Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 15 March 2006 - Strasbourg

3. Preparations for the European Council: the Lisbon Strategy (debate)

  President. The next item is the debate on the Council and Commission statements on the preparations for the European Council and the Lisbon Strategy.

Since we have altered our order of business as a result of the cancellation of the formal sitting, this debate will be extended until approximately twelve o’clock. The vote will take place following the debate.

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one week before the Spring European Council, today's debate represents an excellent opportunity for us to get together to discuss the key priorities on which this summit will focus. As you know, the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy will be central to the summit. It goes without saying that the best way of ensuring the success of such a venture is to prepare thoroughly, and the Council formations responsible for the various topics have therefore examined the priorities of the European Council from their perspective and submitted their contributions. The draft conclusions will then be examined in the course of the stipulated procedure.

On the opening day of the European Council, on 23 March, there will, as usual, also be the Tripartite Social Summit. This is intended to ensure cooperation between the Council, the Commission and the social partners, particularly with regard to employment, economic policy and social protection.

In this connection, we particularly welcome the initiatives of the European institutions for greater responsibility and greater ownership at Community level, as well as the valuable contributions made, for example, by the second interparliamentary meeting between the European Parliament and the national parliaments. A great deal is also asked of the public in this connection.

The governments of the Member States have the task of better explaining the urgency of implementing this partnership for growth and jobs to their citizens. In this respect, it is important for regional and local authorities – within the framework of their country's constitution – and civil society also to be involved in designing and implementing the national reform programmes.

In this constructive spirit, we also want today's debate to include an open discussion on options for solving the economic and social problems common to the whole European Union and on the important role that you have as the representatives of the people.

As you will be aware, in March 2005 the European Council agreed on an in-depth renewal of the Lisbon Strategy and also tightened up the procedure. The new governance cycle is based on partnership and responsibility. As part of their summit at Hampton Court, the Heads of State or Government gave greater political impetus to the newly revived Lisbon Strategy, focussing on the issue of how European values can reinforce the modernisation of the economy and society in a globalised world.

It is also important that the European Council, at its meeting last December, reached a political agreement on the financial perspective 2007-2013. That in itself is an important sign that the European Union is capable of finding solutions, although we are of course aware that we are in the process of intensive and difficult dialogue with you, which we want to pursue constructively in order to implement this agreement between the governments in cooperation with you.

Europe is facing new challenges, including the increasing competitive pressure from outside, both economic and technological, the ageing population, rising energy prices and the need to guarantee energy security.

Since the end of 2005 there have been signs of slow but sure economic recovery. It is projected that, in the three years from 2005 to 2007, six million new jobs will be created in the European Union. This would then reduce unemployment by almost one percentage point in 2007. However, continuing to reduce unemployment, which currently affects almost 19.5 million people, and increasing productivity and growth potential are still the greatest challenges for the European Union.

This economic recovery, albeit slight, forms an excellent opportunity to press on decisively with structural reforms in line with the national reform programmes and to pursue greater fiscal consolidation in line with the new Stability and Growth Pact. Concrete objectives and timetables are a useful tool for accelerating the implementation of the planned reforms and achieving better results in terms of growth and jobs.

On the basis of its decisions from Spring 2005, the European Council has adopted integrated strategic guidelines. The Member States have then used those guidelines as a basis to draw up national reform programmes corresponding to specific national needs. The Commission has presented a 'Community Lisbon Programme', proposing measures that should be taken at Community level. The Commission's annual progress report also makes an important contribution to the process of the renewed Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs.

All the Member States have drawn up their national reform programmes quickly and thoroughly. These programmes are tailored to the specific needs and circumstances of each Member State, and serve to implement the reforms. The national reform programmes are a decisive first step in progressing with greater individual responsibility and greater consciousness of the reform priorities. All in all, these national reform programmes are a good basis for future work on the reform agenda.

In the opinion of the Commission, however – and at this point I would quite particularly like to thank the President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, for his institution's work, which is of great significance in the preparations for the summit, and especially for the speed and thoroughness with which they have worked – some of the programmes should include more specific objectives and timetables and additional details regarding the budgetary aspects of the proposed reforms, and go into the issues of competition and the removal of barriers to market access in greater detail.

The necessary instruments are in place. The Member States' top priority for 2006 will therefore be the timely and comprehensive implementation of our objectives. For this to be possible, it is vital for the Member States to intensify the measures they have already proposed.

The Commission has not proposed updating the guidelines for growth and jobs, which means that these guidelines will continue to be fully applicable. The focus following the major changes last year should now be on more action and more continuity.

In line with the new governance of the strategy, the Member States have made real efforts to get the national parliaments, representatives of local and regional authorities, the social partners and other representatives of civil society involved in designing their national programmes.

We now need to get the citizens of Europe more actively involved in the process, in order to convince them that timely and properly implemented reforms will contribute to greater and better distributed prosperity.

To do this, we really do need your House’s assistance. The European Parliament can help us to give all those involved greater responsibility for, greater ownership of, the Lisbon Strategy and to secure their future participation. Debates like this one today are a particularly welcome opportunity to do so.

In this connection, I would also like to point out that the Austrian Presidency attaches very great importance to the compromise on the Services Directive reached at first reading here in Parliament. It is a very well-balanced outcome, and it forms a sound basis for future efforts. The sheer number of amendments proposed shows that this issue remains highly controversial. In the light of this result and of the discussions to date in the Council, the Presidency is keen that the European Council should now call on the Commission to present its amended proposal as soon as possible and express the hope that the institutions will be in a position to bring the legislative process to a swift conclusion.

It is the Presidency's intention that, within the framework of the integrated guidelines adopted last year, the European Council should lay down specific priority measures to be implemented by the end of 2007. As part of the renewed Lisbon Strategy, the spring summit will therefore be devoted to those issues given priority in the national reform programmes and the European Commission's report, namely research, development and innovation, policy for small and medium-sized enterprises, employment and energy. Of course, we also need to continue to take action in general in the context of all three strands of the Lisbon Strategy – economic, social and environmental. For us to be able to embark on a phase of real delivery and visible results, we need to aim for a good mix of verifiable voluntary undertakings by the 25 Member States and recommendations from the Commission. How high we should set our sights is currently still being discussed as part of the preparations for the Council.

One pillar of the Lisbon Strategy is research and innovation, as the driving force behind production and knowledge use. It is now four years since we set ourselves the target of achieving research spending of 3% in Europe by 2010, with a significant proportion of this funding, two-thirds, to come from the private sector. It would be a good idea for the resources available from the European Union to rise in step with our own national efforts. To that end, we also need to increase cooperation between universities, research and business to help increase research funding.

As we are all aware, though, we have not really got very far in this area, which is so important for our future – research spending in the EU currently stands at only about 1.9%.

Our joint efforts with the European Commission have enabled us to develop some momentum and to raise awareness in the Member States that specific goals and voluntary commitments to increase research spending are important. In this respect all the Member States have already raised their sights and set their national targets accordingly.

Moreover, in our fast-paced information society, modern communications strategies play a vital role in promoting innovation. In terms of higher education, we would like to call on the Member States, by 2007, to make it easier for universities to access additional private sponsorship and to break down barriers to cooperation between academic institutions and business, in accordance with their national conventions.

Secondly, more needs to be done to open up the framework conditions for businesses, business potential and, in particular, the situation of small and medium-sized enterprises. This also needs to be a focus within the European Council. Small and medium-sized enterprises form a major part of the European economy and can justifiably be described as its driving force. There are around 23 million small and medium-sized enterprises in the European Union, providing almost 75 million jobs. Measures to strengthen and promote small and medium-sized enterprises as the backbone of the European economy can therefore make a significant contribution to growth and jobs. We also want to cut red tape for SMEs and reduce the time and costs involved in setting up new businesses.

(The President cut off the speaker.)

  President. Mr Winkler, forgive me, but there is usually no limit to the time that the Council and the Commission can speak, but this morning we have timetable problems due to the time we took up during the last debate. I would ask you, if you can, to limit your speaking time as well so that the Members can speak. I would be grateful.

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Mr President, I apologise if I have spoken for too long. I will abbreviate my comments and conclude. There is an urgent need for action on a variety of subjects. My remarks would be incomplete if I did not mention the labour market, including in particular promoting the integration of young people into the labour market. Within the European Council itself, we want to pay particular attention to combating youth unemployment. One of our aims is to reduce the number of school drop-outs by 2010 and to ensure that more young people complete secondary education. Combating long-term unemployment must also be at the heart of our efforts.

Finally, the subject of energy will also play a particularly important role, not only because of the importance of the sector in generating jobs and growth, but also, of course, in the light of recent events. I hope that, in this respect just as on all the other subjects I have mentioned, the European Council will provide an important impetus that will decisively influence the future activities of all the institutions of the European Union.

  President. No, Mr President. There is no restriction to the time that the Presidency-in-Office of the Council and the Commission have to speak, but today we all have to share the time available, a scarce and non-renewable resource.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, next week’s European Council took place at an important moment. We are now seeing the first encouraging signs of greater consumer confidence in Europe: investment is taking off again and growth figures are progressively improving. That is good news. Let us take advantage of this favourable economic context to take a new leap forward towards our objectives of growth and employment. Let us move up a gear.

Last year, we proposed an in-depth review of how to steer economic policy in Europe. We agreed to work together within a partnership. We shared the responsibilities among ourselves and refocused our strategy and concerns on the essentials. Your Assembly accorded huge support to this new approach, and I should like to congratulate Parliament on the role it is playing in this connection.

In its report to the spring European Council, the Commission proposed several priority measures in favour of growth and employment. I do not wish to go into detail concerning all of the specific measures we propose taking but shall single out a number of themes that I think are particularly important today.

I am now delighted that 25 national programmes of reform have been adopted, describing how, in terms of the actual circumstances peculiar to itself as a nation, each Member State intends implementing the jointly agreed guidelines for growth and employment. Admittedly, not all of the national plans for reform are equally ambitious. Nor, it is true, are they all of the same quality. Nonetheless, they do constitute a sound basis on which to work.

Let us be clear. This is only a first stage, and everyone knows that reports do not create jobs. We now need to see political will and determination in putting these intentions specifically into practice.

That is why, this year, it is time to translate words into deeds. During the next few months, the Commission will work in close cooperation with the Member States with a view to helping implement their national programmes and to following these up. I am very grateful to Parliament for the role it is adopting in this connection. The joint parliamentary sittings held by the European Parliament and representatives of the national parliaments and devoted to the Lisbon Strategy have made a significant contribution to raising the national parliaments’ awareness of what is at stake and have encouraged them to participate in the process.

Ladies and gentlemen, the fact is, however, that, in terms of the Member States’ taking this new strategy for growth and employment to heart, there is still work to be done. Within the framework of the partnership, the Member States draw lessons from others’ experience. Everyone has something both to offer and to learn, but I can never emphasise enough that we not only need action at the level of the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament but also need actively to involve the national parliaments, social partners, national parties – and not only the European parties – and European public opinion. That is a condition for our renewed strategy for growth and employment succeeding.

Another important issue is that of the free movement of workers. I noted that, in the resolution it proposed by way of concluding this debate, Parliament called on the Member States, and I quote, ‘to move as fast as possible towards total freedom of movement for workers and other citizens within the EU and to undertake determined action to promote the quality of work in all its aspects’. I entirely concur with this proposal of the European Parliament. What is more, the facts prove you right. A recent study by the Commission clearly shows that the flow of workers from the Central and Eastern European Member States into the old Member States has, in the main, had beneficial effects. That is only one of the reasons why the Commission welcomes the announcement made recently – and, more specifically, after the publication of our communication – by Finland, Portugal and Spain in the first instance and now by the Netherlands to the effect that they were joining Ireland, the United Kingdom and Sweden in lifting the restrictions on the free movement of workers in Europe. I am impatient to see other countries join them.

(Applause)

In a globalised economy, no Member State can allow itself to go it alone. This is not the moment for economic nationalism. It is not by employing nationalist rhetoric that we shall be able to build the Europe of tomorrow.

(Applause)

Defending one’s national champions in the short term generally leads, in the longer term, to relegating them to the second division. More efficient companies, which have had to face all the rigours of competition, will overtake the national champions once they appear on the international markets. Let us be clear. What we need is not national champions, but world champions that are based in Europe and benefit fully from our internal market.

(Applause)

Let there be no misunderstandings, however. The Commission will exercise its prerogatives if companies abuse their dominant position in the market. The Commission is required by law to protect the consumer and to ensure that the rules of competition are applied, and it will carry out those duties in full.

The challenge of globalisation calls for a strengthening of the internal market. Freedom to provide services is an essential element of the internal market, and we have already said that the services sector, on the one hand, and small and medium-sized enterprises, on the other, are the most relevant drivers today for employment in Europe.

I want to thank you for the result of Parliament’s first reading of the Services Directive. You came forward with amendments generally based on a broad consensus which can now move us forward. The Commission will respond positively to your consensus.

Early next month we will present an amended proposal, which will be largely based on this first reading and the discussions in the Council. We know that the Austrian Presidency will work on the common position of the Council shortly thereafter. I hope that this legislation can then be adopted swiftly, as we need to make progress in this area if we are serious about growth and jobs.

(Applause)

The energy challenges of the 21st century require a strong and effective response. After a long period of relative stability, we can no longer take secure and affordable energy supplies for granted. Increased import dependence, higher energy prices and climate change are challenges shared by all European Union Member States. Only a European response, based on sustainability, competitiveness and security, can deal with the magnitude of these challenges.

In the Commission’s Green Paper we have highlighted six key actions. We must create a truly single European electricity and gas market. We must achieve better integration. With better integration comes more solidarity between the Member States in times of crisis. We must accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy, using both new energies and existing ones to ensure sustainability. We must change not just energy supply but energy demand. There is considerable scope to use energy more efficiently to the benefit of the climate, consumers and our security.

Europe is at the leading edge of the development of low-carbon technologies. We must stay there. We need more European innovation for renewables and everything that concerns environmentally friendly technologies. Last but not least, we must foster a more coherent and integrated approach in our relations with third countries and in international fora.

I sometimes hear people say that a European energy policy is not feasible because it touches areas where Member States have national strategic interests. I do not need to remind you that the very basis of the European Community was in fact a common European policy on coal and steel, the two areas which were considered the most sensitive in terms of the national strategic interest of the Member States at that time. It is exactly because energy is strategic that we need a European strategy and not 25 national strategies. That is precisely the reason why we need that strategy.

(Applause)

The Green Paper invites everybody to contribute to this important debate. I am very encouraged by the good reaction that our Green Paper received and by the very committed support of the Austrian Presidency, and I look forward to strong support from the European Parliament for this new European Union strategy.

I also want to stress the need for social cohesion to be considered an integral part of the growth and jobs creation strategy. The Commission is keenly aware of the need to ensure high-quality jobs and avoid precarious working conditions. I believe that globalisation offers major opportunities, but we cannot and should not ignore the pressure on companies and workers resulting from fierce international competition. That is why the Commission has proposed a European globalisation adjustment fund. That fund will act as a shock absorber to the powerful engine of globalisation. It will complement Member States’ efforts to help get the workers affected back on their feet again. The important thing is to get people retrained and back on the job ladder in a sustainable way. We need to involve social partners in our discussions on jobs and labour markets.

Europe’s economic future depends on having the best educated and trained people, with a full range of skills and the adaptability required for a knowledge economy. That is why we must boost investment in higher education significantly. The Commission suggests a target of 2% of GDP by 2010.

At the same time, we must boost Europe’s research and development spending to 3% of GDP by 2010. That means more ambitious national targets and more ambitious measures to achieve them. We have some excellent universities and research centres which will really benefit from more funding. However, our systems are fragmented. There is a gap between higher education and research, on the one hand, and companies and the economy on the other. They do not appear to be connected.

Too many of our top brains are leaving Europe. That is why the Commission, in search of excellence, has proposed a European institute of technology. A European institute of technology would complement other measures; it would use the resources made available by its participating partners and do so more effectively for their benefit and for the benefit of the entire European Union economy. It is an ambitious project. I will be asking the Heads of State and Government to endorse this idea and I am asking Parliament for support. Airbus and Galileo have shown us the importance of successful European flagships. The EIT should be the next one; it is a symbol of a European purpose, but it is not just a symbol: it adds value to our collective efforts in terms of research, education and innovation.

I am also aware of the need to do more in this area and I believe that this can be a clear commitment now for this knowledge triangle. In short, more commitment to Europe will bring more prosperity and freedom to our citizens.

I warmly thank you for your support so well expressed in your motion for a resolution. Next week the European Council must show a similar commitment to growth and jobs. The time has now come for delivery, not of more words but of action.

(Applause)

  Hans-Gert Poettering, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, Lisbon stands for growth, employment and thus, at its heart, for the competitiveness of the economy of the European Union, and I am delighted at the President of the Commission's personal commitment and at the fact that he is focussing his Commission's efforts in this area.

I would like to thank him for saying that a return to economic nationalism or – some want to put a positive spin on it – economic patriotism would mean the downfall of the European economy and would result in us not being internationally competitive at all in the globalised world.

(Applause)

I am therefore grateful for the combative attitude, and I hope you will say the same thing in the Council at the meeting of the Heads of State or Government. Mr Winkler, we think very highly of you as a person, and we appreciate the fact that you are here, but when the President of the Commission is here it would be appropriate for the Presidency of the Council to be represented at a similarly high level, by a minister. We need to bear that in mind. I would like to make it clear that I have the greatest respect for you personally, but the institutions must have equal representation in such debates. I say that quite independent of any party-political affiliation. This is about the institutions of the European Union.

The European Parliament gives a high priority to the Lisbon process, which is a continuous process and is not limited to 2010. That is why we set up the steering group under the chairmanship of Mr Daul. I am pleased that the three largest groups – yes, and maybe one day the others will join in too, Mr Wurtz – are putting this at the heart of their activities, as of course is the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, even though they are not here, and maybe some others too ...

(Protests)

.... it is true, the leaders are not here, and you should be pleased that I am paying so much attention to them. The single market, the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital, is the precondition for the European Union to be competitive on the global markets.

I call on the Heads of State or Government and on the governments to take Parliament's efforts regarding the Services Directive as their example. To the governments I say: anyone who now wants to achieve something different will destroy this compromise on the Services Directive. I therefore call on the governments to take the European Parliament as their example.

I also welcome the fact – this is not my job, but I am pleased as the chairman of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – that one of the leaders of the Greens is now here. Together we will forge Europe, Mr Cohn-Bendit.

We need the entrepreneurial spirit in the European Union. Enterprises are not an abstract concept, and getting involved means making freedom a reality. Entrepreneurial spirit means creating jobs. We need a positive perspective in this connection.

Mr Barroso, we welcome the proposal you have put forward for a European Institute of Technology. This must involve creating not a big new university authority, but a network between the various European technological institutes already in existence, so that we get added value and so that Europe can really be one of the global leaders in innovation and research. You referred to GALILEO and Airbus. We need new projects, and to that extent we support your considerations.

One final remark, as I do not have 15 minutes like the Council and the Commission: at some point, Mr President, we need to think about how we can achieve a better balance. I would advocate that this House should work closely with the national parliaments on this issue, because it is our joint task, both nationally and in Europe, to make Europe competitive and to ensure that it develops well economically and in general.

(Applause)

  Christopher Beazley (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I rise on a point of order under Rules 166(1) and 121(2). I apologise for interrupting the debate, but before it began Sir Robert Atkins rose on a point of order which you ruled to be out of order because it did not concern the business of the day. He was actually referring to an extremely important issue which is covered by Rule 166. When the Parliament’s Rules are being disregarded, it is quite in order for a Member to draw that to your attention.

Sir Robert was stating that the British Government may well be acting ultra vires and in breach of Community law as regards a breach of confidence. The Committee concerned has written to you. I ask you whether it is possible for you to give your reply to Sir Robert Atkins before the vote.

I should like to remind you once again that I am referring to Rule 166(1) and Rule 121(2).

I apologise for this interruption.

  President. I regret this interruption as well.

Ladies and gentlemen, from now on, the Presidency will have to be stricter when considering requests for points of order, because, over and over again, you are making use of this procedure for purposes for which it was not designed.

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when the Lisbon process was launched, it was the first real attempt, and in my opinion a very well thought-out one, at giving a European response to the challenges of globalisation. The starting point used in Lisbon was that we would only be able to survive intercontinental competition and continue to compete with competitors on other continents over the long term if we become the strongest knowledge-based society and national economy in the world – but at European level.

It was the right step to take, but what has happened since then? Those who decided to take this step cannot decide whether they want to take it at European or national level. They are pulled back and forth between the message that 'we can only survive in this competition as a united Europe', which is right, and the message in their own country that 'actually, in principle we are strong enough as a government to do it ourselves', which of course is more popular with the voters. The result is that there has not been enough investment in the Lisbon process at either European or national level. That is the situation after six years!

(Applause)

Mr President of the Commission, I am grateful for what you said, but I also regret that you are keeping quiet on something else. There is a gaping chasm between what you have once again described as being necessary as a commitment, including financially, and what happens in practice. You and your Commission have described what is needed in terms of funding for the EU over the next seven years, and the Council has adopted a financial basis. The problem is, there is a gap of 40.82% between what you asked for and what the Council decided!

The Council agreed to 40.82% less than you had requested for the financial perspective. Those, Mr President, are the different messages, the different-shaped bricks. You cannot build a beautiful house with different-shaped bricks. You cannot even build a shack. You cannot even build a ski hut in Arlberg am Lech – or rather Lech am Arlberg – to sing sea shanties in of an evening. Welcome to the valley, Mr President! The downhill race is now over.

(Laughter)

The troika on the financial perspective, which we will experience in the next few days, and the subsequent summit once again draw attention to this discrepancy. The troika is ruled by penny-pinchers, scraping together every last Euro so that the money cannot be given to Europe.

(Applause)

Three days later, the Heads of State or Government will meet, and once again proclaim how important the Lisbon summit and the Lisbon objectives are. That is precisely what is holding Europe up: there is no coherent, consistent approach to the Lisbon process!

In the European Parliament, we have tried to combine the flexibility Europe needs with the social cohesion it cannot do without, because these two aspects belong together. If we want to take the people with us – yes, Mr Winkler, you are quite right there – if we want the people to come with us, we must depict globalisation as an opportunity, but also reduce the risk that it could be used to break down social standards. With the Services Directive, we tried to say yes to flexibility where necessary and possible, but only if we retain social cohesion. I therefore assume that the European Parliament's decision will form the basis for the Commission and Council to continue consultations on the Services Directive. I can only warn against deviating from it. You made the promise, Mr Winkler, and you said today that you would keep that promise. We will ensure that you do, you can be sure of that!

It is indeed the case that enough ink has been used up on the subject of the future of the Lisbon process. What we need is investment in research and qualifications, so that our best people do not drift away to other continents. What we need is investment in lifelong learning, because, if good qualifications are a prerequisite for access to the labour market, then lifelong learning is a basic right that guarantees that everybody has that access.

Yesterday, the President of the Federal Republic of Germany clarified the desires of young people in Europe using the example of the Erasmus scheme. However, Erasmus is one of the points where the Council has reduced the financial perspective the most. So, I will say it again: in the Lisbon process, nothing fits together.

(Applause)

  Graham Watson, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, more than at any time in the Union’s history there is a disjunction between those who seek to move forward and those who wish to turn back; between those who defend the single market and the Lisbon Agenda as the best means to guarantee long-term efficiency, competitiveness and growth, and those who reject free trade in favour of economic patriotism akin – as Giulio Tremonti said – to that immediately before the 1914-18 war.

The irony is that this so-called patriotism – thinly disguised economic nationalism – will bring as few benefits to the citizens of France, Spain or Poland as it does to the rest of Europe, for it is fair competition that drives the global market, raises quality and lowers prices, and it is fair competition that protectionism undermines. If any company can see commercial logic in merging with another, what business is it of ours to put roadblocks in its path? The great success of the euro, as the President of the Commission has pointed out, is that mergers and takeovers are proceeding apace. European industry is gearing up for the challenges of competing in a global economy.

These are issues for the Spring Council. They are issues for the Commission because the Commission is going to be tested in this climate as a defender and guarantor of the Treaties. Faced with an unprecedented assault on the internal market, the Commission must hold firm to the Treaties, hold firm to the basic freedoms and speak out when necessary – as you have, President Barroso, and as Commissioners McCreevy and Kroes have too – and act to defend the Union. But defence of the single market falls not only to the Commission; the Council has a role, as we stress in the motion we debate today. That means the Spring Council expediting transposition and implementation of the Union’s directives to deliver a single market with free movement of goods, services and capital. We want to see the European Council deal seriously with free movement of services, free movement of workers and free movement of capital. As they discuss the future financing of our Union, let the Heads of State and Government find the funds necessary for the training of our workforce, for the trans-European networks and for research and development through the European Institute for Technology, which will secure future economic dynamism.

It is time for our Heads of State and Government to formalise the Council meetings that take place in March and October. These need not be billed purely as economic policy summits; the demands of energy security, of peace in the Middle-East and of fighting internationally organised crime are equally urgent and should be on next week’s agenda. There should be public discussion too of the Union’s burgeoning defence policy, currently being planned behind closed doors. The Austrian Presidency opened to public scrutiny a recent Environment Council meeting; why not make this openness universal practice in the Council?

My group welcomes the Commission’s proposal to bring forward a concept paper so that we can discuss defence policy here in Parliament and involve our citizens in the discussion of what our continent can become.

President-in-Office, a century ago your country had a foreign minister who studied in Strasbourg, restored the old regime and dominated continental politics for 30 years. If Mrs Plassnik can emulate Metternich’s achievements, Europe will prosper. If she fails, she can always follow his example and flee to Britain.

  Rebecca Harms, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, Mr Winkler, Mr Barroso, as time has gone on my group has realised that the Lisbon strategy is no longer the strategy that was set out at the start of this very interesting process. This was very clear in Mr Winkler's speech. It is now a very one-sided strategy for growth and jobs. The idea that the aim of sustainability and social equity, as set out in Gothenburg, should also form part of this strategy has been completely disregarded. Following the discussions I witnessed in the coordination structure for Lisbon and in the light of what we have drawn up as a motion for a resolution, on which we will vote today, I am afraid there is a risk that Parliament is no longer prepared to pursue this ambitious strategy to actually link sustainability and growth together.

Why do I say that? There is absolutely no willingness to discuss important instruments that would guarantee success. In this coordination structure, we tried to discuss fiscal policy. If we are not prepared to consider uniform company taxation within the EU, how are we going to solve negative location competition? If we are not prepared to talk about ecological taxes, how will the state be able to promote sustainability in a controlled manner? Some of the Members of this Parliament are unwilling to use the word 'tax' at all: they are afraid of frightening the citizens. They make promises to the people, but do not ensure that instruments are set up to put us in a position to actually keep these ambitious promises.

Let us take an important topical example: energy policy. To Commissioner Verheugen, to Mr Barroso, I say this: if you are not prepared to incorporate transport policy into your energy policy strategies, if you are not prepared to put the conservation of resources and efficiency right at the heart of your strategies, and if you continue to focus on prolonging the lifespan of nuclear power stations, then you are doomed to failure. You will not reduce dependency on raw materials, and you will not be in a position to secure fair prices on the energy market. Just look at the countries where a high proportion of energy comes from nuclear power. Is electricity in France and Germany cheap? No, it is expensive.

With regard to the market, Mr Barroso, I have one request: trust Mrs Kroes's proposals from last week. The market cannot currently be applied to energy. We need the production and distribution of energy, generation and the network, to be separated. As Mrs Kroes quite rightly said, we will only have a chance against the energy giants politically if we actually push the market through against them.

(Applause)

  Francis Wurtz, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, Mr Barroso, Mr Winkler, the Commission generally has the knack of finding evocative patronymics for its programmes: Erasmus, Socrates and so on. Well, it could have called its Lisbon Strategy ‘Janus’ after the famous Roman deity, traditionally represented as having two faces: one looking to the future and the other to the past, exactly like the Lisbon agenda.

One of these faces of the Lisbon Strategy for the ten-year period 2000–2010 is pleasing and calls to mind the conclusions of the 2005 spring European Council with their talk of the need for, and I quote, ‘investing in human capital [which is] Europe’s most important asset’. It heralds more jobs – even full employment – as well as better quality jobs. It emphasises the importance of research, education and innovation, as well as of having a solid industrial fabric throughout the territory of the EU. It even puts forward the objective, and I quote, of ‘halting the loss of biological diversity between now and 2010’.

That particular face of the European Janus looks towards the future. It seems to herald such an era of social, economic and ecological progress that, at first sight, it is difficult to understand why the Commission considers, and I quote, that ‘[a] lot remains to be done to convince people that reforms will contribute to greater, shared prosperity and to involve them in the process’.

Why, for heaven’s sake? It is because there is the other face of the Lisbon Strategy, this one directed towards the EU leaders’ unrelenting liberal obsessions. I would refer to the latest Commission communication with its references to, for example, the need to make Europe more attractive to business, to reforming pensions, the health sector and the labour market and to stabilising the budget, raising the retirement age, increasing productivity at work, ensuring genuine competition in the services sector and promoting increased competition in the electricity and gas markets.

The Commission even expects the unions to play a role in the proliferation of this liberal strategy and expects Parliament also to convey its virtues.

We are seeing German civil servants joining forces to protest against longer working hours and lower salaries and Italian employees demanding a thorough review of law 30 and the way in which it blithely generates job insecurity. We are seeing young French people rebelling against plans for two-year contracts of employment enabling bosses to dismiss them at will, female salaried staff in Britain challenging plans to raise the retirement age from 60 to 65 years and employees in the new Member States of Central Europe opposed to their countries being considered part of a low cost zone and demanding their rights to social progress. Faced with these people and, indeed, all those opposed to the strategy of squeezing public and social expenditure that is being conducted under the aegis of the Stability Pact, do not, I beseech you, rely on us to explain to them that they are mistaken because, contrary to appearances, the Lisbon Strategy has their well-being at heart.

The truth of the matter is that the two aspects of the Lisbon Strategy are incompatible. The second needs to be thwarted so that the first might thrive. That is the choice facing us.

  Jens-Peter Bonde, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (DA) Mr President, following the French and Dutch rejections of the Constitution, the EU summit decided to arrange a break in which to think about Europe’s future. It now appears that this was not a pause for thought but, rather, entailed a change in the order of who is to ratify and when. Since the two ‘no’ votes, the Constitution has been approved in Luxembourg, Cyprus, Malta, Latvia and, most recently, Belgium. The process is under way in Estonia, and Finland will approve the Constitution before it takes over the Presidency on 1 July. A delegation of us from the Committee on Constitutional Affairs visited Helsinki the other day. Just one small party, representing true Finns, will respect the French and Dutch ‘no’ votes. The Constitution proposes that ratifications be allowed to continue until 80% of the countries have approved the Constitution, at which point a special summit would take place. The provisions of the Constitution cannot, however, be the basis for changing the Treaty of Nice, where unanimity is the rule. The Constitution is therefore formally dead following the French and Dutch ‘no’ votes. In the Netherlands the government has stated that it will not ratify the rejected document, and in France the leading politicians say the same thing. It is therefore illegal to continue with the ratifications without a new decision, unless France and the Netherlands are engaging in double-dealing and saying one thing at home and something else in Brussels.

I should like to ask the Presidency whether France and the Netherlands have formally agreed that the ratifications can continue without changes to the rejected document. Would it not be better to use the breathing space to think out new ideas and so prepare a document that people can approve in referenda in all the countries on the same day, a document in which the key headings could be transparency, democracy and proximity to the people?

  Brian Crowley, on behalf of the UEN Group. – Mr President, I should like to thank the President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Winkler, and President Barroso for their presentations here today.

Having looked at and discussed this issue over a number of years, one of the things that strikes me is: what do we really want from the Lisbon Strategy? The core elements and goals are still as valid today as they were when it was first agreed: to make Europe the most dynamic and innovative economy in the world by 2010. Unfortunately what we hear today is everything but the kitchen sink being thrown into what the Lisbon Strategy should be doing. Perhaps we are too ambitious or too wide-ranging with regard to the areas that we want to see included.

One of the most important issues – brought up by all speakers in this House today – has been the investment in human capital: the issue of training, education and the way in which that leads to further research, and future innovation and development. Let us really look at what is happening in the European Union at the present time. Look at the human demographic situation, where we have an ageing population, a dropping birthrate in most Member States, and where we do not have strategies to respond to that. We need strategies that look to the positive facet of that ageing population, to the experience that they have; but also strategies that are realistic in seeing that people are being denied opportunities to access the new labour market. We need to give them the skills and training that they require to work in the so-called digital economy.

Despite all the honeyed words we may spout here, the reality of who is best able to deliver on those strategies – who is best able to give those skills to young workers, students or older people who want to retrain or re-skill – is that it is not the European Union, but each Member State. That is why we have asked for national plans with clear targets that will guarantee the return of the investment.

When we speak about the European employment strategy, social cohesion and social partnership, it is vital that people are carried along, but it is also vital that people wake up and see the reality of what is happening with relocation of industry – as was discussed yesterday – and the lack of investment in research and development. Look at the 20 leading biotechnology firms in the world. Nineteen are American and one is Swiss – none is within the European Union.

If we want to be realistic about being the most dynamic then we must take tough decisions to reflect that position.

(Applause)

  Leopold Józef Rutowicz (NI). – (PL) Mr President, the report from the high level group chaired by Wim Kok provides a realistic description of the state of the EU economy, which faces the threat of marginalisation in relation to the Asian and American markets. The global market is benevolent towards economic entities that are efficient, competitive and which offer cheap, good quality products and services. The direct involvement of Member States and parliaments in implementation programmes can be counted as one of the successes of activities aimed at pursuing the Lisbon Strategy. Action related to the energy security programme may also create better, stable conditions for economic development. The fact that a large group of people is taking part in the implementation of the strategy may also give rise to optimism. The problem lies in the effectiveness of the actions and the resistance shown towards them. These actions include the creation of an internal market, a labour market, the right conditions for restructuring and the creation of businesses and the growth of innovation, while simultaneously doing away with unemployment and increasing wages. We need a consensus between political groups, trade unions and employers. There are particularly significant obstacles to the process of restructuring, organising of the agricultural market and limiting agricultural production costs. The lack of viability in some production sectors means that large numbers of holdings are facing liquidation and that there is an increase in unemployment and unused land. This is why it is vital to take rapid action to establish an agricultural production system with a guaranteed market, such as bio-fuels and biomass. We need a multi-annual programme to adapt farming to new market conditions. The process of scrapping protectionism, which does not create but only decreases added value and increases social costs, faces large obstacles. Finally, I would like to mention an optimistic quote from the German President, ‘We should make challenges into opportunities for success’. I think this is something we can achieve.

  Othmar Karas (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I wish all the institutions the very best for the actions they need to adopt over the next few weeks or at the summit, which must be starting points for the future of Europe. The motto for all the sittings in the coming weeks must, as Mr Barroso said, be ‘deeds not words’.

We call for actions that leave no doubt that we reject particularism, protectionism and the 'charity begins at home' mentality. We call for courageous, concrete, verifiable European actions from the Member States for growth and jobs and for energy policy. We call on the Member States finally to come into line on the Services Directive and the financial perspective and not to stand still any longer.

What do we want? First, we want decisive actions, so that the European Union can continue to develop towards a political union with greater courage, credibility and decision. A political union is our primary goal.

Secondly, we need to create a functioning internal market and take action so that it ultimately develops into a domestic market. When will we be able to talk in terms of a domestic market for all? When we waste as little time as possible in implementing the four freedoms for all citizens of an EU without borders. Freedom and responsibility instead of chains, protectionism, nationalism and partitioning transitional rules – these things are our goal, and they will provide common added value for the citizens of Europe.

(Applause)

Thirdly, anybody who nationalises rather than Europeanises is throwing sand in people's eyes. Where are the initiatives and projects to implement Plan D and to get the people involved in the European project? Fourthly, I also call for codecision with the European Parliament on all internal-market related issues, on issues of growth and employment and on the financial perspective. It is evident that the unanimity rule in the Council blocks progress, prevents or impedes European solutions and strengthens particularism. That is not what we want.

Fifthly, we need specific European projects, not just national action plans: the creation of a European research framework, the creation of a European infrastructure, the creation of a European energy market, the creation of a European airspace, the creation of a European establishment and innovation offensive, the expansion of the European education programme. For all of that, we want to see projects and actions, not just declarations. Sixthly, we do not have a common economic policy, which means that we need to coordinate economic policies much more closely. The EU is an opportunity. Particularism and protectionism are our own home-made risk.

(Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: MR McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

  Robert Goebbels (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Winkler, Mr Barroso, a strategy without resources is like Napoleon without an army: powerless and ultimately useless. That is the threat hovering over the Lisbon Strategy. With a meagre financial perspective, unbalanced national budgets and a Community budget representing less than a third of the American budget’s mere deficit, is the EU reduced merely to making gestures?

The draft resolution I have prepared together with my excellent fellow Member, Mr Lehne, indicates a few worthwhile paths to go down, even if our Parliament sometimes refuses to look the truth in the face. Thus, the majority of MEPs have ignored the fact that a substantial portion of the United States’s growth surplus in recent years was the result of integrating more than ten million legal immigrants. We need a more generous European immigration policy. Would such a policy be conducted at the expense of developing countries? According to the United Nations, transfers of money from immigrants to their families represent more than double the amount spent on international development aid. The spectacular economic development of India, China, Taiwan and Hong Kong owes a lot to companies set up by former emigrants who have returned home.

The Europe of research is still to be built. It is mainly medium-sized companies that do not invest enough. One of the causes of this phenomenon is the excessive bureaucracy hindering access to European funds. Another is the lack of cooperation between businesses and universities. The latter should be able to obtain more resources for themselves by investing in promising young talent and by increasing the prestige of their research activities through the conferring of associated diplomas and degrees.

Where energy is concerned, Europe must combine with the other big consumers – the United States, Japan, China and India – in order to counterbalance the cartels and oligopolies that dominate the oil and gas sectors. Faced with a market dominated by a handful of producer companies, there is no point in seeking refuge in the mere liberalisation of the European market, especially when such liberalisation leads to the emergence of a small number of so-called European champions which will end up dividing the market between themselves. In the case of the American energy market, liberalisation was far from being a success.

The demographic development faced by Europe constitutes more than just a challenge for the funding of social security. The ten or twenty years’ increase in life expectancy for generally fit and healthy populations also presents a great opportunity. Strategies need to be devised enabling people to remain active as they get older, as well as to be offered a range of retirement options and to be integrated into the wider life of society. Europe needs to stop talking in pessimistic terms about the future and instead to seize all the new opportunities for building the dynamic and inclusive society that the Lisbon Strategy is designed to bring about.

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONYSZKIEWICZ
Vice-President

  Alexander Lambsdorff (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, one year on from the mid-term review of the Lisbon Agenda, it is time to ask once more what stage Europe has reached. Unfortunately, the answer to this question is a sobering one; following the political shock administered by the ‘no’ vote against the constitution, we now face the threat of economic paralysis, of Lisbon becoming, like the celebrated woman without the lower half of her body, an attraction in a freak show, for, despite the consensus that the strategy’s implementation is the responsibility of the Member States, it is these that we see committing protectionist fouls in the name of economic patriotism, and this is cause for considerable concern.

Those who imagine that we could achieve ‘more Lisbon’ or become more competitive with less of an internal market have either lost their grip on reality or are being dishonest. Europe’s economic success over the last fifty years was founded upon the four freedoms of the internal market, three of which are now in acute danger. This began two years ago when, among others, Germany and Austria imposed restrictions on the mobility of labour from the Member States in the east of the EU. It now turns out that countries that did not interfere in labour mobility, such as Great Britain, can testify to the benefits of this.

Let us consider the free movement of capital. Italy is forbidding the purchase of interests in Italian banks; Poland is opposing the merger of UniCredit and HBV; the French and the Spanish are resisting the takeover of domestic energy suppliers. That is particularly ironic in view of the fact that it is in the energy sector that a European approach is called for, for are we to believe that we can have a common energy policy without an internal market in energy? The Commission’s unambiguous words on this subject are much to be welcomed, and it is to be hoped that the Council will follow its recommendations.

The third freedom, of the provision of services, is also at risk. What the watering-down of the Services Directive perpetrated by Germany, Belgium and France means is nothing more or less than that the division of labour in this area is not yet forthcoming. Were this to apply to the movement of goods, it would mean, for example, that Renault would be allowed to export its cars to Germany only if they were, once there, to cost no more or less than a Volkswagen. And what are we to think of Skoda? Workers in Mladá Boleslav earn less than their counterparts who assemble Audis or Citroëns; is that social dumping too? The logical consequence of the trade unions’ arguments on the services directive is that they should call for punitive customs duties on industrial products from Member States where wages are lower, and it is only a matter of time before they do that. I might add that, if you consider the issue consistently, the demands made of the new Member States that they should increase their taxes on enterprises amount to precisely the same thing.

Lisbon is no more an end in itself than is the internal market. What is needed at the heart of the continent of Europe is new growth, and more of it, if the millions of unemployed are to have new hope for the future. Giving them that is a matter of obligation – politically, socially, and, in the final analysis, morally. Jeopardising the internal market is a sin against the unemployed of Europe, to whom we have obligations, in that it is for their sakes, for the sake of the weakest members of our society, that we have to make Lisbon a success. The same is true in the case of older people; this House’s resolution stresses the significance of demographic change, and both the elderly of today and those of tomorrow merit our attention. Growth is what is needed to stabilise our social security systems; redistribution alone will not do the job. I would like to add that I believe we should be conducting this debate in Brussels rather than in Strasbourg.

  Pierre Jonckheer (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Winkler, Mr Barroso, Mr Verheugen, I am an ecologist but I am not going to talk to you about energy. I have colleagues, whom you know and who are very skilled in that area.

I should like to talk to you about the Commission’s role in the Lisbon Strategy. On many occasions, you have rightly emphasised the fact that, in order for this strategy to succeed, broad popular support is required, as is the proper involvement of all the relevant players, including the national parliaments. With this in mind, the Commission needs, I believe, to send out two clear messages.

The first consists in saying that the Lisbon Strategy is not synonymous with unbridled competition between the Member States. Instead, we champion a model of cooperation and solidarity between the Member States.

The second message consists in saying that, in a European Union of 25 Member States, there can be no first and second class citizens or workers.

I shall now give you three practical examples, in connection with which I should expect you to communicate a more proactive stance. Firstly, the free movement of workers. You have referred to this and published a report – which is all very commendable - and you are very pleased that a number of nations have fallen in with the line taken by the Commission. I should expect both the President of the Commission and the College of Commissioners to act in the interests of the European Union by politely telling those states that do not wish to fall in with the Commission or that are reticent about doing so that they are going down the wrong road.

I turn now to my second example. On the subject of the Services Directive, Parliament rejected the country of origin principle (or COP). What was the problem with this principle? It was an unwillingness to organise the single market by having insufficiently harmonised national rules compete against each other. In order to reassure workers, you should now state clearly that Portuguese, Germans and Slovaks working on a building site in Poland must receive the same salaries, and vice versa. In other words, the Posting of Workers Directive must be strengthened, and it is your prerogative to do that.

Now for my third example. When it comes to the issue of taxation development in Europe, the Commission has made progress on the matter of harmonising the tax base within the framework of business taxation. In 2007-2008, you are to lodge a report on the European Union’s budget and future resources. You should have the political will and the courage to say – and this is a matter broached by other Members – that it is unacceptable for the budget to be reduced to the point where the budget envisaged for young students or young workers is cut by a third.

In other words, Mr Barroso, I expect you, in implementing the Lisbon Strategy, not merely to take refuge behind the Member States, even if they have an important role to play. I expect you, instead, to go beyond your role of honest broker and, because you have a monopoly on legislative initiatives, genuinely to find the strength to champion European interests, which are threatened by the tendency for nations increasingly to withdraw into themselves.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) The time has come to listen to the protests and the struggle against the neoliberal measures contained in the newly-reviewed Lisbon Strategy, the consequences of which have been at variance with what was promised in 2000 at the Lisbon Summit.

With the liberalisation of the markets, the privatisation of public services and the promotion of the flexibility of the labour market, or flexisecurity as the Commission now calls it, being stepped up, what we have seen is lower economic growth, higher unemployment, more precarious work, more poverty and greater inequality in the distribution of wealth, in the name of competitiveness and free competition.

It is clearer now that the two core pillars of neoliberal policies are the Stability and Growth Pact and the so-called Lisbon Strategy, not to mention the swingeing cuts to Community funds, which have served to turn economic and social cohesion into nothing more than a mirage.

Consequently, as we suggest in the resolution that we tabled, it is vital that the Lisbon Strategy be replaced by a European strategy for solidarity and sustainable development, which will promote investment in research and innovation with the aim of balanced and long-lasting development, in the quality of work in all its aspects, in improving qualifications, in basic infrastructure for supporting industry, in public services, in environmental protection and environmental technology, especially in energy and transport, in improving labour, social, environmental and security laws, in order to achieve harmonisation at the highest levels, and in the social economy.

A new social policy agenda is also required, with a view to developing a society ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  John Whittaker (IND/DEM). – Mr President, Mr Barroso wants the European Union to engage with civil society; Mr Winkler wants to motivate EU citizens. But there is nothing more likely to cause observers of the European Union to yawn or sigh or say, ‘oh, no, not again!’, than talk of the Lisbon Agenda. Can we not accept that the Lisbon Strategy has sunk, just like the Stability Pact has sunk, which is most unfortunate because that is what underpins the euro currency? If the Lisbon Strategy has not sunk, why do we keep needing to relaunch it?

We all want economic growth and jobs; we all want the economies of Europe to thrive. However, it must be time to recognise that we do not have the right formula. Rather than being the force that drives the necessary reforms, it is the EU with its endless regulations and interference that is holding back the economies of Europe. Recent modest improvements in some European Union economies have been achieved despite the European Union. They are more a result of global development.

The economies of the EU do not need a Lisbon Strategy: they need to be left alone to let markets work and to let entrepreneurs create jobs. Can we not see that by continuing to talk about the Lisbon Strategy, the European Union is emphasising its own impotence? Therefore I recommend a period of silence: stop talking about an agenda that, year after year, has been universally acknowledged as a failure.

  Guntars Krasts (UEN). – (LV) Mr President, following the review of the Lisbon process last year the hope arose that the strategy had acquired new vigour, but events of the last six months show that actual action to achieve the strategy’s goals continues to lag behind.

In assessing the Member States’ programmes for implementing the Lisbon Strategy, the European Commission talks about the duplication of efforts for achieving the Lisbon goals. I believe that currently a major advance would be to succeed in reducing by at least half those efforts which are expended on avoiding the Lisbon tasks. The most recent glaring example is the Services Directive, which had been intended to impart vital momentum to liberalising the internal market and increasing competitiveness, and also served as one of the foundation stones of the Lisbon Strategy. The European Parliament’s compromise text will be able to contribute little to energising the common market, at least not while the Lisbon Strategy is still in operation. Similarly, in other spheres we increasingly find any changes and reforms being met by increasing social and political counter-action. Enormous energy is expended on preserving the existing situation and restricting changes and reforms, but in fact reforms to the European Union’s internal market and the intensification of its integration are the main steps that could bring about an environment conducive to implementation of the Lisbon Strategy.

Little has so far been achieved to provide coordinated financial support for the Lisbon tasks. During the passionate process of debating the financial framework, the representatives of the Member States’ governments did not have strategic considerations in mind, and the financial framework demonstrates only a very weak connection with the Lisbon tasks. Similarly, little has been done to coordinate the use of the Structural Funds with the Lisbon priorities. Use of the Structural Funds and closer coordination of the Lisbon Strategy ought to be achieved both at EU and Member State level by harmonising national development plans with the Lisbon Strategy implementation programmes.

At the basis of any strategy lies the ability to subordinate short-term interests to long-term tasks. For this reason, achieving the Lisbon Strategy will also be dependent on how and when the Member States and the European Union as a whole manage to convince the citizens of the EU of the fact that without achieving the Lisbon Strategy in the long term it will not be possible to achieve the goals of growth and employment.

  Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) Mr President, the Lisbon Strategy is meant to turn Europe into the world’s strongest economy, and I believe that there is in this House a broad consensus about that goal, although I would question the way in which this is being achieved. I cannot avoid the conclusion that Europe today is still far too much preoccupied with subsidies to the detriment of investment and innovation.

Not only the various Member States, but also the Commission, bear the burden of responsibility in this. Whilst the Commission had proposed to double spending for science and development to EUR 10 billion per annum from 2007, the Council rejected this proposal on the grounds that that would have necessitated considerable cuts in agricultural subsidies, regional subsidies and also structural funds.

When I think of the European structural funds, I am automatically reminded of the bottomless pit of Wallonia, for example, to which annually, millions of euros are being siphoned, without this ever effecting any structural change, because this is being prevented by an all-pervading and corrupt Parti Socialiste. This is now also being corroborated by various Wallonian politicians and prominent economists.

Now, along comes Mrs Danuta Hübner, European Commissioner for Regional Policy, claiming that Wallonia manages to use the structural funds effectively and that the Wallonian projects are typical of the so-called remarkable structural changes that take place in that region. Well, given that this is coming from someone who is partly responsible for the follow-up of the Lisbon Strategy, this puts a question mark over the whole thing.

  Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by seizing this opportunity to thank my co-rapporteur Mr Goebbels most warmly for the good cooperation in the steering group, in which we succeeded in producing, for the plenary and for the Conference of Presidents, a draft that is the logical continuation of what we came out with last year when the mid-term review was under consideration.

As it did then, the House endorses the Commission’s strategy. We have, in particular, again made it clear that our ability to realise the other main objectives of the Lisbon Strategy in the way we want to is conditional upon growth and employment.

This House has also played its part in setting priorities, three of which are mentioned in our resolution, namely population change, energy policy and innovation.

My only complaint is about something that many speakers have already mentioned. The strategic approach is not our main problem; the strategic approach is the right one. Our problem is what happens at the end. To put it in quite practical and quite blunt terms, what I see as the most negative aspect is what we always see happening when the European Council gets its hands on this issue: it decides on a good and substantially sound strategy, presents it at a press conference, and it ends up being written about. The following day, or perhaps a couple of days later, the finance ministers turn up and take back what the European Council had resolved on. That is a fundamental strategic problem, and I have no idea how we are to get on top of it; it plays a considerable part in fostering the perception held by some members of the European public that European policy is dishonest and to increasing public despair with Europe. What must be spelled out at this summit is that we cannot apply double standards; on the contrary, policy as actually implemented must reflect the strategic guidelines.

The last issue I would like to address is that of how the impact of laws is to be assessed – something also mentioned in our resolution. We would like to point out that we expect the impact assessment to include an independent factor, thus ensuring that the result really is neutral. This is part of ‘better lawmaking’, and this demand is addressed to the Commission.

  Harlem Désir (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, 2005 was the first year in which the revised Lisbon Strategy was implemented. The strategy is now better known and has been debated in the Member States, and the national reform programmes have been adopted. That is progress, but it is just about the only progress there has been.

Otherwise, Mr Winkler was very bold in stating just now that the Lisbon Strategy had been relaunched. In fact, it is somewhat bogged down. It is, as Mr Schulz said, held back by a tiny financial perspective and by anaemic growth within the eurozone, as well as by a flagrant lack of investment – both at European and Member State level – in the universities, research and innovation and lifelong learning. In the same way, we are struggling to complete the trans-European networks, and renewable energy sources and biotechnologies are still the poor relations where our investment and research efforts are concerned.

Let us move up a gear, you said, Mr Barroso. Getting into first gear would be a start, I am inclined to reply. If the Lisbon Strategy is to be a success, it needs resources, a coherent financial perspective with defined priorities, investment on the part of each Member State and a macroeconomic framework that genuinely supports growth.

As you said, Mr President, there is also, however, a need for people to take the Lisbon Strategy to heart. If the growth strategy defined by the European Union is to succeed, it needs to be supported. That is why we should be doubly mistaken to give up the social dimension of this strategy and let ourselves be taken down the road of all-out liberalisation, precarious employment, enfeebled social rights and undermined public services. To do so would be to weaken the bases of the EU’s future competitiveness and to turn away from a Europe of excellence. It would also be to turn Europeans off the European Union and its policies.

The social dimension is not inimical to competitiveness. As we have often mentioned in this debate, the Nordic countries have been able to implement reforms successfully because they have negotiated them and arranged for them to be accompanied both by collective investment in research and innovation and by a new economic flexibility and significant compensation for workers in terms of social benefits, lifelong learning and protection of rights. However, all this presupposes that a high level both of tax deductions and of social redistribution will be maintained. In the same way, Germany has come up with all the aces where exports are concerned and, in common with other European Union countries, has demonstrated that, even with high salary costs and a system of social protection that is among the most efficient in Europe and among the most extensive in the world, it can remain competitive internationally.

Let us, then, stop invoking global competition as a way of denigrating the European social model. Let us invoke it with a view to investing more in Europe’s assets, in human capital and in research and innovation.

The route to renewed growth is now basically via consumer confidence, an increase in internal demand, a boost to purchasing power and a fairer distribution of income and added value between shareholders and salaried employees.

In conclusion, Mr Winkler and Mr Barroso, I should like to say that the European Council will be judged on two counts: on the one hand, the lessons it will draw from Parliament’s vote on the ‘Services’ Directive – there must, emphatically, be no return to Bolkestein – and, on the other hand, freedom of movement for workers from the new Member States within the European Union. It is time to grant them that basic freedom.

(Applause)

  Paolo Costa (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, Mr Barroso, Mr Winkler, ladies and gentlemen, I take a positive view of the fact that the European Union is using its weight to ensure that the whole is worth more than the sum of its parts, by boosting research and development to release the potential of companies, to foster enlargement and the best possible use of the quality of the labour force, with measures intended to secure energy supplies – but this is all subject to one basic premise: the added value of Europe can only emerge fully if it is the product of the work of a genuinely united European society and economy and if the results are achieved through the ‘core business’ of the European Union.

The establishment of the single market and of a Community united socially and politically in developing the wealth of its cultural identities is a factor of great importance: there is no single market, no European society able to express its full potential without the physical integration of Europe and without transport infrastructure and services providing mobility and ensuring that every point ‘a’ of the Union has access to every point ‘b’.

This objective should not be viewed as an almost obsolete one compared to the new challenges we are facing; it is a fundamental premise: there is no research without the opportunity for face-to-face contacts, there is no effective potential for companies if markets are not integrated. This is a fundamental precondition that we solemnly promised to achieve by approving resolution 884-2004 here in Parliament one year ago, making a commitment to complete the trans-European transport network as rapidly as possible by 2020.

Unfortunately, there is no trace of this goal in the Commission’s statement – contrary to the initial proposal – or of what happened last year when they made a sober reflection and guided us in that direction, also urging the Member States to do the same. If we also add the Council's proposals for a drastic cut in funding for that sector, making achievement of the goal virtually out of the question, or at least delaying it enormously, we are in a situation of red alert.

In any event, I view the intervention of Parliament as an attempt to stiffen its resolve and an invitation to all the parties involved to ensure that the trans-European transport network actually sees the light of day.

My heartfelt appeal today is to avoid a disastrous political error: a true political error since, after resolution 884, intellectual, political and financial energy was unleashed in Europe, with enormous expectation surrounding the idea of continuing the TEN project. There is no corner of Europe in which the TEN is not being discussed. Today, however, it is one of the items not included – and therefore inadequately supported – in that Plan D that is intended to bridge the interest gap between the European Union and its citizens.

If we fail to keep our promises or respond to those expectations, the results will be much more far-reaching and serious than those that we are seeking to achieve in the attempt to construct the European project. I hope this idea is not approved and that we are able to avoid the disastrous effects that a possible interruption of the project would have on the expectations of many European citizens.

  Bernat Joan i Marí (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, if we envisage Europe becoming the most competitive knowledge-based economy in the world, we need to boost investment in education and in the field of research and development. Unfortunately, Europe now suffers from high emigration of our own researchers towards the USA. In today’s Europe the best way for a researcher to excel is by joining a leading American university. We need to compete with the USA by improving our policies to help our scholars remain in the European Union.

We need to launch a European research area, with the aim of analysing and finding ways to improve the field of research and make it a useful tool for the needs and purposes of our researchers. I believe we must link the Lisbon Strategy to the Bologna Process in order to establish a good connection between our university system and our economic and welfare policy objectives.

If we do not improve the current educational and R&D instruments at EU Member State level and at the level of supra-state bodies, what is known as the Lisbon Strategy will prove to be a big failure.

  Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, It goes without saying that the Lisbon Strategy’s goals – of 20 million new jobs, a 3% average annual growth in GDP, and a similar increase in the amount spent on research and development – are the right ones, but I have to tell Mr Lehne that the problem lies not in the destination, but in the strategy whereby it is proposed that we reach it.

Let us consider the present-day realities: our economic growth is averaging out at 1.5% and we have created only something like a quarter of the new jobs we hoped for – and very badly paid ones at that. That is the fundamental problem. This is the course we have been steering for six years, and the newly-adopted guidelines, which now have to be implemented as part of the national plans, reflect it.

Just take a look: in every Member State of the European Union, profits from productivity are going through the roof! But what about wage rises? Wages are staying where they were! How, then, do you propose to stimulate domestic demand? What is done always reflects the idea that social security benefits have some sort of adverse effect on a national economy, yet they do no such thing; they do it some good! In the final analysis, high wages result in economic growth, but policy needs to be thought out all over again.

What we do not need is permanent deregulation and privatisation. We do need competition, but what we need to compete for is higher social standards and higher environmental standards. We need to come to the insight that the goods that we produce need to be manufactured in line with international labour standards. That is what we need! We will then have a chance of really following through the Lisbon Strategy to the goal we want to reach, and we will not do that by constantly reducing social security benefits in order to give businesses even more freedom; that is the wrong way to go about it.

(Muted applause)

  Johannes Blokland (IND/DEM). – (NL) Mr President, each year in March, we hold debates in preparation for the spring summit, and since 2001, we have discussed why the Lisbon process fails to meet the prescribed goals. To that question, the Kok report, back in 2004, gave an unambiguous response: the Member States must shoulder their responsibility and set down to the task of reforming their economies and their welfare state, thereby making room for sustainable growth and employment. Now that economic growth is back on the cards, the necessary reforms are at risk of being shelved, but growth alone is insufficient to keep our social model intact.

Could the Commissioner indicate what the Commission intends to do to avert this danger and implement the conclusions of the Kok report? I hope that the period of reflection will also be discussed, for that is desperately needed. It appears that Europe’s elite is unable to discuss the EU’s future without the excess baggage of a rejected constitution. Nine months of reflection should be sufficient for a first follow-up.

  Wojciech Roszkowski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, it is a great shame that the high-flown talk of implementing the Lisbon Strategy has come to nothing more than words.

The Lisbon Strategy relates in particular to the competitiveness of the Union. As we all know, increasing competitiveness mainly requires an increase in productivity, which in turn threatens jobs. This threat will not materialise if the increase in revenue created by greater productivity is sufficiently high and is not limited to individual countries but also applies to integrated economies such as those of the EU.

However, increased productivity requires not only the implementation of technological advances, but also the relocation of production from locations where it is more expensive to those where it is cheaper. The increase in revenue resulting from these activities will be beneficial to all in the Union, while abandoning the process threatens to result in stagnation and decreased competitiveness, as the world does not stand still. Therefore we must choose either certain stagnation or a risk which could pay off.

We should not be afraid of the Lisbon Strategy. It is an opportunity for us all.

  Alessandro Battilocchio (NI). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking on behalf of the new Italian Socialist Party. Our view is that the actions to achieve the Lisbon goals – growth, employment and competitiveness – have been few in number and lacking in clarity.

More support is required for small and medium-sized enterprises, the core of our industrial fabric, such as improved access to credit, European finance and research and technology programmes, as well as better defence of high-quality European industry against unfair international competition – I refer, for example, to the textile and food sectors.

We need an energy plan to free Europe from the current geopolitical instability, and maximum attention should be devoted to new sources of energy in order to ensure sustainable and durable development – also on an environmental level.

In specific terms, we need to invest in education, training, research and innovation in order to render our production processes competitive. Finally, we need to safeguard our primary resource – workers and human capital.

We must not allow our citizens’ jobs and well being to be viewed as less important than the laws of the market and international trade. We must not forget that industry must be at the service of the workers, not vice versa.

  Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, chairmen, ladies and gentlemen, I do not make a habit of paying compliments, but in this debate it would be really improper not to express any appreciation for the co-rapporteurs Mr Lehne and Mr Goebbels. They deserve our congratulations for the draft resolution they have prepared, which is more than satisfactory and which we back 100%.

It goes without saying that as coordinator of my group in the Lisbon steering group, I would also like to extend my appreciation to the group colleagues who have given the necessary input. The discussion of this resolution was far more constructive in Parliament than last year, and I hope that this bodes well for the hoped-for implementation itself of the renewed strategy for growth and jobs.

The mid-term review seems to be fruitful, the Member States appear to be cooperating, and I wish the most courageous Member States perseverance and the others courage of the conviction to make a start or to pick up pace. We also have a responsibility as a European institution, of course, though, and in this connection I welcome the intentions, from both the Commission and the Council Presidency, to deal with the services directive swiftly and in this connection, to respect the difficult balance we have struck after much hard work in this House.

We are familiar with the nature and extent of the challenge Europe is facing. We like to live well in Europe and we want to keep it that way, but in order to make our dream come true, in order to retain our level of prosperity and keep what we call our social model intact, we must become a competitive global player.

I cannot put it any better than did the German President yesterday: we must be all the better the more expensive we are. We must translate our restlessness into creativity and we must have faith that only by changing can we retain the potential to realise our ambitions. We know what we have to do. Let us act accordingly on all fronts, for there is no other option.

  Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (PSE). – Mr President, the chairman of my group, the PSE Group, has spoken about the necessity for action now. It is time for action. I shall focus upon that. We all know that we have slightly better economic growth, but 2.2% instead of 2.1% growth a year as an average is not creating enough employment to seriously bring down our unemployment of 19.5 million. I therefore fundamentally agree with President Barroso and the President of the European Council. We need more growth.

I have two short questions. Number one: investment. President of the Commission, do you envisage that at the forthcoming European Council meeting the governments can get together – perhaps we do not have the capacity and powers in the Treaty to force them – to make a sort of intergovernmental agreement to decide to invest in the next two to three years in the goals you have recommended in your papers and recommendations? If you could envisage that, I would be happy because then we will have taken a step towards coordinated investment action.

Secondly, I was happy to see that the Employment Council took a decision on flexi-security on the basis of the proposals from the Commission. President-in-Office, do you envisage that the conclusions will ensure not only flexibility, but also modern security? In France I see a government which only focuses on flexibility and I have seen the reactions of the young people. That is why it is so necessary that we ensure both. I would like your response and if you could give us that response today it would be very timely and wise.

It is time to deliver and I hope that we will all join forces. I will do what I can in the European Socialist Party and I know that my colleague, our group chairman, will do what he can to deliver, because it is now time and people expect us to do that.

  Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM). – (SV) Mr President, I want to offer a few general reflections on the whole Lisbon Agenda. In my view, it is based on a misunderstanding of the way in which economies – and, for that matter, human civilisations – develop in the course of history.

There was a period in history – beginning at the end of the eighteenth century and continuing through the nineteenth - when Europe became the world’s most dynamic knowledge-based region. It began with changes in the United Kingdom, including legislation on economic issues and the abolition of the guild system. Huge and rapid progress was made, which spread incredibly quickly to large parts of the world. Other countries too began to use steam engines and the spinning jenny. That is how development proceeds.

The idea that there might today exist unusually wise people who know in detail what measures European countries should take in order to help Europe develop into a dynamic knowledge-based region is quite wrong. It is the countries themselves that try to find their way towards solutions, keeping an eagle eye on each other and copying constructive solutions. That is how development proceeds. To go on as we are doing now will set us thinking in the wrong way. We should occupy ourselves with proper issues in the European Union.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, the next spring European Council will have to respond to the challenges of our time, including those presented by the environment and by energy policy. The expectations of our young people will have to be taken into account, and there will be a duty to recognise our ever growing number of older people. All this presupposes the adaptation of our infrastructures. Our society is undergoing huge changes, and that is what worries people. We need, therefore, to help them out by anticipating the difficulties of the next few decades.

The all-encompassing welfare state of the Eighties is no longer the answer. We have to reconcile flexibility and security, to find other ways of according priority to employment and to give our fellow citizens their confidence back – confidence in their politics and in a Europe that is getting its act together. It is a confidence that would spontaneously give a boost to growth, as well as to the birth rate, which is a good barometer of the state of our society. It is a confidence that would lead to immigration being considered a great opportunity and that, instead of hampering private initiative, would free it up and encourage and support it. This restored confidence would enable us to train our researchers better and then to keep hold of them. It is in the interests of a more successfully knowledge-based society that we should do these things, although, in view of what is happening with Erasmus, there is genuine reason to be worried about the prospects for such a society. Finally, this is a Europe that would be without taboos and that would therefore dare to talk in terms of nuclear power and of independence where energy sources are concerned. I could give many more examples of what it could do.

What is the point of speeches, however, without an appropriate budget? We are now told, Mr Barroso, that a choice will have to be made between the trans-European networks and Galileo. Is that possible? No, it is not. Galileo is needed, and the internal market needs to be completed by means of better communications. Allow me, moreover, to put in a word here for the Lyon-Turin rail link.

I do not, then, want this morning to be the umpteenth occasion for talking about the Lisbon Strategy. Words, words, words … It is time to translate words into action. I would call on the Heads of Government to take their courage in both hands. The Lisbon Strategy is the only antidote to the various forms of national protectionism.

  Jan Andersson (PSE). – (SV) Mr President, I shall use this brief minute to concentrate on an amendment by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament in which we welcome the proposal by the Heads of Government of six countries that a European pact for equality between women and men be set up.

We propose measures in three areas. We wish, firstly, to reduce the imbalance between the sexes in the labour market; secondly, to make it easier to combine gainful employment and parenthood; and, thirdly, to introduce an equality perspective, to be followed up in all policy areas.

The purpose of this equality pact is not to create a new process but to reinforce already existing processes, such as the Lisbon one, so that the objectives of sustainable growth, full employment and social justice become attainable. The objectives in terms of child care and of being able to combine gainful employment and parenthood are particularly important.

  Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE). – Mr President, the meeting of the Council later this month will provide an opportunity for Member State governments to affirm the vital need for reform to proceed more rapidly than it has before.

On two issues I believe that the Council should speak clearly and forcefully in its conclusions. In the light of the Commission document ‘Time to move up a gear’, launched in January, this is certainly not a time for drivers to now run out of fuel. I am delighted that Mr Barroso seems to be running on high-octane fuel and long may that continue, but the rising tide of protectionist rhetoric and protectionist actions by Member State governments is unacceptable. It is extraordinary that the European Union should still have governments wedded to an outdated protectionist mentality and the promotion of economic and industrial patriotism.

I welcome the Commission’s statements condemning that drift. I welcome the recent comments of the German Economics Minister, who said that we do not need industrial patriotism and said that foreign investors should be welcomed with open arms, not just tolerated. If the national reform plans submitted by governments are anything like those provided by the United Kingdom Government, then heaven help us.

The debate on protectionism goes to the heart of the debate on future economic development. There is no room for the policies we have seen of late. The time for diplomatic niceties has passed. We must allow the voice of small and medium-sized businesses to be heard.

On the Services Directive, the compromise package agreed by Parliament must be improved upon by governments. We have made progress, but not enough. The Council should get its act together on the Doha Round and work harder towards world trade agreements.

I am afraid that at the moment the jury is out. I urge the European Council to show the same vigour and determination as Mr Barroso. I urge it to avoid the usual fudge at the meeting later this month and give some real leadership. Then we can judge it on its resolve and we can then give our verdict.

  Maria Berger (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, even Mr Poettering, in his opening statement today, finds himself obliged to criticise the Austrian Presidency’s representation – specifically the absence of Chancellor Schüssel – and it may well be the case that that absence has something to do with the fact that the news that the Austrian Presidency had to convey is very far from being either something to boast about or even adequate. Such a thankless task is one that he is happy to leave to someone else.

The message is modest and inadequate in terms of the objectives, particularly of the intended reduction in unemployment, if we bear in mind just how much unemployment there is and what we originally intended that the Lisbon process should achieve; it is not merely modest and inadequate, but also false, in terms of the means to be applied – these goals, modest though they are, will not be achieved by structural reforms alone.

The EU and the Member States must get their hands on more money. If you do not pay up, the band does not play – that, too, we learned from Mozart.

  Jacek Emil Saryusz-Wolski (PPE-DE). – Mr President, a competitive European economy as set by the Lisbon Agenda cannot be built upon insecure gas and oil deliveries. It cannot be built on differentiated and uneven access to and security of energy supplies. It is contrary to the logic of the single market and competition principles. It is welcome, therefore, that security of energy supply constitutes one of the Presidency’s and Commission’s priorities.

It is high time that the Union undertook concrete action in this field. Security of energy supply is crucial for the economic activity and competitiveness of the EU economy as a whole. Energy, as we have witnessed recently, is also sometimes used as a weapon for exerting political influence. Hence, it should also be considered within the context of foreign and security policy of the Union.

Recent problems with energy supply expose our weakness, vulnerability and dependence on third parties. Therefore it is essential for the EU to develop a true energy security policy. If we treat the internal market and the Lisbon Agenda seriously, we should endow our economic operators and citizens with equal access to and security of energy supplies. Steps taken by the Presidency, and especially the Commission’s Green Paper, are going in the right direction, although they are too modest.

Solidarity is one of the main principles of European integration; it creates an obligation to assist all those states that are in difficulty. We must extend this principle of solidarity to problems related to energy supply shortages caused by political action. What we need in securing external energy supplies is cooperation and solidarity, not competition between Member States.

Energy security also has a financial aspect: the biggest cutbacks in the Financial Perspective, as agreed by the Council, occurred in the field of trans-European energy networks. We have to remedy that situation in the course of budgetary trialogue, otherwise our priorities will remain on paper.

Energy security also constitutes one of the cornerstones of the neighbourhood policy. Close cooperation in the energy security field is indispensable and the most effective confidence-building measure, both within the European Union as well as between the Union and its neighbours.

  Gary Titley (PSE). – Mr President, there are three priorities for the spring summit – action, action, action: action on the fact that over a third of our working-age population is economically inactive, which is a disgrace. You cannot embrace globalisation while abandoning large numbers of our citizens. We need proactive labour markets.

We need to take action on the implementation of legislation: too many Member States are not implementing legislation they have agreed to and, frankly, that is a situation which is unacceptable.

Finally, 13 years after creating the single market, it is time we accepted that there is a European single market which demands European champions, not national champions.

So, let us see less of the talk of this summit and instead see many more plans for concrete action from Member States. Deliver, do not talk!

  Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, this debate is about the spring summit and we have a fine resolution with splendid recommendations. After all, the European public are still being promised more growth and more jobs, but let us not pull the wool over each other’s eyes, for paper can wait. When after the summit, next week, the Heads of Government return to their capitals, they must also take with them ownership of Lisbon, for it is the Member States, in tandem with the social partners, national and regional politicians, who will ultimately bring about an increase in employment.

The message to the Member States is both simple and clear. The internal market must become a reality, come what may. More should be done in the area of research and development; innovation must be supported and education and training must be organised on a more efficient and better-quality footing. The Lisbon Strategy also has a social dimension, though. We will not become competitive if we reduce our principles and values on solidarity with the weakest, our citizens’ own responsibility, social justice or wages to such a level that we start to compete with our Asian competitors. That is not the European answer that will inspire public confidence.

Reforms are necessary, though. Demographic change, in the shape of an ageing population and a declining birth rate, must be addressed. We should summon up the nerve to scrutinise the ways in which social security systems are funded, for the demographic reality is drawing nearer at ever-increasing speed. There is no point in pondering an entrepreneur-friendly climate or lifelong learning, if we fail to deliver. There is work to be done.

We have arranged the European structural programmes in such a way as to ensure that three quarters, or 55 billion, will contribute to the Lisbon objectives, and if the funds for those programmes are lacking, or if the Member States are not prepared to pay up, then I have to conclude that growth and employment in line with Lisbon will not be achieved.

As far as the ageing population and the declining numbers of young people are concerned, we will need to adjust social security and employment policy in such a way that active young people and fit elderly people can make their contributions to society in the near future, to prosperity and happiness for our citizens.

  Libor Rouček (PSE). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, today I would like to talk about two of the issues which I regard as highly important to fulfilling the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy, or in other words growth and employment. The first of these is the completion of the single internal market. It seems that the concept of the four freedoms underpinning the European Union is something that, sadly, often exists only on paper. We took a very important step here last month with the first reading of the Services Directive. I firmly believe that this was a step in the right direction, but I would like to say something about the free movement of persons. The report from the European Commission, which has already been mentioned here, stresses that labour mobility, not only between the new and old Member States, but also within the ‘old’ EU, is still insufficient. And yet it is precisely this mobility upon which economic growth relies. The second of these issues is the approval of the Financial Perspective.

Ladies and gentlemen, if we do not have the Financial Perspective by the middle of the year, Europe will face a crisis. An economic crisis, a political crisis and also, I fear, a crisis of confidence. I would therefore call on all three institutions to work hard at this issue so that the Financial Perspective will be, so to speak, ‘home and dry’ by the end of June, or in other words by the end of the Austrian Presidency.

  John Bowis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, firstly I would like to thank President Abbas for giving me this unexpected opportunity to contribute to this debate. I thank Lisbon for giving us the Agenda, and the son of Lisbon on the Commission front bench for his leadership of that Agenda. There is nothing more important to Europe than to ensure that the Lisbon Agenda succeeds. That is the way to give our people new hope that Europe will contribute to their futures and that we can cooperate together to give new hope to other parts of the world as well.

I want to highlight two aspects of the Agenda highlighted in this resolution. The first is the health of the people of Europe, because I believe that is a prerequisite of Lisbon. Without healthy people you do not have a healthy economy. It is important that we look first at some of the health threats that we are facing, including the possibility of a flu pandemic, and at health opportunities such as those now arising from patient mobility, and see these as part of the Agenda.

As my colleagues have said, we need to look at the ageing population to ensure that ageing is an opportunity, and not just a burden. We need to see a healthy environment too as a prerequisite for our economy. That too is not a threat. The opportunities for business to innovate and meet the demands of the higher standards that we expect in our environment will stand them in good stead vis-à-vis the rest of the world. We have the opportunity to lead the world on sustainability, on innovation, on eco-labelling and so forth, and I believe that is a challenge that the Commission must take up with Parliament.

Lastly, let me give credit and pay tribute to the Austrian Presidency for the work it has been doing in both these areas, in relation both to a healthy people and a healthy environment, because that will lead to the healthy economy that Lisbon can bring us all in the very near future.

  Edit Herczog (PSE). – (HU) Mr President, on 15 March, Hungary remembers the fight for freedom and revolution of 1848. Looking back, we can say that the lasting results of the revolution have been the change in the economic system, the freedom of people and the continuing competitiveness of the country.

Today, competition is no longer between nation-states, but between continents, at a global level. Therefore, lasting competitiveness, too, must be created at this level. The European Union needs a serious change in its economic philosophy. We must, at last, switch from the outdated, unproductive competition between Member States to a European internal market ensuring the highest level of freedom and human dignity to its citizens.

The Lisbon Strategy is not only a five-ten year plan, but the foundation of our competitiveness and survival for the next 100-150 years. In 1848, politicians understood the message of the times and spearheaded the change. I ask the Council, the Commission, Parliament and the Prime Ministers preparing for the spring summit to finally understand and implement the message of the 21st century. This is what we, European citizens, expect of them.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in March 2000, European leaders decided on the shape of Europe in 2010. They had understood that the actions of individual Member States would be even more effective if supported by joint action from their fellow Member States.

Today, the growing gap between European growth and that of the United States and Asia, as well as the ageing of the population, require the Lisbon Strategy to be implemented urgently in order to make up for lost time. Moreover, it will be possible to achieve better results by adopting the additional measures and structural changes agreed within the European Union.

Timely intervention is needed in the sectors previously identified, in order to make Europe more attractive for researchers and scientists, to complete the internal market in order to permit the free movement of goods and capital, and to create a genuine single market for services. In order to create a more favourable climate for companies, the recommendations of the European Employment Taskforce need to be implemented rapidly.

Individual Member States have made progress in some of these sectors, but none of them has obtained positive and lasting results. To achieve its goals, Europe must show a far stronger commitment, even bringing pressure to bear on individual Member States. The Member States must give up their old national habits and devote more resources to building Europe. The citizens must be made to understand that today’s sacrifices are tomorrow’s advantages.

The European Parliament is a key player in the strategy for growth and in the commitment to build the new Europe. It therefore has to act increasingly as a stimulus for all parties interested in relaunching Europe.

  Reino Paasilinna (PSE). – (FI) Mr President, we have obviously now driven ourselves into a corner of the Union. The majority of the Member States are slowing down the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy for totally selfish reasons, and for short-sighted ones too. Every week, for example, we lag badly behind the United States of America and Japan in terms of investment in information and communications technology. At the same time, China and India are competing with us ever more fiercely. We are completely stuck, and we are going nowhere.

The Nordic countries, however, have maintained peak levels of competitiveness, the welfare state and a large knowledge base. That has happened now. I would ask Mr Barroso, President of the European Commission, whether it is possible that you have the sort of southern temperament to pass this example on to those who are still afraid of the bold solutions which we adopted a long time ago. It has not turned us upside down, and not even the cold winter has made us change direction. In other words, it is possible; why should it not be?

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE-DE). – (SV) Mr President, when we discuss the Lisbon process, we can see how different countries are succeeding with it to greater or lesser degrees. Those countries that have implemented reforms and changes are coping that much better with globalisation and managing to be that much more competitive. Those that have not introduced reforms are faring less well.

What is remarkable, though, is how little has in actual fact happened at a common European level and the limited degree to which we have given new companies, services and markets more room to expand and products more scope for development. The Commission’s primary and overarching task is to combat the new protectionism we see developing among governments and politicians in Europe. This new protectionism is directed against the new Member States and the world outside where the big future markets exist. However, it is directed against the old Member States, too, in relations between which it is also increasingly to be found.

If the Lisbon process is to be managed successfully, the main task is that of combating this protectionism, which contravenes the Treaty and everything that European integration stands for. Europe has fantastic potential, and where we have implemented reforms we have been successful. Look, for example, at the telecommunications market, where we are most successful of all.

What the Commission must do is drive home the importance of safeguarding the free trade that is at the root of Europe’s prosperity. It should be positive about globalisation, but it should, above all, be sure to implement measures leading to more new companies and new jobs. It must be the results that count, and not the objectives. Then, we shall be able to give Europe a new future.

  Edite Estrela (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, Mr Barroso, I wish to make just a couple of points. In order to achieve the objectives of growth and job creation, gender mainstreaming in the Lisbon Strategy needs to be enhanced, especially in the broad economic policy guidelines and the employment guidelines. We need to raise the rate of employment among women, develop an active ageing strategy and build a society characterised by lifelong learning.

The second point relates to the financial perspective. There is an urgent need for an interinstitutional agreement. There is no time to waste. The Council, the Commission and Parliament must act quickly to reach agreement. The citizens of Europe will not accept any more postponement. The time has come to ‘Lisbonise’ the EU and adopt a budget that will promote growth and more and better jobs for all, including women. Without women, the Lisbon Strategy will not be a success.

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I promise that I shall keep this as brief as possible. Many important and interesting things have been said on this subject, and I can assure Mr Poettering and Mrs Berger that the Federal Chancellor, even though he is absent, is following very closely what your House has to say. It goes without saying that what you have to say will have an important part to play in the preparations. I would like to tell Mrs Berger that my being here today must not be taken as an indication of any lack of ambition; on the contrary, the Austrian Presidency has the ambition of joining with the Commission in achieving great things for the benefit of Europe’s citizens.

I can also tell Mr Schulz that we are of course well aware of the need to deploy the necessary financial resources. We are not talking here only about European resources, but also about national resources, and their quality and efficiency are what matter; for we should not always consider only the quantity of resources, but should also take care that the right resources are deployed in the right place.

Mr Watson, I certainly agree with you that there are many subjects which the European Council ought to deal with, but with limited time not everything can be dealt with.

As to your reference to Metternich, I assure you that Metternich is not a role model for us. His way of seeing Europe is not the way we see Europe. We do not want a directory of five big countries that rule the rest. Let us recall that he was the head of a police state, which we do not want either.

(DE) What I would like to tell Mrs Harms is that sustainability does of course play a major role in the European Union, and I can remind the House that the sustainability strategy is to be revised before mid-2006. I can assure you that sustainability will also, of course, play a large part in everything that the Council and the Commission endeavour to do.

I also have something to say to Mr Bonde. I would like to firmly repudiate the idea that those states that wish to exercise their sovereign rights by pressing on with the process of ratifying the constitutional treaty are acting illegally.

(Applause from the right)

I would refer you to the decision of the June European Council, which, in ordering the period of reflection, also stated explicitly that the validity of continuing with the ratification process is not to be called into question.

I believe that the Council is going full steam ahead in order to achieve the goals we have set ourselves.

It might very well be, Mr Kirkhope, that the Council does not operate on high octane, unlike the President of the Commission. Maybe we operate more on biofuel, in accordance with the spirit of our time.

(DE) Several speakers mentioned, in this context, the Commission’s ‘better lawmaking’ initiative, and for this I would like to thank in particular Commissioner Verheugen, who is here with us today, and encourage him to press on with this initiative, for it is the sort of initiative that the public understand and that brings the European Union closer to them once more.

Mr Rasmussen and others mentioned the issue of ‘flexicurity’, and I can confirm and emphasise that we are concerned here with flexibility through security as an overarching paradigm for reforms in the fields of labour law and social policy. It goes without saying that the intention here is to achieve a balanced relationship between flexibility and security on the European labour markets.

Mr Titley, I agree with you that action is needed, because this will convince our citizens. We, together with the Commission, are determined to take the right steps towards taking this action.

  Günther Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although ‘growth’ and ‘employment’ are the keywords of the Lisbon Strategy, it seems to me that they need again to be clarified.

When we, in twenty-first century Europe, use the term 'growth', we cannot be talking about any kind of growth other than that which is sustainable, socially defensible and environmentally responsible. Anything else would mean that we had learned nothing from past decades, and I ask that that be taken to heart once and for all. When the Commission talks about growth, it is talking in terms of sustainable growth, which involves environmental innovation, energy efficiency, competition for higher quality rather than for lower social standards, lower environmental standards or lower wages, so I hope that is now clear once and for all.

When we talk about jobs, we are not talking about just any old jobs, for we have come to recognise that the great social question of our time is whether we will, in amidst the storms of globalisation, succeed in making available sufficient well paid and skilled jobs. That is the big issue with which we have to deal. Our concern is not with just any old jobs; what matters is that they should be jobs that will last in times when competition is getting tougher.

The consequence of that in our present situation is that certain clear demands must be made of the Member States, which must be told quite firmly that the time for a change of course is now upon us. Now is the time for us to take – and with all the determination we can muster – the step into the knowledge-based society. We cannot afford any societies in Europe whose educational policies exclude rather than foster or discriminate against people rather than integrating them. We need an education policy that makes the fullest possible use of this continent’s reserves of education.

We cannot afford social policies that, while allowing young women to get a good education, do not thereafter give them the chance to make something of it for lack of any compatibility between family life and working life, and we cannot afford social policies that simply spit older workers out of the production process because it is believed that they are no longer needed. Today, none of these things is a viable proposition any longer, and our strategy makes that abundantly clear.

We also affirm that the European single market, a policy that faces up to international competition, is good for growth and employment, and it is for that reason that this Commission does not believe in economic patriotism of any kind whatever. We wish to reiterate that those who want a big European internal market must also accept the fact that businesses are coming into being in order to operate in it without reference to borders.

(Applause)

If there is to be a European market, there must also be European enterprises. The Commission notes with concern the renationalisation of economic thinking in some parts of the European Union and warns against it, for – as almost all speakers today have said – the right way is to address Europe’s problems together.

I also, though, have something to say to European businesses. For years now, we have been pursuing a policy of improving conditions for European businesses, but what we expect of them now, at a time when the biggest of them are doing better than ever before, is that they should be aware of their responsibility for Europe as a business location. Businesses are not only under an obligation to make short-term profits; they also have a responsibility for the site where they make them.

(Applause)

If a company undergoing structural change resorts to making staff redundant, then the primary responsibility for this does not lie with policymakers; on the contrary, we are dealing in such a case with a failure on the part of the business, for businesses can recognise in good time when structural change is going to become necessary and when it has to be set in motion, and we demand of European businesses that they do more to give structural change a positive outcome. Laying staff off is always the worst way to handle it, and it is one to which they must not have recourse.

(Applause)

There is something else we must say to European businesses, however: It is that it is possible to grow by using high business profits to create new products, to develop new technologies and new capacities, rather than only to buy up other businesses.

I would like to point out – in the most friendly way possible – that all our experience with the buying-up of businesses over the past twenty years has shown, in the vast majority of cases, no positive effect on the business or on the economy as a whole. I would prefer it if European companies were to use the huge profits they have made in recent times to invest in new research and production capacities in Europe rather than for funding campaigns to take over other businesses.

There is also something that members of parliaments need to do. It has been complained, and quite rightly, that the general public have not been involved in developing the strategy for growth and employment. That is a task for national policy-makers and national parliaments.

I ask you, ladies and gentlemen, to talk to your counterparts in the national parliaments in the countries from which you come, and get this issue put on the national policy agenda. It is, after all, no part of the Commission’s business to prompt opposition politicians in the Member States to do their jobs and to ensure that this issue is put on the agenda. That is for parliamentarians to do, so I really do urge you to bring your influence to bear here, for only if we succeed in setting in motion a broad political debate in the Member States and their legislatures will we succeed in creating the necessary awareness of the need for a joint effort, not only by policymakers, but also on the part of the public, if our competitiveness is to be unimpaired.

(Lively applause)

  Martin Schulz (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to warmly thank Commissioner Verheugen for the speech he has just delivered, which was an excellent one. With my headphones on, I was able to listen to it, although I have to say, Mr President, that if I had not used them I would scarcely have been able to understand it, the House’s loudspeakers notwithstanding.

(Applause)

There is no point in you, in your characteristically amicable way, speaking your own language into the microphone to tell the Members to sit down; the fact is that they will not understand you if what you say is not interpreted for them. If you wanted to get them to sit down, you ought to have wielded the gavel.

I would just like to address a request to the House, and I do so as one of its own Members. I do not think it is acceptable if we are unable to exercise the very minimum of courtesy and listen to those who address us.

(Applause)

  President. I hope that everyone here will treat what has been said seriously. I accept the criticism and will therefore call Members to order either in a more widely-spoken EU language or using the gavel.

I have received two motions for resolutions⁽¹⁾ tabled pursuant to Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday at 12 noon.

IN THE CHAIR: MR TRAKATELLIS
Vice-President

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Mr President, I just want to raise a small housekeeping point. Some of us have received no e-mails since 11 O’clock this morning, except through webmail. I do not know how many this concerns, because there is more than one server. However, one server is down and it was down for a while yesterday morning as well. I believe this is a problem particularly related to Strasbourg, which, of course, is another joy of coming here.

(Applause)

Could you please ensure that the administration gives priority to solving this problem, which is deeply inconvenient?

(Applause)

  President. – We shall bear it in mind, Mrs Ludford.

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE). – (SV) Mr President, it was specifically Rule 140 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure to which I intended to refer. This states that we are entitled to consult documents directly via Parliament’s internal computer system. I should like you to review the agreement with the private company that is supposed to provide this service. It is in both our democratic and economic interests to do so.

  President. – Thank you very much. We shall look into it.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Richard Corbett (PSE). – The spring meeting of the European Council looking at Europe’s economy takes place just at the moment of an outbreak of protectionism in a number of European Countries, especially France.

President Chirac often tries to portray France as a champion of European integration and blames other countries for any perceived lack of enthusiasm. Yet France’s record of applying EU law is one of the worst, its attitude to trans-frontier mergers is obstructionist, it has deliberately failed to meet its obligations under the stability and growth pact and it has consistently slowed down the pace of CAP reform.

The European Council should be an opportunity for other Member States to press France to put its house in order.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE-DE). – (FR) Themes linked to competitiveness and growth have always been at the heart of the Lisbon Strategy.

Today – and I want very much to say how excellent a development this is – the resolution on which we are to vote introduces the social dimension. The resolution must not be regarded as extending the time it will take to achieve the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy as it will, for example, give all European Union nationals access to a high-level education and to lifelong learning. I would point out the importance of a European exchange programme for apprentices.

I should also like to emphasise the role played by small and medium-sized enterprises in achieving the Lisbon objectives. Such enterprises are among the main sources of tomorrow’s jobs. We must therefore provide ourselves with the resources for removing the obstacles that stand in the way of these companies, particularly the smallest ones, and, over and above that, give them resources for innovation. Hence, the importance of an ambitious budget for the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP).

As you will have appreciated, I deplore the lack of a budget to match the ambitions of the Lisbon Strategy and hope that we shall manage to improve the financial perspective with a view to remedying this situation.

(1) See Minutes