoring compliance with the rules of the internal market. It should be the playmaker, the inspiration and the driving force of the team. The Council, for its part, is not the field of play of exclusively national interests, however justified those may be, but rather a workshop of understanding. The place of Parliament, for its part, is not that of a spectator watching from the stands. It is an actor with privileged status because it is legitimised by universal suffrage.

You will, therefore, see me regularly in your offices, in your meetings and in your corridors in Brussels and Strasbourg. I say this for myself, for my ministers and for all those who work in the service of Parliament, and thus in your service. Together we must oversee the ratification of the new Constitutional Treaty in the right conditions. It is true that the draft Constitution is not perfect, but we must not benchmark it against perfection; we must benchmark it against what Europe will need in order to remain an example to the world in the future. Let us do now what must be done in order for this to be the case in the future and let us ratify the Treaty. Let us not forget that the Treaty is a text that is of neither the left nor the right. Its content will be the fruit of our convictions, of our will and of our ambition. If our will and our ambition are perfect, the implementation of the new Treaty, which may be imperfect in theory, will probably be perfectly successful in practice.

The ratification of the Treaty will not be an easy task everywhere, and I have one major concern in this regard: let us not use the potential difficulties of the parliamentary ratifications and referendums as an excuse to slacken the pace of action or to avoid making decisions. Let us not put off the most difficult decisions until the day after the first referendum, then until the day after the second referendum, then until the day after the third referendum, and so on. When we ask for the approval of the peoples and the parliaments of Europe, let us show them that Europe works, that Europe is on the move, that Europe is decisive and that Europe is capable of fulfilling its responsibilities. If the EU takes decisive action it can win over the doubters; if it is inactive it can put doubts in the minds of those previously convinced.

Mr President, when the new Presidency takes up its duties there is usually a solemn atmosphere, but that has been overshadowed this year by the terrible tragedy of the seaquake in South-east Asia. The deeply distressing pictures of the dead, the injured and the devastation cast a giant shadow over the end of 2004 and the beginning of 2005. This tragedy will linger long in the memory and I hope that, in addition to the immediate emergency aid, we shall show lasting solidarity with the devastated peoples and regions of Asia. I should also like us to ensure that the misery that we are seeing in Asia today does not make us turn our backs on the poverty, the underdevelopment, the hunger and the death of innocent people elsewhere. Our hearts should be in places where the television cameras are no longer or have never been.

(Applause)

Mr President, the European security strategy encourages us to promote peace, democracy and stability in the fight against the root causes of insecurity in the world.

It is absolutely crucial that, in a coherent and coordinated fashion, we use the entire range of EU instruments in the Western Balkans, in the Middle East, in our relations with Russia and Ukraine and in our transatlantic relations.

The future of the Balkans, a region still traumatised by its recent past, must form part of Europe’s outlook. The opening of accession negotiations with Croatia in March 2005, provided that there has been confirmation of complete cooperation with the Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, will demonstrate to all Balkan countries that their efforts towards democracy will be rewarded and might bear more fruit.

For the other countries in the region, the EU’s general action framework will continue to fall under the guidelines of the Thessaloniki Agenda, which sets out the European perspective presented to the Balkan countries. The Presidency will hold talks with Albania on a stabilisation and association agreement. A further crucial milestone in the region will be a review in mid-2005 of the implementation of the standards policy in Kosovo. We shall be paying close attention to the developing situation in Kosovo. I am of the opinion that, whatever its status, Kosovo’s future rests within the EU.

The Russian Federation is a strategic partner of the EU and remains a major factor in European security and stability. Admittedly, the state of our relations is not satisfactory at the moment. I shall do all that I can to remedy this state of affairs, whilst remaining firm on our core demands. I trust I can count on your support in this endeavour.

At the EU-Russia Summit in Moscow on 10 May, the Presidency will strive for a balanced package as regards the Four Common Spaces set out at the St Petersburg Summit, which are based on common values and shared interests.

The EU will forge close ties with the new President of Ukraine, not least in areas such as the implementation of the European Neighbourhood Policy. We have every interest in having a stable and prosperous Ukraine as a neighbour, a Ukraine that is strongly rooted in democracy, a Ukraine that is committed to the path of modernisation. The Presidency will prepare thoroughly for the summit between the EU and Ukraine that is due to take place during the United Kingdom Presidency.

I shall now turn to transatlantic relations. For the world to be a stable place, it needs a transatlantic partnership that works. At the moment, transatlantic relations are not bad, but nor are they particularly good. Leaving matters as they are, however, is not an option that will satisfy expectations on both sides of the Atlantic. Consequently, we must improve the quality of relations in the best interests of both parties. We shall do this at the two Summits with President Bush – the first in February, at the US President’s request, and the second in June. We shall not focus on the differences of opinion that some of us may have had with the United States in the recent past, but we shall try to put the emphasis on a series of practical questions to which we must give equally practical answers. Transatlantic relations would not be complete without Canada, and I am delighted that there is to be a summit with Canada during my Presidency, in which we shall be discussing matters of shared importance between friends.

The same applies, on the other side of the world, to our Japanese friends.

At this point, Mr President, I should like to say a word about the Middle East. With the election of President Abbas on 9 January as head of the Palestinian Authority, and with the prospect of the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, a window of opportunity has opened up to relaunch the peace process and to speed up the implementation of the road map. That opportunity must now be seized. Against this backdrop, I should like to offer my support to the Middle East conference due to take place in London in March 2005. This, I am sure, will represent an essential step towards consolidating the peace process.

Under the Luxembourg Presidency, the process of EU enlargement will be guided by the decisions taken by the European Council of last December. We shall be opening accession negotiations with Turkey in March. As regards Bulgaria and Romania, I hope that Parliament will issue its assent in April on the accession of those two countries, which will enable us to sign accession Treaties, also in April.

Mr President, we cannot bring the EU closer to its citizens if we remain incapable of meeting their justifiable expectations as regards internal security. The new Constitutional Treaty paves the way towards definitively abolishing the ‘Justice and Home Affairs exception’, in other words the complete integration of this field into the European Project by means of the rigorous application of the Community method. Under our Presidency, justice and home affairs activities will be in line with this perspective, and our working basis will fall within the framework of the excellent Hague Programme, adopted by the Council in November of last year.

In order to ensure that the area of freedom, security and justice becomes a reality, we must think European before we think national. We must ensure that a European security culture is developed. This is a particularly important requirement as regards the fight against serious and organised crime. Driving forward the area of freedom, security and justice is in our view an essential, even existential, task. We must first, however, optimise operational cooperation between the Member States; for example, we must ensure that information can be exchanged quickly and smoothly between Member States’ police forces and judiciaries. This principle of availability will constitute a major step forward in cooperation between police forces and the Presidency will set about this task at the earliest opportunity. We also wish to strengthen the European judicial area, which is based on both mutual recognition and the approximation of laws. We shall ensure, in particular, that negotiations are driven forward on the European evidence warrant and on the possible establishment of a European criminal record. This will make European security stronger and will not be to the detriment of public freedoms, nor must it be, since those freedoms form part of the European way of coexistence.

The fight against terrorism must be a permanent priority. In this regard, I wish to salute the Spanish initiative to host a meeting of the Heads of State or Government in Madrid in March. The Presidency, for its part, will place particular emphasis on combating the financing of terrorism.

As far as the strand of asylum and immigration is concerned, the Presidency will focus on three elements: strengthening partnerships with countries of origin and of transit; establishing a harmonised approach with regard to the policy of return and readmission; and the European Agency for the management of operational cooperation at the external borders begins its duties on 1 May.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we often refer – and rightly so – to the Europe of the citizens. Let us not be under any illusions. If we do not succeed in making the EU an area of work and well-being for all, the citizens will become alienated from Europe, from its Union and from the political project that underpins it. In order to stave off that risk and to give Europe back its economic and social place, we launched the Lisbon Strategy almost five years ago. We wanted – and we still want – to make the EU the most competitive and most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustained economic growth, with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion, and one that respects the environment and natural resources.

After five years of qualified success, the time has come for a mid-term review, which we shall draw up for the spring European Council. The first task will be to clarify the aim of the strategy that we are to pursue. The Lisbon Strategy – a name that, to my mind, means absolutely nothing to most people – is in fact a strategy for competitiveness, growth, social cohesion and the protection of the environment. It should be based on solid foundations of sustainable well-being for Europeans. We must act now in order, in the future, to guarantee access for all to the European social model, which must not be turned into a myth, but should remain, or rather, should return to being, a living reality for all. If we want to keep the European social model intact, it must be reformed so that it can provide a response to the growth crisis, to under-employment, to the weakening of the fabric of society, to the loss of competitiveness and productivity, to the falling birth-rate and to the ageing of our populations.

Naturally, Europeans do not like reforms; they are scared by them and do not understand the reasons behind them. We must explain to them that the reforms that we are proposing are intended to guarantee the survival and the viability of the European social model. We must convince them that putting off those reforms would prove more expensive. We must prove to them that we are right to act and would be wrong to do nothing. The bottom line is that we need to reinvigorate Europe.

The next step, when we draw up the mid-term review, is to keep together the three pillars of the Strategy – the economic, the social and the environmental. I am well aware that Europe has a competitiveness problem, which largely explains its mediocre performance in terms of growth and jobs. Of course competitiveness must be stepped up. It is not, however, an end in itself, nor some neutral, self-sufficient benefit. No, the competitiveness that we must seek should provide us with stronger and more sustainable growth and should be aimed at greater social cohesion and a more harmoniously-balanced environment.

(Applause)

Please let us not start a foolish and pointless debate over whether we should have more competitiveness and thus less social cohesion, or more social, and less environmental, cohesion. If Europe wishes to be strong, it needs three things, and those three things go together: greater competitiveness, greater social cohesion and a better-balanced natural environment.

(Applause)

I say yes to competitiveness; I say no to giving up our social and ecological ambitions. I say yes, for example, to opening up service markets, but I say no to social dumping, an element that some people would like to promote.

(Applause)

The bottom line, Mr President, is that we must find the right way of ensuring that the strategy is successful.

After five years of charting a rudderless course between success and failure, it is not so much a matter of knowing what we must do – because after all we do know – it is more a matter of knowing how we are to go about it. It is essential that we make the European learning area a reality, step up the research effort, improve our education systems and foster lifelong learning. This is what we must do, but how do we go about it?

We have far too many processes in Europe. We have the broad economic policy guidelines, the employment guidelines, the sustainable development strategy, the internal market strategy, the small and medium-sized business charter, the Cologne process, the Cardiff process, and many others. All too often, these processes become bogged down in bureaucratic procedures that lead nowhere. The EU is more like a research unit – a unit of unused research, at that – than a factory of ideas that are practical and are put into practice.

(Applause)

We must change this by streamlining our strategy. Our strategy is essentially European, but its implementation must first be national. We should like this strategy to remain essentially European. It must be subject to a broad review every two years, or preferably every three years. We cannot change strategy every six months, from Council to Council, according to the whims of the presidencies and to what is inspiring them at the time. The strategy must be there for the long haul.

We should like implementation at national level to be speeded up and stepped up. We are proposing that Member States should set up action programmes at national level. These should be designed in conjunction with the social partners and must be presented to national parliaments, which, along with the Community bodies, would monitor their implementation. These national programmes would take account of the particular national and regional characteristics and should provide the possibility for assessing the pace and intensity of the respective national reforms separately and should make it easier to gauge the level of performance achieved up to a given point.

So much for the strategy and the way in which it is to be implemented. We shall discuss this matter again together, Parliament, the Council and both of us with the Commission, which will soon present its summary report to us.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the partial reorientation of the Lisbon Strategy also invites us to reflect on the Growth and Stability Pact. I beg your pardon, the Stability and Growth Pact!

(Laughter)

Actually, I would have preferred it the other way round.

(Applause)

Yet as Europe was governed in 1996 by our old friends – and not the ones you would think! – the second order was the one that was kept.

(Laughter and applause)

We began a review of the Pact under the Dutch Presidency and we should like to conclude it under the Luxembourg Presidency. We are going to reform the Pact, or rather, to adjust its implementing measures. Let me explain this by first detailing what we are not going to do.

Economic and Monetary Union needs stability. We therefore have no intention of driving stability away, neither in what we say nor in what we do. Stability is a founding element of the pact that forms the basis of the euro. We promised a stable currency. It will remain stable and it will remain strong. It follows – let me say right away – that the Presidency will not propose to neutralise or immunise certain categories of budgetary spending applicable under the Pact. It follows that the basic criteria – 3% for the deficit, 60% for the debt – will remain applicable.

It is clear to me, however, that changes must be made, not least in order that the Pact can take better account of the economic cycle. During times of strong economic growth, Member States in the euro zone must, as a matter of priority, be required to allocate budget surpluses to reducing the debt and the deficit. We shall enrich the preventative element of the Pact by means of a strong dose of extra stability.

During times of weak growth, on the other hand, Member States in the euro zone should be given more reactive room for manoeuvre as regards the budget. The greater the efforts to reduce the deficit and the debt during periods of economic expansion, the wider that room for manoeuvre. If, during periods of weak growth, a Member State incurs an excessive deficit, this situation and the consequences arising from it, not least in terms of the timing of correction, will be judged by means of objective measures of assessment.

We must avoid at all costs arbitrary political judgments that might lead to differing assessments based on the size of the country. From this perspective, Luxembourg is always the loser.

(Applause)

Mr Cohn-Bendit, we shall have a proper debate when the time comes, in committee, without too many witnesses, on the comparison that could be made between France, Germany and Luxembourg as regards taxation. It is a debate that will be interesting and informative for those who, I must say, view Luxembourg in a somewhat superficial manner.

(Applause)

Let me invite you to a calm debate about the Pact. I am wary of extreme solutions. I say no to those who seek to replace stability with brazen, unbridled flexibility, as well as to those who seek to set the Pact, as it is now, in the cement of dogma. We need greater stability and greater flexibility to take account of the economic cycle.

Mr President, you would no doubt be surprised if I failed to mention the debate that we are to hold on the financial perspectives. In front of you, I would not wish to detail the component parts of this – it must be said – difficult dossier, because your grasp of them is better than mine. I shall simply say that the Luxembourg Presidency will do all that it can to reach an agreement on the financial perspectives before the end of June.

I am not under any illusions, however. The Member States are currently entrenched in their positions and it will be difficult to move them from those positions in time, by which I mean now! If we do not reach an agreement on a common position under the Luxembourg Presidency, by 1 January 2007, it will be politically, legislatively and technically impossible to meet the challenge of the enlarged EU.

Consequently, no institution or Member State will have any interest in playing extra time. The absence of an agreement in June will not be the Presidency’s failure, which is only of very minor interest to me, but Europe’s failure. Let us decide. Let us decide quickly. Let us decide now.

(Applause)

We must spare Europe a long, drawn-out debate lasting 18 months or even more. That would cause even more disputes and exacerbate the conflicts between the Member States and the institutions. Mr President, I am relying on Parliament to drive forward the decision-making process on the financial perspectives. We shall work with you, because your agreement is necessary. You will not be handed a fait accompli, I guarantee you that.

That, Mr President, is the thrust of our programme. Presidencies come and go, but fortunately Europe remains. We want to serve Europe with determination and passion, with the determination and the passion that long distances and grand ambitions require.

(Loud applause)

  President. Given the applause you have received, we can expect the Luxembourg Presidency to be very positive. That is what Parliament wants to see.

  Barroso, President of the Commission. (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the half-year that has just begun will feature a series of important landmarks that will determine whether the EU will be able to meet the objective of achieving a higher level of prosperity, solidarity and security for the citizens.

Much of what the Commission may accomplish during the coming years will be determined by the initial decisions taken during this term and by our capacity to resolve difficult questions and to achieve practical results. I should therefore like to highlight, from the Commission’s perspective, the particular importance of this Luxembourg Presidency in this first half-year of 2005. Accordingly, the Commission will table the programme for the period 2004-2009 as early as 26 January. We hope that the other institutions can agree to this programme so that it can become not just part of the Commission's programme, but part of the programme for the entire Union, thus anticipating the provisions of the European Constitution, and we can then begin right away to work within the spirit of the Constitution.

Luxembourg has the responsibility of chairing the Council during this crucial period. I feel that it is a privilege for us to have Prime Minister Juncker as President of the Council during this period, given his invaluable experience as Head of Government, his deeply-held European conviction and his well-known ability to resolve tricky situations. From a personal point of view, it is a pleasure for me to work with my friend Jean-Claude Juncker.

Mr President, we have heard from the Presidency about its expectations and priorities. Let me comment briefly on just three of the main issues that will be on the agenda of the Luxembourg Presidency; there are many others, but I wish to concentrate on three.

The first is the mid-term review of the Lisbon Strategy. Europe is facing very important challenges, most of which were already identified at Lisbon 2000. But we could say today that the challenges from globalisation and the ageing of the population make even clearer the need to adapt to increasingly difficult situations. Europe's prosperity is under threat. To tackle this threat we need more growth and more jobs. If we continue on the path of low, diminishing economic growth, we put all our policies at risk, but in particular our capacity to ensure solidarity and security and to preserve and improve the European model. As outlined in the Kok report, to be more effective the Lisbon priorities need to be refocused, streamlined and prioritised. Too many priorities means no priority at all. Growth and jobs must be our priorities.

The Commission is working on a report which will present its views on the mid-term review of the Lisbon Strategy and propose guidelines for future action. At this point in the preparation of this report, two elements strike me as particularly consensual. The first is the knowledge economy. Returning to growth will require considerable investment in knowledge. Companies cannot become more competitive without a better-prepared labour force. Only well-trained people can ensure high productivity. This requires unprecedented effort in the areas of research, development, education and training. Particular effort will be required to involve young people in this investment for knowledge. Higher productivity should lead to higher growth, which, in turn, would create more jobs. I do not see knowledge purely as an instrument for other objectives: knowledge in itself is an important goal and a vehicle for self-realisation.

The second consensual point I can underline at this stage is about coherence in implementation, the delivery problem. The coherence between national actions and European action is a critical factor for success. This means better implementation of the objectives agreed in common, which, in turn, means more responsibility and more empowerment at national level to deliver the common objectives. In this vein, the Commission report will also highlight clearly the importance of ensuring ownership of the revised Lisbon Strategy by the Member States. All in all, I must stress that the mid-term review of the Lisbon Strategy is, first, an agenda for modernisation. Whether we will succeed depends on our ability to establish an effective partnership between our institutions and citizens to deliver this reform.

(FR) I should now like to present to you our view of the financial perspectives. The Luxembourg Presidency has rightly decided to put everything into striving to reach an agreement on the financial perspectives before the end of June 2005. It is right to do so, because failure to reach an agreement in time will lead to significant difficulties for the preparation of the programmes concerned.

It strikes me as important, however – at a time when a final negotiation might get underway – to point out certain salient facts. We cannot have more Europe with fewer financial resources. The Commission’s proposal has not fallen out of the sky; it is the result of commitments agreed by the EU during the European Councils. Nowadays, the Commission does not ask that the Union be granted funding for new projects, but usually that it be granted funding for commitments already made; Member States must honour the commitments that they have already made.

(Applause)

I should like, if I may, to point out certain issues on which I feel that the Union must not compromise. The first of these is cohesion. Ladies and gentlemen, without solidarity there is no Union. There might be something else, but not a Union. Enlargement has had a far-reaching impact on solidarity. The Union has new regions lagging behind in development, and some of the less prosperous old regions still need support. Financial solidarity is therefore all the more necessary given that regions lagging behind in development have the greatest scope for growth in competitiveness and job creation. We must not disappoint the new EU Members, which have the right to active solidarity from the entire Union.

Secondly, we must not forget the question of competitiveness. With regard to the Lisbon Strategy, I said that massive investment in research and education was essential. Indeed, European level expenditure very often brings more reward than national level expenditure without coherence. I should also add trans-European networks to the list of priorities, given that the infrastructure that connects Europe is still in decline.

The third crucial aspect of the financial perspectives is that of security. The action programme agreed at the European Council has major financial implications. The programme known as the ‘Hague Programme’ has financial implications. This means more action at European level so that the financial burden and collective security can be shared better among the Member States. The citizens of Europe expect us to have the ability to work together. One Member State on its own, even the most powerful, cannot guarantee the best possible security if it does not form part of a joint, European-level effort. The bottom line is that we cannot have more Europe with less money. I hear people from time to time calling for a freeze on Community budgets below the level of the 2006 budget. Let us be clear on this matter: that would be a Europe that reneges on its commitments.

I wish to state clearly that the Commission would wish to have nothing to do with a Europe of backtracking, a Europe of mediocrity, a Europe of reduced aims. This is why I am delighted that the Luxembourg Presidency will do everything in its power to reach a compromise agreement this term. Some people will say that this will be difficult, even unlikely. I honestly believe that the longer we leave this, the more difficult it will be. We therefore support the Luxembourg Presidency in this difficult, yet extremely important, task.

As for the Stability and Growth Pact, we welcome the fact that one of the Luxembourg Presidency’s priorities is to ensure that multilateral budgetary monitoring will make a greater contribution to a strong, healthy and successful economic and monetary Union. These principles underpin the Stability and Growth Pact and this Pact must be respected and must function properly. Let us not forget that the single currency is one of Europe’s great achievements. I remember before the euro came into force, certain experts, economists and professors, particularly on the other side of the Atlantic, were saying that Europe would never be able to have a strong currency because of its lack of solidarity and political cohesion. Nowadays, some are saying that our currency might be too strong, but not too weak. The single currency is therefore an historic European success story. We must not now jeopardise that great success.

(Applause)

At the end of 2003, the Commission initiated a reflection process on the experience that has been gained, in order to identify possible changes and improvements that might help us to implement the Pact more efficiently. Convinced that the common interest commands that everybody comply with every rule, the Commission has been in contact with the various European bodies responsible for thinking together and for exploring together the most promising avenues, such as those tabled in our Communication of September 2004. The Presidency’s contribution will be instrumental in engendering a consensus of opinion. We are already expecting such a consensus at the Ecofin Council on 18 January. The Commission will thus be able to put forward practical proposals to improve the implementation of the Pact and this in time for the discussions at the European Council in March.

In the next six months, the ability of the European Union to return to growth will be put to the test. It will have to provide the financial means necessary to match its political choices. It must work closer to citizens and regain their trust. It must strengthen its role on the international scene and relaunch its strategic partnerships.

There is now a special opportunity for relaunching the Middle East peace process. The European Union can and should give a greater contribution in this field. I believe that the European Union will play a stronger role on the international scene.

The Commission strongly supports the efforts of the Luxembourg presidency on this path. The Commission believes that this period is critical and that our institutions will need to work together even more closely to achieve results.

(Applause)

  Poettering (PPE-DE), on behalf of the group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr President of the European Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, we welcome to the House today the Presidents of the European Council and of the Commission, and I gather that the President of the European Council will also be present when the Commission unveils its programme in Brussels on 26 January. I see that as a splendid symbol for the ever-growing cooperation between Parliament, the Council and the Commission. Future presidencies should take that as an example to follow.

Although we were very pleased to see the President of the Commission and the President of the Council in Asia, visiting Jakarta as an expression of the European Union’s solidarity, I would like to emphasise that, however necessary solidarity with the stricken areas might be, we must not overlook the great problems in Africa and in other parts of the world. We have to consider how we can, in so far as we are able, take preventive measures, in the shape of an early warning system, in Europe too, for example in the Mediterranean.

We are very much behind you, Mr President of the Council, in what you had to say about the Community method. Luxembourg may well be small in geographical terms, but it is a Grand Duchy and hence a great country, and the Benelux states’ presidencies have always been excellent ones. We wish you great success; for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats too, the Constitution is of the utmost priority.

In Brussels, we will have in-depth discussions on the Lisbon strategy, even though making the European economy competitive is not an end in itself, for the fact is that a strong economy is the best guarantee of good social policy. We see competitiveness as being about creating more jobs in Europe by way of growth and better conditions for European businesses. For us, that is social policy in the true sense of the word. Rather than setting ecology and the protection of the environment against the economy, we need a sensible balance between them.

We also wish you and your presidency success in handling the financial perspective. To those ladies and gentlemen – in this instance, no doubt, only gentlemen – who wrote letters arguing in favour of the 1% limit, we would say that you cannot enlarge Europe and then refuse the EU’s new Member States the money that is an expression of our solidarity, and which they need in order to be brought up to our standards. To do that, we in the European Union need the necessary funding to be made available. You have mentioned the treaties that are to be signed, but how, in the absence of any agreement by June and of any success in medium-term financial planning, are we to cope with the accession of new states to the European Union? We are very glad that it is Reimer Böge, a very competent member of our group, who will be writing the report for this House.

You also made reference to the Stability Pact. I am very grateful to you for what you said, and I can agree with every word of it. What you said boils down, in essence, to the need for more flexibility. The thing about flexibility is that it is those states that have made provisions that have more of it. To come to the point, then, the less indebted a state is, the more flexible it can be when times are hard for the economy, which also means that we have to do what has to be done to reduce deficits when things are going well for the economy, for we know that today’s debts always end up being tomorrow’s taxes, and a burden on the public as a whole, particularly on the younger generation.

(Applause)

Let me just say something briefly about foreign policy issues, a number of which you have addressed, and – as I understand it – the President of the Commission is in full agreement with what you said. Our support for Ukraine is only just beginning and will have to be an ongoing responsibility.

If I may turn to Palestine, where elections have just taken place, we want a secure Israel and a secure Palestinian state. The European Union’s role must not – contrary to what we are told by not a few high-ranking representatives from the Middle East – be merely a matter of providing financial support, but should involve us, as an honest broker, making our contribution to bringing peace to the Middle East.

Turning to trans-Atlantic relations, I wish you, and of course the President of the Commission, great success with President Bush’s visit, which will usher in a new era of good relations with the United States of America. We cannot have two groups of states in the European Union, each with its own way of maintaining relations with the USA. We Europeans must unite in taking up a position founded upon partnership with our American friends, and so, as you, Mr President of the Council, have said, we in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, bring determination and passion to supporting you, and wish you great success in your presidency.

(Applause)

  Goebbels (PSE), on behalf of the group. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the socialists are striving for a Europe of excellence. For us, the Lisbon policy constitutes the best route towards European competitiveness, the basis of a good life, indeed a better life, for our citizens. That is what is known as social cohesion.

The EU must stop complaining that Europe is said to be falling behind other regions of the world. If Europe were no longer competitive, then how on earth could the Union account for the lion’s share of world trade? In 2003, for example, the Union accounted for 40% of the trade in goods and 45% of the trade in services throughout the world, more than the United States, Japan and China put together. Of course some of our industries are suffering from competition from countries in which salaries are low, but we will not make better products by dismantling our social model.

I should like to address the following remarks to some conservative and liberal Members of this House: protecting the right to work will provide workers with a sense of security and even well-being. In other words, this is an important factor in workers’ productivity, and, in turn, in companies’ competitiveness. There is no conflict, but complementarity. That is a quote from Mr Biltgen, the chairman of the Luxembourg Christian Social Party, an eminent member of the Group of the European People’s Party ...

President Juncker leads a coalition government of the Christian Social Party and the Socialists, which is a benchmark by which to reinvigorate the Union on the basis of broad political consensus. The European Socialists have high hopes for this Luxembourg Presidency, primarily from the point of view of relaunching the Lisbon Strategy and of turning it into a genuine instrument of progress, particularly at the level of the 25. To this end, the macroeconomic framework must be redirected towards a policy of growth and stability. Stability is a public good that must be defended in the interests of our poorest citizens. There will never be stability, however, without strong economic growth. The Stability and Growth Pact must become an instrument that provides a means of both combating public deficit and fashioning an economic policy in tune with the economic cycles. Fiscal discipline is required in times of strong economic growth and more flexibility during periods of recession.

When it assesses each country’s public finances, the Commission must also assess the quality of spending. The practice of borrowing to finance running costs must be banned; borrowing must be confined to investment to prepare for the future. There cannot be more Europe with less money. A Union of 455 million inhabitants cannot develop with a budget in 2005 limited to 1.004% of Europe’s GNP.

Relaunching Lisbon, the ‘intelligent’ Stability and Growth Pact, financial perspectives that actually offer new perspectives for Europe: these are the Herculean tasks facing the Luxembourg Presidency. At the same time, we ask the Union not to forget the neglected people of the world. If the international community is capable of offering debt relief to Iraq of some 80%, and if it wishes to offer debt relief to those countries hit by the tsunami, it must also be capable of cancelling the debt that wipes out any development in developing world countries.

(Applause)

  Watson (ALDE), on behalf of the group. – Mr President, this is the eleventh Luxembourg presidency. Mr President-in-Office, your presidency has high standards of its own to live up to and the high expectations of others to meet.

Simultaneously President-in-Office of the European Council and of the Economic and Finance Council, you are in a unique position from which to reach agreement on one of your biggest and most delicate objectives – the financial perspectives for 2007-2013. Liberals and Democrats are pleased to note that in your presidency programme you say that 'all progress towards European construction requires adequate financial resources'. We hope you will not be limited by dogmatic demands to cap the Union's budget at 1% for the next decade. We are not profligate with European citizens' taxes and we insist that every euro be well spent and properly accounted for. Nonetheless, we, too, recognise that the European Union has justifiable ambitions, whether to run a coherent security strategy, generous development policy or an effective policy of regional aid and social cohesion. These all have a cost, and we should not limit our political ambitions by penny-pinching over what is, after all, a relatively modest budget. I wish you every success in securing agreement in June, for I fear the approach of your successors in this, as in other matters, is unlikely to command a consensus.

My Group will call upon you to specify new arrangements for the Stability and Growth Pact, which underpins the single currency. As 'Mr Euro', it is your right and duty to speak out for the euro and the euro zone. If France and Germany are allowed to escape with a mild rebuke for exceeding the deficit limits for several consecutive years, if Greece is absolved from misrepresenting its true fiscal state to gain fast-track entry to the euro, and if Italy continues to be reckless with its budget while harbouring a public debt of over 100%, who will have confidence in those rules? The Stability Pact needs adjusting but it also needs enforcing, with proper monitoring arrangements like those used by the IMF. We will look to you and your Council colleagues to be vigilant and true to your commitments.

Your term in office will coincide with the mid-term review of the much vaunted and little respected Lisbon Agenda. It is in serious danger of stalling. Your commitment to a relaunch at this halfway mark will bear fruit if you succeed in completing the single market, in finding more funding for research and in promoting a favourable climate for entrepreneurship. But do not try to be all things to all people. Structural labour market reform is essential to Lisbon. Neither should you underestimate the challenge of enforcing existing directives. Your proposal to make national governments accountable to their peers, as well as to national parliaments and public opinion, is a good one and the Commission must be entrusted to monitor the measures needed and not be afraid to name and shame the laggards.

My Group also welcomes your commitment to move to the Community method in matters of justice and home affairs so important to our citizens. We also share your ambitions for enlargement. New arrivals are on the horizon. Bulgaria and Romania will shortly be joining us. Croatia is a candidate country with which you must open negotiations. Let us be clear, as regards Croatia, that we expect General Gotovina to hand himself over or be turned over to The Hague to answer the case against him. Croatia cannot duck that issue. As Mr Poettering said, we cannot ignore the momentous events in Ukraine in the last two months. As a collective body of institutions, we must encourage the opening-up of that country and review bilateral relations in the light of new circumstances. That is a task for your presidency.

In conclusion, as the Constitution enters its ratification phase, you may have three referenda on your watch, and you must do all in your power to make sure they succeed. If political forces in Spain are allowed to raise the ghost of regional autonomy, if, in France, the debate is muddied by Turkish membership, if, in Britain, EU financing becomes an issue in the Constitutional Treaty debate, the whole thing will come crashing down around Europe's ears. Leave those issues where they belong and make sure Europe gets the Constitution it needs.

(Applause)

  Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE), on behalf of the group. – (FR) Mr President, today I have just discovered once again that Christian Democrat in one country does not mean the same thing as Christian Democrat in another country, I congratulate you ...

(Interruption by Mr Poettering: ‘The same goes for the Greens!’)

The same goes for the Greens, but at the moment, I am addressing the President of the Union and not the President of the European Greens. That is the difference, Mr Poettering!

You said something very interesting. If you are actually setting up a working group with Mr Barroso to look at the Lisbon process, I shall be very interested in taking part, in order to try and have everybody singing from the same hymn-sheet. In fact, we agree with you and disagree with Mr Barroso; competitiveness must go hand in hand with sustainable growth, with social solidarity and environmental responsibility. Mr Barroso forgot three of these four elements and this is why we need a working group between the Commission and the Council to have everybody singing from the same hymn-sheet. We are on your side, Mr President-in-Office of the Council.

As regards the financial perspectives, everybody is once again in agreement. Paraphrasing Victor Hugo, I should like to tell you that letting stingy countries govern Europe is tantamount to letting a hurricane govern the ocean. That is something we do not want. It is apparent that when the hurricane governs the ocean, everything collapses. If the stingy countries – by which I mean countries and governments that are very close to me – prevail with their 1%, Europe will be the loser. We are therefore on your side, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, in the fight against any attempts at reducing the European budget. Reducing the European budget is in fact tantamount to letting Europe collapse.

I should like to say one other thing – and this is very important – about education. I refer to the debate initiated by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development with the Programme for International Student Assessment. When discussing education, it is important to have the courage to say what works and what does not work in the Member States. It is not enough to speak of the need to educate, one must also say that there are education systems, teaching systems in Europe that are counter-productive, reactionary and ideological.

To conclude, I should like to say that the tenth anniversary of the Dayton agreement and of Srebrenica falls during your Presidency. I therefore ask Europe to take steps to revise the Dayton agreement, which might have been a necessary measure in its time, but which is unacceptable in view of the Constitution now in force in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Consequently, on the occasion of ten years since Srebrenica, I ask you, on Europe’s behalf, to take steps to revise the Dayton agreement.

  Liotard (GUE/NGL), on behalf of the group. – (NL) Mr Juncker, I should first of all like to thank you for your introduction. I would like to wish the Luxembourg Presidency success, and I wish it more wisdom than its Dutch predecessor had, although you have already made a little faux pas with your remark about the Constitution. I urge you to give the public the opportunity to make up their own minds in a fair-minded manner.

My first question to you is a short one. It was six years ago that the euro was introduced. At the time, in 1999, European unemployment stood at 9%, and has remained at that level to this day, while economic growth has slowed down. My question to you is: do you not consider it high time we submitted the euro to a thorough overhaul, in which you, in fact, could take the lead? I regret the absence from your agenda of the continuation of the debate, initiated under the Dutch Presidency, on the control of animal diseases. Had this slipped your mind?

According to your list of priorities, there are many misunderstandings surrounding the services directive. Exactly what kind of misunderstandings do you mean, and who, in your view, is labouring under them? Is it the Commission, Parliament or the thousands of workers who have already voiced their disapproval of this services directive? From your wish to reassess the proposal in a more objective light, as you describe it, can I deduce that you share my view that the services directive is an extremely vague document that my fellow-countryman, Commissioner Bolkestein, should never even have tabled? Does the Luxembourg Presidency have concrete proposals for amending the Commission proposal on the services directive? If not, I would invite you to travel with me through the Netherlands. You would be able to get to know those important public services, such as education and health care, that the directive puts in jeopardy. I could also introduce you to those commercial service providers, including the coffee shop 'De Tevreden Roker' [The Satisfied Smoker] and the 'Picobello Escort Service' club, which would certainly be keen to become active in Luxembourg, or elsewhere for that matter. To my mind, services of that kind are expressions of Dutch culture and thanks to the services directive, we will be able to inflict them on everyone.

You will gather that these last words were meant as a provocation, but I should like to ask you in all seriousness to take me up on my invitation. We may then be able to have the desperately needed debate about the services directive, which seems to be absent in too many crucial places in Europe.

  Knapman (IND/DEM), on behalf of the group. – Mr President, Mr Juncker's speech was made with all the passion that a civil servant is likely to raise.

Mr Juncker, you say that the Stability and Growth Pact will be your top priority, but your past statements serve to illustrate only the inconsistencies. Whilst I acknowledge that you played a key role in negotiating the pact's original rules, you recently said that the credibility of the pact had been buried and that the pact was dead. Is that still your opinion?

You also said that you have a window of opportunity to cut a quick deal on the EU budget, including the British rebate of some EUR 4 billion a year. Is that so, Mr Juncker? The rebate took five years to negotiate. If your comments are true and you can cut a deal by June, then Mr Blair must have agreed in principle to surrender the rebate. Is that the case? With whom in the British Government precisely are you negotiating? Will the British electorate know about this at the time of the British general election, probably in May?

Finally, the UK Independence Party, and in particular my colleague Mr Farage, has drawn attention to the criminal activities of more than one Commissioner. More details will follow shortly and regularly. Are you to be tainted by association with them, or will you be expressing your concerns and the pressing need for change?

  Angelilli (UEN), on behalf of the group. – (IT) Mr President, the Luxembourg Presidency’s programme is packed with crucial issues for the future of Europe, including the priorities on the economic front: the Lisbon strategy, reform of the Stability Pact and approval of the financial perspective up to 2013.

My first point is that it will soon be time for the mid-term review of the level of implementation of the Lisbon strategy. To give it a greater chance of success, the programme needs to make the individual Member States responsible for achieving the targets that were set. To that end, I consider the proposal to specify an individual at national level to be responsible for putting the strategy into practice to be a very useful idea.

Secondly, with regard to the review of the Stability Pact, it has also been emphasised this morning that a reform is needed which can propose a more flexible interpretation of the Pact during times of recession, without bypassing the Maastricht criteria and without giving up the commitment to reduce the debt. I am also convinced that steps could be taken to exclude certain specific types of investment from the calculation of the deficit in order to give a new boost to Europe’s growth and competitiveness.

Thirdly, I hope that we can really succeed in approving the financial perspective up to 2013 by June, so that the resources can be used to the full from the very beginning of the period in question. I especially hope that the proposals – the Council’s and the Commission’s proposals on those important topics – are adequately discussed in advance by Parliament which, let us recall, is the only European institution that directly represents the sovereignty of the people.

Lastly, I hope that a European civil protection agency will at last be set up during the Luxembourg Presidency so that natural disasters can be dealt with in an appropriate manner, with particular emphasis on prevention.

  Martin, Hans-Peter (NI). – (DE) Mr President-in-Office, there are many in this House who have, for some time, been keen to see you sitting opposite where you are now, and I am one of them. The work programme you have presented is enormous, but you also have a reputation for working wonders, and it is to the wonder-worker in you that I would like to appeal, asking you also to give attention to the Members’ statute. We urgently need a fair and credible statute of this kind. Somewhere between your country and mine is to be found not only the problem, but also the solution to it. We are told that the German Government does not want one before the next elections, but, at the same time, the German model – as regards Members’ remuneration rather than additional earnings and lobbyists – could serve as a basis for an agreement of this kind. We have to put a stop to the unworthy greed in this place. This House must cease to be a parliament of the insatiable, or else serious damage will be done to democracy, which is what this place is all about.

  President. If the President-in-Office of the Council does not wish to reply to the very specific and precise questions that have just been put to him, we shall continue with the debate.

  Spautz (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, Luxembourg’s Presidency of the Council in this first half of 2005 is very probably the last of its kind that we shall see. Under the European Constitution, by the time my country is next in line to take its turn in the presidency, the presidency of the Council of Heads of State or Government will have been permanently reformed. It follows that a last presidency – which is what this one is – must be a good one, and one whose successes will stand the test of time.

The biggest and most difficult tasks for our 2005 presidency have to do with finance policy; its agenda is dominated by the determination of the financial framework for the period from 2007 to 2013 and by a more flexible interpretation of the Stability and Growth Pact. The financial framework for the enlarged Union must be negotiated in such a way that an ambitious approach to the shaping of European policy is not obstructed by budgetary constraints at national level.

Europe’s 450 million inhabitants expect the European Union to be able to take effective action, and we will not be meeting their expectations by disputing over tenths and hundredths of percentage points, so it is vital that the Luxembourg Presidency should make a success of the tricky feat of giving the EU’s financial planning a European dimension. In so doing, it will be acting in the interests of every European and of a Union that is not only enlarging itself but also, and at the same time, benefiting its citizens by putting its policies on an adequate and appropriate financial footing, failing which further rounds of enlargement will be quite beyond its capacities.

During the coming six months, Europe’s Stability and Growth Pact is to be reinterpreted in line with the economic situation. It is in fact economic good sense, as well as the demands of a dynamic employment policy in Europe, that require that it be adapted to take account of the realities of the growth cycle. The fact is that the Pact is about growth as well as stability, and excessive rigidity must not be allowed to hamper growth rather than promote it.

The Lisbon strategy faces its mid-term review on 22 March of this year, when what has been achieved so far will be assessed and new priorities set. The Luxembourg Presidency of the Council proposes that, by 2010, every Member State should have set in motion tangible and demonstrable reforms in every one of the areas in which the Lisbon strategy requires action. That having been said, the EU’s economic environment will also undergo changes over the next five years. Europe is not alone in the world in striving to improve its performance and become more competitive, and so the Lisbon reform agenda will have to be successfully implemented by 2010. The Luxembourg Presidency is well aware of that, and will endeavour to ensure that its announcement is followed up by a stage in which progress is actually made.

Finally, it matters a great deal to me that something should be said, in this debate, on the epoch-making events in Ukraine, which is a European state, one that has, in the last month, demonstrated its desire to be one of us, and its ability to enrich the European family with its convictions and its experience. If it should be under Luxembourg’s Presidency that a start is made on completing the map of Europe, we should bear in mind that Slovakia, Poland, Hungary and Romania have a neighbour whose people see their future as being alongside all of us in Europe.

(Applause from the right)

  Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, let me just start with a brief comment. I see the statute as too important an issue to be a plaything for demagogues, and so I would ask you to ignore the rabble-rousing utterances that have been made and go ahead with what you plan to do with all your strength and in earnest, addressing this issue and finding a solution to it.

Your speech, Mr President-in-Office, was a very good one, and I would like to congratulate you on getting the right balance between the economy and society and particularly on giving priority to employment and growth. If I may be frank, that is an example to many, and not just to Christian Democrat Heads of Government.

I would, though, also like to endorse what you said about the foreign policy aspects. Two countries in our vicinity – Ukraine and Palestine – have held important elections in recent weeks. In both instances, the European Union played a very active part in bringing about change through democratic, open and transparent elections, and Europe must, as you said, hang on in there. We must not disappoint the people whom we have, to some degree, motivated to summon up the courage to bring about changes, and whom we have helped to do so in a transparent manner.

Do not let yourself be discouraged, Mr President-in-Office, for you are quite right to say that the development we are promoting and supporting in Ukraine is not a development in opposition to Russia, but we must nevertheless try to work together with Russia towards finding solutions. Ukraine must not become the ball in a game of power politics played by the European Union and Russia. Russia must of course acknowledge that there have been changes that it may find disagreeable, but which the people themselves have chosen. Were these changes now to be pursued to some degree in opposition to Russia, it would not be in Ukraine’s interests, for it is too varied and too diversified, and we know that it is those parts that are to some extent aligned with Russia that are Ukraine’s economic powerhouses.

Similarly, in Palestine, we need to remain involved and to continue giving political moral and financial support, as we have done for years, whilst always taking a critical line when it could not be clearly shown where the money was flowing. We have brought about many changes and introduced a degree of transparency, including in the way Palestine is administered. That is what we have achieved, and we will continue to do so if we get stuck in and, as has been said, do not limit ourselves to supplying funds but also help the Palestinian people to gain a state of their own. The only way to guarantee security in the Middle East is for there to be both an Israel that is secure within its own borders and also a new Palestinian state. Even if foreign policy is not one of your presidency’s priorities from the word go, we cannot desert the people whom we have helped to bring about change; it is also in our own interest, in the interests of stability and our own continent, that we should help them towards the real political goal.

(Applause from the left)

  Ek (ALDE). – Mr President, I welcome the presidency and congratulate it on its priorities. I have four questions.

(SV) The EU faces very considerable challenges during the next six months. Naturally, the half-term review of the Lisbon process is one of the overriding issues. It is time for European leaders to begin to act. I much appreciate the presidency’s statement that economic growth is important but that the other two pillars of stability are also needed, namely social and environmental development. What, nonetheless, needs to be explained is not merely the fact that you intend to improve the Lisbon process, but the way in which you intend to do this.

The other issue concerns the energy area. A better environment and improved self-sufficiency are naturally very important and bring about economic growth. The production of biomass creates jobs in districts and regions with low economic growth and can contribute to a better environment and to more stable energy production. How do you intend to combine the half-term reform of agricultural policy with energy policy and industrial policy?

Mark Twain once said that ‘All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then success is sure’. Obviously, that is not the case. Research policy needs to be strengthened, and we need a knowledge-based economy. What will the presidency do to ensure faster achievement of the 3% target where grants for research are concerned?

Finally, the fourth area. Nothing was mentioned about what is perhaps the most important legislative process under way, namely the Chemicals Directive, REACH. We have the opportunity to create a global standard if we combine the Commission’s proposal with better workability. Uncertainty is very expensive both for industry and the environment. How do you intend to work with REACH?

Finally, I should like to congratulate you on a very good presentation of the priorities and hope that, during the next six months, you will be able to achieve the objectives you have established.

  Turmes (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I am delighted at the clear and courageous statements that have been made by the Luxembourg Presidency with regard to sustainable development policy.

The Luxembourg Presidency, to a greater extent than its predecessors, is attempting to maintain a balance between economic, social and environmental policies. It is calling for something quite simple, namely that social and environmental policies be a starting point and not an end goal as far as growth policy is concerned. I hope that this will be the line followed by the Luxembourg Presidency at the European Council and within the respective sectoral Councils, and I am sure that your proposals on the main areas of work, namely the Financial Perspectives, the reform of the Stability Pact and the review of the Lisbon process, will be guided by this spirit of sustainable development.

Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I also hope that you will find the energy to convince the European Council that Europe should continue to act as the driving force behind the Kyoto process. After the European Union’s success with Kyoto, it is essential that it now set out a long-term framework for climate change policy, with objectives for the period 2020-2050. This is what both our citizens and our economic players expect. What guidelines will economic players in Europe follow when investing in key sectors such as energy and transport, if we have not laid down a clear framework for future policies in this field?

Turning to the Lisbon strategy, you noted that it related to three areas, namely environmental, social and economic issues. It is the ambitious environmental policies of recent decades that have made Europe a global leader in environmental technologies and renewable energies. I hope that you will revise Chapter V of the Koch report to ensure that the European economy can benefit from these ambitious policies.

The Lisbon agenda should also include an ambitious social policy. The Commission is pressing for extensive liberalisation, in particular as proposed in the Bolkenstein directive, and I am glad that you have expressed criticism of this directive, Mr Juncker. I hope that the Luxembourg Presidency will also take advantage of criticisms from within the Competitiveness Council to hold a debate on this directive, and, if necessary, to check its progress, as well as to force the Commission to table a directive on services of general interest. I believe that confusion will reign over the Bolkenstein directive until the issue of services of general interest has been clarified.

I very much welcome the fact that this presidency aims to harmonise social, environmental and economic policies, as this is good news for Europe.

(Applause)

  Portas (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, the tsunami tragedy should be no less significant to the world’s leaders and to Europe than 11 September. The Asian tsunami should act as a turning point for the most pressing of the world’s priorities – that of preventing and combating hunger and disease.

I therefore wish to ask four questions. Firstly, do you believe that the EUR 450 million announced for reconstruction might undermine programmes already planned for Asia (as is the case of EUR 150 million of the EUR 450 million announced)? Secondly, do you intend to back the cancellation of the debt of countries affected by the tsunami or do you advocate just a moratorium? Thirdly, will they be treated the same as Iraq, or worse than Iraq? Lastly, Commissioner Michel proposed to the last Council a more ambitious target than 0.7% for development. Will you reconsider this proposal, or will it be jettisoned for good?

  Bonde (IND/DEM). – (DA) My dear Mr Juncker, Luxembourg’s presidencies of the EU are usually among the best, perhaps because a small country knows that it cannot monopolise the agenda but that it must be of service to everyone. I am sure that you will continue that tradition, and would also call upon you and the Council to treat supporters and opponents of the Constitution exactly the same. Our buildings here are full of expressions of commitment to a ‘yes’ vote: ‘yes’ signs, badges and balloons, their presence decided upon – and paid for out of our common budget – before Parliament has voted. It will not, however, be until this afternoon that we know the result, and it is certain that there will be votes both in favour of, and against, the Constitution. Those in favour cannot steal taxpayers’ contributions to promote a definite view. Referendums belong to us all, and voters are entitled to balanced information, not propaganda paid for through taxes.

On Monday evening, Parliament’s Sessional Services decided to send some millions of euros to the supranational EU parties, which are all in favour of the EU Constitution. More than 150 Members of the European Parliament will not have a share of these resources. That is contrary to the principle of equality and thus illegal. I would call upon you to raise the matter in the Council so that the regulation relating to parties is either abolished or supplemented by arrangements for those who do not wish to belong to a supranational party but wish to engage in corresponding European information-providing activities, for example concerning the Constitution. How will you guarantee that EU resources used by the campaigners for a ‘yes’ vote can be used equally well by the campaigners for a ‘no’ vote? May I finally call upon you to intimate that you will respect the outcome of the referendums, whether they be ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

  Bielan (UEN).   (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there can be no doubt that the most ambitious task facing the incoming Luxembourg Presidency will be the conclusion of negotiations on the Financial Perspective for 2007-2013. This will unquestionably be an extremely challenging task, but I am in no doubt that everything in our power should be done to reach a compromise on the budget by June of this year at the latest. Otherwise we will risk major delays, for example in the drawing up of regional aid programmes, and this could mean EU funds not reaching the Member States in January 2007.

It is of course not just the date by which we reach a compromise that is of crucial importance, but also the nature of the compromise. Mr Barroso rightly said that we cannot have more Europe for less money. The European Union will cease to exist without solidarity, and this is why we cannot consent to either the policy of solidarity or the need to support the new Member States being removed from the EU’s budget priorities. We must be aware that unless gaps in economic development within the enlarged EU are addressed, it will be impossible to achieve the goals of the Lisbon strategy. We must therefore ensure that funds are earmarked in the future EU budget for cohesion policy, as this is in the interests of the whole Community.

Mr President-in-Office of the Council, there can be no doubt that President Bush’s visit to Brussels will be the most significant event to occur during the six-month Luxembourg Presidency. It will be the first time that a President of the United States has ever visited the European institutions. I hope that this symbolic visit will go some way to improving transatlantic relations, which have been somewhat strained recently. Unless we cooperate closely with the United States, we will struggle to respond to a great many global challenges.

Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I welcomed your comments on relations with Ukraine. The European Union must draw its own conclusions from events last year in one of its neighbouring countries. The Ukrainian people have proven that they share our European values, and that they desire integration with the EU. We should therefore offer them a partnership that could ultimately lead to membership.

  Vanhecke (NI). – (NL) Mr President, as you know, the European institutions recently – and, I think, disastrously – cut the Gordian knot with regard to the possible accession of a non-European country, Turkey, to the European Union. An issue of that kind threatens to change the very nature of the Union as we know it and even puts the future of European cooperation as we know it fundamentally at risk. It is, above all, an issue in respect of which a large majority of our electorate, our citizens, are very alienated from the position adopted by the official European institutions.

I regret, then, the Luxembourg Presidency’s failure to take the opportunity, first of all, of asking respect for the democratic will of the majority of our citizens and, secondly, as a small Member State, asking respect for that other small Member State, Cyprus, which is being ignored and misjudged by the Turkish leaders in the most arrogant and unacceptable manner. In my view, this is a missed opportunity, and one that can only widen the enormous chasm between our citizens on the one hand and European politics on the other.

  Galeote Quecedo (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr Juncker has described a very ambitious agenda for these next six months; this agenda offers a great opportunity, but is also a great responsibility for Luxembourg and particularly for its Prime Minister, who has both experience and ability and whom we wish every success in this difficult task.

I would like to make a few comments on the greatest challenge for this Presidency, which, in my opinion, will be the reform of the financial perspectives, which you, Mr Juncker, mentioned in passing. It will probably be the most essential element, on the basis of which these six months will be assessed.

It is clear that success or failure depends not only upon the actions of the Presidency, but it is the case that during this time the Luxembourg Government will have to employ all its determination, and I am pleased that you have stated this morning that you will ensure that the general interest is put first, because, as you have said yourself, to reach July without an agreement would spell financial chaos for the European Union.

In order to be successful, the Presidency will have to seek compromises; I believe that these compromises will have to be based on two fundamentals: on the one hand, the validity of the principle of cohesion, as stated by the Council at the end of the Swedish Presidency, and, on the other, balance in the distribution of burdens.

I hope that over the next six months this House can learn the cost of enlargement to the original fifteen Member States, because on the objective basis of figures it is possible to make proposals that the European citizens in each Member State can understand and accept.

On the subject of the citizens, and going beyond what is laid down in the Treaties, I would like to ask the Presidency what role it intends the European Parliament, which is going to give its opinion in May, to play in this negotiation?

  Désir (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, you recently stated, Mr Juncker, and indeed you repeated just now, that competitiveness will be neither the Holy Grail nor the be all and end all as far as you are concerned, in particular with regard to the mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy.

You noted that social goals and sustainable development goals should not be placed in opposition to goals relating to competitiveness. My group welcomes this statement, as we believe the opposite to be true, namely that promotion of the European model is a major driving force behind competitiveness on our continent. In fact, we believe that what is needed is a Europe of excellence which attaches priority to investment in research, innovation, employee training, the quality of infrastructures, trans-European networks, public services, the quality of work and social relations. We agree with you on this issue, and we sometimes detected a slight difference of approach to that adopted by the President of the Commission. We hope that he will be equally clear in his statements, especially with regard to social issues.

Yet the good intentions you have professed to hold will be put to a number of tests. I should like to mention three such tests, the first of which is the European budget. We share your view that this debate must not be allowed to get bogged down and that it must progress rapidly. You intend to act as a motivating and intermediary force, as well as one that accelerates the process, but we do not want the process of reaching a compromise on the Financial Perspectives to be accelerated if this would mean sacrificing a budget that meets the European Union’s needs. We agree with Mr Barroso on this issue; we need a budget that enables us to guarantee cohesion, solidarity, investment in the future and in research and investment in the trans-European networks. The process should not be accelerated at the expense of the final outcome.

The second test will be the directive on services of general interest, which has already been mentioned today by a number of speakers, in particular Mr Turmes. I believe that you yourself are aware of a risk that is a cause of great concern to us, namely the extended scope of this directive, which poses a threat to a large number of services of general interest. We are also concerned by the country of origin principle, which poses a threat to the right to work in multiple countries; I am thinking in particular of the application of collective bargaining agreements.

The third test relates more generally to the European social agenda. We would particularly like to see a clear commitment on your part in relation to other Council members regarding a review of the Directive on Working Time and a removal of the opt-out clause, and, finally, regarding a proposed review of the Directive on European Works Councils.

  Polfer (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, on 1 January, Luxembourg began its eleventh EU presidency. The experience it has gained in this field, and the excellent preparations that have been made and which I have seen for myself, will be a great help in dealing with the various challenges that await you, starting with the terrible disaster in Asia. The latter showed that there is an urgent need for humanitarian aid to be coordinated on the ground, and should encourage us to set up the European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps, as provided for by the Constitution, as soon as possible.

There are other issues that you will have to deal with, of which I shall only mention three. Firstly, the Lisbon process has reached its halfway point. This process needs to be made clearer and it needs targeted priorities; in short, it will need to be made easier to understand. I am therefore fully in favour of the three aims you identified.

The second issue will be the Financial Perspective. It is doubtless to be welcomed that it will be the Luxembourg Presidency that puts the finishing touches to it, but many people are still undecided between 1% and 1.24%, to say nothing of 1.14% – and I could go on – and much money is also hanging in the balance.

Finally, the Stability Pact will need to be amended, and the necessary balance found between strictness and flexibility to ensure that stability is not compromised. Mr President, I very much hope that your success will be equal to the efforts that have been made by so many people.

  Evans, Jillian (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I would like to wish Prime Minister Juncker a positive and productive presidency and am very pleased to see a small, successful, independent country leading the European Union. Luxembourg is one of the six Member States that is smaller than my own country, Wales, and an example of what an independent Wales could achieve.

The priorities paper tries to maintain the essential balance between economic, social and environmental policies. I would like to mention the continuing campaign against discrimination, in the hope that real progress will be made on the European Gender Institute and on the recast equality directive. There is no better example of the failure of policies on equality than the pay gap between men and women. Thirty years after legislation was passed on this issue, a report published this week by the GMB trade union in the UK shows that, in Anglesey in my constituency, full-time pay for women is as low as 59% of that for men. This is a scandal which must be addressed and I hope equality issues will be given priority.

  Blokland (IND/DEM). – (NL) Mr President, first of all, I should like to express my condolences to Mr Juncker on account of the death of Grand Duchess Josephine-Charlotte. I wish you and the Luxembourg people strength to bear this loss, and may God be close to you.

The Luxembourg Presidency is facing the weighty task of reforming the Stability Pact and implementing the conclusions of Wim Kok’s report. The Commission’s proposal to give due consideration to the economic climate in the Stability Pact offers, in my view, a basis for carrying out adequate reforms. The implementation of the Pact benefits from clear decision-making. Clear sanctions are still needed. It was in the autumn of 2004 that Mr Kok presented his report on the Lisbon strategy; his conclusion is as clear as it is predictable: the Member States must really get down to carrying out structural reforms. I would therefore like to ask Mr Juncker in what way we can expect your presidency to follow that up. Since Luxembourg has always been a great champion of necessary reforms, I have high hopes.

Finally, with regard to the Members’ statute, can Parliament expect from the presidency that a decision will finally be made on this subject in the next six months?

  Belohorská (NI). (SK) Thank you, Mr President. I wish the Luxembourg presidency every success. It will be in the interests of us all. You are the second country to hold the presidency of the enlarged twenty-five. You are a founding state of the European Union and you are also an example of how a small country can set the tempo and dictate the conditions to the big countries. The President of the European Commission, Mr Barroso, drew attention in his speech today to the increased financial pressure on the new Member States, referring to the backward regions. I should like to point out that these ten Member States also have great wealth. Many of these regions have been deprived of tens and hundreds of young ambitious people, scientists, doctors, who have left in the last fifteen years for the old Europe and they are contributing to their successful economies. I should like to point out to the Luxembourg presidency that we do not wish to be just the recipients of charity. I see this as an opportunity for you actively to involve the new ten. Following ratification of the Constitutional Treaty, Europe will build new institutions. I invite you to take steps to ensure that the east of the European Union is given the right to host an important European institution. I am convinced that this idea could be a success. Evidence of this faith is the fact that the Bush – Putin meeting is to take place in my little country, Slovakia.

  Brunetta (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, the reform of the Stability Pact and the reform of the financial perspective are two sides of the same coin. These reforms need to find a common philosophy and a common solution: more growth, more competitiveness and more resources for the Member States. That all means more affluence and more cohesion.

Let me be frank with you, Mr Juncker. What you have said on the Stability and Growth Pact is thoroughly acceptable, but it is all provided for in the current system of regulation: the automatic stabilising mechanisms, their relationship with growth or recession, the relationship between greater deficit flexibility and the effectiveness of debt dynamics – all that is already provided for. What the European Union needs now is not that, but perhaps we should be more ambitious. I say more ambitious, but that does not mean less rigorous, just more mindful of the strategic needs of our Union.

If we really have to re-establish an effective, Europe-wide strategy for investments, infrastructure, research and security – in short, to meet the targets set at the Lisbon Summit – then we have to reach agreement on the kinds of action needed: no hypocrisy, no dirty tricks and no opportunism. The Pact needs a European golden rule, as one might say, with the appropriate guarantees and controls attached. The financial perspective needs a stronger, not a weaker Union budget, one that focuses more on the investments required by the Lisbon objectives and less on handouts. Mr Juncker, Mr Barroso, will we be capable of that? It depends on us. The responsibility rests with us all, but please let us not have any hypocrisy.

  Dührkop Dührkop (PSE). – (ES) Mr Juncker, I would like to focus my brief comments on the financial perspectives, which, of the challenges that have been mentioned today, are perhaps the most difficult facing this Presidency.

In explaining your priorities, you say that you accept the reasons why it is necessary to reach a political agreement on the financial perspectives in June, so that the legislative procedures can be concluded under the British Presidency, reconciling national differences.

We wish you luck, because, on the one hand, there is the enlargement we have just carried out, with ten new Member States whose economic situation mean that we are going to have to make an enormous financial effort with a view to social and economic cohesion, in order to protect the European social model, as you have stressed in your speech.

On the other hand, there are the short-sighted accountants, whose sole aim is not to exceed a certain level of spending. We hope that, with your experience and with the cooperation of the European Parliament, your Presidency will persuade the Council to take a broader view, and make it see that it is irresponsible to try to create more Europe with less resources – to use once again that well-worn phrase. But it is also necessary to make the Council see that budgetary policy, Mr Juncker, is facing much more important challenges than keeping spending below a particular percentage of gross domestic product.

Let us continue to build a Europe amongst all of us and with sufficient resources, as laid down in the Treaties, so that we do not disappoint the citizens.

  Mote (NI). – Mr President, the new presidency can be assured that hundreds and thousands of British citizens will fight the proposed European Constitution tooth and nail, and millions of us will vote against it when the time comes!

We have no quarrel with the people of Europe: our quarrel is only with the system of unitary government called the European Union. The EU is the antithesis of the accountable parliamentary democracy that the British invented over 700 years ago. This attempted reversal of the relationship between the State and the individual has been foisted on us over the last 30 years by deceit, denial and misrepresentation. But now we understand fully what the EU is really all about. We may not leave during your presidency, but be in no doubt – leave we shall!

  Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, the tenor of my speech will be rather different from that of the previous speaker’s. Let me start by thanking the Luxembourg Presidency, not only for the excellent agenda it has presented, but also for the style, content and level of commitment evident in it. In the coming months, the Luxembourg Presidency will certainly have its work cut out, and we have high hopes. There are great challenges that require an answer and that Europe has to meet.

I should like to bring up one of those challenges, namely more and better jobs, but also sustainability and social cohesion. I will therefore repeat to Mr Goebbels and Mr Cohn-Bendit that the Socialists and the Greens do not have sole exhibition rights in this respect. Social cohesion is very much one of the Christian Democrats’ principles, and I will always continue to dedicate myself, as I know will our group, to ensure that social cohesion is maintained. That is why I am pleased that not only the President of the Council, but also the President of the Commission and the chairman of my group mentioned it.

I should like to say a few words about Lisbon, and I want to make a number of points. First of all, while the objective of what we did in Lisbon was sound, and the result we would like to achieve is excellent, we forgot that, when all those Heads of Government went home, nobody assumed any responsibility or liability for this process. What matters more than anything else at the moment is, in addition to all the new measures that have to be taken, for people to be made accountable. It will then be possible to verify national plans at European level.

I should like to finish off with a cry from the heart. I have noticed that we have made a few agreements about the free market that were subsequently flouted by the Member States and also by the European Commission, as regards qualifications, mobility, and so on.

(Applause)

  Titley (PSE). – Mr President, the Lisbon Strategy is so full of grand ideas that we often hear very little – and indeed we have heard very little today – about the simple things, such as improving the quality of our own legislation. The fact is that the European Union could add between two and six per cent to its productivity if its regulatory framework was matched by the best in the world. We should therefore be making it a priority of the Luxembourg presidency to encourage the Commission to put real resources into consultations at an early stage in its proposals and to test whether its competitiveness is appropriate.

We also need to spend time looking at existing legislation and seeing whether it has achieved the effect that we asked for. Often we pass legislation, but do not look at what it has actually achieved. Is existing legislation being properly enforced and implemented? It seems to me that, in the European Union of 25, implementation enforcement should get far higher priority than it has up until now. I am glad that the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection has taken up my suggestion that we should have an own-initiative report looking precisely at these issues.

We have also heard considerable talk today about social Europe, but we have to ensure that social Europe applies to everybody and not simply to those who are in work. Far too many of our citizens are economically inactive, and therefore we should be putting investment into active labour market policies that enable people to get back to work and then policies that support people in order for them to be able to continue in work. If we fail to do that, then we will fail in our Lisbon Strategy.

Finally, I urge the Luxembourg presidency to take fresh initiatives in relation to Northern Cyprus so that we can ensure we have effective economic regeneration in that part of the country.

  Kirkhope (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I should like to begin by wishing Mr Juncker and his country a successful presidency. Mr President-in-Office, you assume the leadership of the Union at a crucial period. The ratification process for the Constitution is underway, the Lisbon process is not yet making enough progress and the future of transatlantic relations is a source of concern. In March, the European Council will conduct the mid-term review of the Lisbon process. It will do it against the backdrop of the Kok report, which was blunt in its assessment of the lack of progress. I urge the presidency not to be distracted by the siren calls of those who urge that the preservation of the 'European model' is the most important political priority. It is clearly not. It is precisely because so many governments have failed to grasp the nettle of radical reform that the Lisbon process is in such dire straits.

The United States continues to out-perform us and the competitive challenges from Asia, particularly China and India, are increasing, with no apparent urgent response from national capitals in our Union. The presidency must be unequivocal in its support for economic reform, for greater labour market flexibility, for more competitive taxation policies, and for reducing barriers to employment growth, particularly the excessive regulation that pervades all our economies. With high unemployment a factor across Europe, people are waiting for practical ways of getting them back to work.

Reform will be difficult and fraught with risk, but as the United Kingdom, under Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s and Spain under Mr Aznar in the 1990s proved, a resolute approach to economic reform delivers results. Low taxation, flexible labour markets, less red tape and a determination to tip the balance firmly in favour of the wealth-creators offers the only way out of a relative economic decline. These things are naturally anathema to socialists but are good for all our citizens. We look to the spring Council in March to reverse the failures of recent times and put Europe firmly on a free market and enterprise-driven path.

  Sakalas (PSE). – Mr President, the whole issue of children has been invisible in EU policies and programmes. However, children's rights are now mentioned in the Constitution and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is important that progress is made towards a horizontal European policy on children. Children cannot defend themselves. Thus it is our obligation to do this. Every day we hear about children who are starving, dying or abused in all possible ways.

However, there is no mention in your programme of a full-scale strategy on children's rights in accordance with the UN Convention on Children's Rights, which was ratified by most European countries. Children are vulnerable to trafficking. The recently published report on trafficking in human beings by the Experts Group has a strong human rights dimension. I urge the Luxembourg presidency to take this forward, including a specific legal instrument to promote and protect the rights of children who have been trafficked.

The Luxembourg presidency has stated that a directive on the return of asylum seekers is a priority. It is important that there is a specific section to protect the rights of children and that unaccompanied children are not returned to their countries of origin without an assessment of what is in their best interests. The mainstreaming of children's rights in European Union development policy has not been achieved. I urge the Luxembourg presidency to address this failure without delay by calling for a communication on children's rights and new development cooperation and by supporting references to children's rights as a priority. I further urge it to revise the development policy statement.

The implementation of new guidelines to safeguard children in conflict areas remains a concern. In order to ensure progress, it is essential that the Luxembourg presidency takes this process forward by completing and putting into practice a plan of action.

In conclusion, it is vital that children's rights are made a priority of the Luxembourg presidency and that children's rights are included in the presidency conclusions.

  Saryusz-Wolski (PPE-DE).   (PL) Mr President, I have noticed two shortcomings in the Luxembourg Presidency’s programme, and I should like to ask two questions with regard to these shortcomings. The document outlining the Luxembourg Presidency’s priorities mentions 27 countries and regions outside the EU by name, yet Eastern Europe and Ukraine are not mentioned once. To put it another way, the programme lacks an eastern dimension. It would be somewhat alarming if this reflected the Luxembourg Presidency’s views and intentions with regard to the new European democracy that has emerged before our very eyes and on our very doorstep. The comments made before this House on Ukraine have been very cautious. They do not imply that measures will be taken that are equal to the responsibility which Europe bears towards Ukraine, and which poses a moral and political imperative.

If we were to content ourselves with the old Action Plan, which was based on the neighbourhood policy, we would be doing far too little, and we would be making a mistake. This plan was drawn up for a Ukraine from a different age, before the ‘Orange Revolution’ took place, offering hope and a model for peaceful political transformation. The events in Ukraine merit a reaction from Europe, not merely words and outdated instruments. Time passes more rapidly, and indeed differently, in Central and Eastern Europe. We must act now to ensure that democracy is not merely victorious, but that it is long-lasting and a source of hope to others.

What should therefore be done? The old Action Plan should be revised and extended beyond the neighbourhood policy, and a fresh offer should be made. The EU’s relations with Ukraine should be advanced to a new level, and the country should be offered an Association Agreement and the prospect of membership. We should not thwart Ukraine’s European hopes or trade in our fundamental values, such as freedom, democracy and solidarity, for oil and gas.

By supporting Ukrainian democracy we will also support the democratic ambitions of the citizens of Belarus, Russia and the other countries of the post-Soviet space. It is an opportunity for political change that will benefit the European Union in every respect. The era of Yalta, of the Brezhnev Doctrine and of the Berlin Wall has ended. We need a courageous policy based on our values, not on our financial interests, and promoting democracy, human rights and the right of nations to self-determination. The forging of more open relations with a democratic Ukraine is both a great challenge and a great responsibility for the Luxembourg Presidency. I wish it every success.

  Juncker, Council. (FR) Mr President, I can take one of two approaches; I can either answer the 30 Members who have spoken, and risk being very long-winded, or I can merely answer a few of them, and risk appearing extremely impolite to the others. I shall therefore try to be brief in order to be polite.

Mr Goebbels, who has been following my progress closely for many years, believes me to be entirely incapable of such a thing, and on this point we agree.

(Laughter)

Mr President, several speakers have referred to the Lisbon agenda, in particular the group chairmen and other Members such as Mr Swoboda and Mrs Oomen. It would appear that we are more or less in agreement on the need to maintain the fundamental synergy on which the Lisbon strategy is based, and which was given a useful boost by the conclusions of the Gothenburg European Council.

It has become a habit of Mr Cohn-Bendit’s to refer indiscriminately to authors from both sides of the Rhine, and today he quoted Victor Hugo. With regard to the Lisbon agenda, I should like to quote Pascal, who said that he liked things that go hand in hand. This holds true for a number of areas of life, and it also holds true for the Lisbon strategy. It is impossible to distinguish between the various elements that go towards making the Lisbon strategy so effective – and I am talking here of its theoretical effectiveness, not the enthusiasm with which it is implemented.

A number of you have referred to the much-needed structural reforms that must be carried out in the framework of the Lisbon strategy. I have been a member of the Ecofin Council since 1989, I believe. Since then, I have been told week after week and month after month that structural reforms must be carried out, yet it is rare for me to come across anyone who is able to say exactly what these structural reforms should look like. As a general rule, it is my impression that those who say that structural reforms must be carried out actually mean that the social state must be dismantled.

(Applause)

This is why it is frequently said with regard to structural reforms that labour markets must be reformed and that they need to be more flexible. I believe this to be true, but I also believe that European employers could be more flexible. I believe that it would be in the interests of decision-makers, who frequently also take decisions for others, to prove themselves more flexible in adapting the tools we have to modern needs.

I myself do not believe that Europeans should be led to think that it will be enough to reform labour markets, to abolish existing social legislation and to eliminate the buffer zones provided by workers’ rights in order to become more competitive. This would be a very short-term approach, with obvious consequences; we would not gain competitiveness, but we would lose the support of a large number of Europeans, in particular workers. I should therefore like to warn you against such simplistic proposals, which will get us nowhere.

Several of you stated that your groups would support the Stability Pact, and this made the debate extremely interesting. I shall explain what I mean by this. Mr Goebbels, no less, offered the support of his parliamentary group, the Socialists. If I understood him correctly, Mr Cohn-Bendit appears to be moving towards a clear meeting of interests and ideas on this issue. Mr Poettering promised the support of the Group of the European People’s Party. Five minutes of the Luxembourg Presidency were therefore all that were needed to see the Socialists, the Liberals, the Christian Democrats and all the others agree on the general shape to be taken by the reform of the Stability and Growth Pact. This is something I welcome greatly, and in this respect the Luxembourg Presidency will be straightforward; this was not something I was aware of before today’s sitting.

I shall turn briefly to the Directive on the liberalisation of services, with regard to which I thought I had made my views clear. We will not reject this Directive, as it could in fact generate jobs if we draft it in a way that is appropriate to the situation. I would like us, however, to join forces to remove everything from this Directive which poses a risk of social dumping, and which has crept into the text if one reads between the lines. I am well aware that our discussion of this directive is bedevilled by confusion, because the potential risks posed by a number of its provisions are not obvious. I should therefore like to call on the Commission, the Council and Parliament to examine this draft directive line by line, searching for any risk of social dumping. After all, given that everyone, including Mr Bolkestein, tells me that the aim is not to violate the rules which protect our labour markets, we should be able to eliminate the risk of social dumping – a risk I believe to be very much present as far as this directive is concerned – by means of a common reading, if this is indeed our overall intention. That said, even if we had the opportunity to do so, the directive would not be adopted as it stands during the Luxembourg Presidency, as it requires amendment in several places.

(Applause)

The Statute for Members will be adopted before the end of the Luxembourg Presidency.

(Applause)

Mr Mote, you said that you would like to leave the European Union because it represents everything to which you are opposed and which you reject. I must say that I cannot agree with you on this point. The European Union represents everything I support, because I support understanding between peoples and European solidarity – a solidarity that must not be jeopardised by a flawed reform of the Financial Perspective that aims to destroy solidarity instruments. The European Union represents everything I support because I support peace. We have undergone untold suffering in Europe as a result of divisions between peoples. Even if you wish to leave the European Union, you cannot fail to support it.

(Applause)

  Barroso, Commission. (FR) Mr President, I do not intend to return to issues we have already discussed during our debate. The Luxembourg Presidency has made its priorities quite clear. The Commission supports these priorities, and intends to work together with the presidency, all the Member States and the Council in a fair and constructive manner in order to achieve significant results during a six-month period that we regard as crucial.

I would, however, like to turn to an issue which was not mentioned during our introductory speeches, but which has been raised by at least one Member, namely the issue of better lawmaking. We too support the fact that the Luxembourg Presidency intends to give priority to measures to improve the quality of legislation, and indeed this priority is specified in the presidency’s programme. The Cox report stresses that the quality of legislation is one of the key factors in improving the economic environment, but I should like to say that quite apart from the economic environment, better lawmaking is also a key factor in improving the European public’s understanding of and confidence in European integration.

Better lawmaking relates not only to competitiveness, but also to citizenship. The public view of the European Union’s work is often marked by criticism of its bureaucratic and interventionist nature, and the fact that it is divorced from reality. Legislation should be simplified in a systematic and operational fashion, and the acquis communautaire must be made easier to understand. Impact assessments are a key factor in ensuring that better preparations are made for crucial political decisions. Simpler and better prepared legislation is a prerequisite for greater understanding, and hence greater acceptance, of such legislation by our fellow citizens.

I must also stress that implementation has become a critical aspect. If the EU and its Member States prove incapable of ensuring that directives are transposed rapidly and the acquis communautaire respected, the credibility of EU action will be at stake.

For its part, the Commission will focus renewed attention on violations of Community law and on the way in which infringements are dealt with.

In conclusion, and turning to the review of the Lisbon strategy, I should like to say that divisions should not be seen where they do not exist. I believe that we all agree that economic competitiveness, the environment and social legislation are crucially important in this Europe of ours. The same cannot be said of competitiveness on a global scale, as this is an area where improvements could be made in relation to our partners. I do not honestly believe that we have a great deal to learn or to do to catch up with our partners as far as environment and social legislation is concerned, but much remains for us to do in the field of competitiveness, for example with regard to research and development.

If one compares Europe – even the Europe of 15 before enlargement – to the United States and Japan with regard to investment in research into new technologies, for example, it can be seen that the investments made by the Europe of 15 only total one third of US investments, and are 30% less than Japanese investments. Yet investment in research and innovation for growth in Europe deserves to be a priority, and we are currently working with the Luxembourg Presidency and all the Member States to ensure that this is the case, namely that more targeted attention is paid to the most pressing issues. I am in no doubt that during this presidency we will all be able to adopt a revised Lisbon strategy, which will have greater force and be able to revive our European social model in a modernised form in order to guarantee the prosperity of our fellow citizens.

(Applause)

  President. The debate is closed.

Written statement (Rule 142)

  Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) This Presidency’s programme only manages not to be a complete disappointment because we did not expect much from its content anyway. We deplore the fact that it has overlooked some key issues. The programme says nothing about unemployment, even though it has worsened. It makes no commitment to take stock of the euro in the 12 Member States of the euro zone, despite increasing problems in most of those countries, not least in view of the currency’s overvaluation. It makes no commitment to demanding a review of the liberalisation of the textiles and clothing trade, or at least to using safeguard clauses for the most sensitive products. It makes no reference to the 60th anniversary of the defeat of fascism.

As regards the Lisbon Strategy, it does not reach the right conclusions on the impact of the current situation; far from it. It pursues the same path of liberalisations and privatisations, of making jobs less secure and of attacks on public services. Similarly, it does not propose to repeal the Stability and Growth Pact and replace it with a Social Progress and Jobs Pact, in line with the objectives of full employment, sustainable economic development and economic and social cohesion.