Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, we have of course listened with enormous interest to the speech by the President-in-Office of the Council, and, if I may summarise, it was concerned with two issues. Firstly, how to restore confidence in the Lisbon strategy and how to improve the efficiency of its implementation. Mr President, that is at the very heart of the matter. I also think that now is a good time to make this analysis, because the realisation of the Lisbon objectives is under very great strain. In addition, the circumstances have become much more difficult, the economic climate is unfavourable, uncertainties have increased and, as the President of the Commission rightly says, entrepreneurship is extraordinarily difficult at this time. My group therefore welcomes the evaluation report from the Commission. The report offers insight into the achievements of the Member States over the last couple of years with regard to implementing the Lisbon objectives. I must say, however, that the picture is disconcerting. We see extraordinarily sluggish implementation by the Member States and vast disparities in implementation. That also means that the credibility of the Council with regard to the implementation of Lisbon has taken a tremendous blow. You were not wrong when you said that it is necessary to restore confidence. Confidence can only be restored, however, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, if we put an end to the fine words and magnificent plans and actually concentrate on implementation. Therein lies the main problem. And so we say in our resolution: it is time for the Council and the Commission to come up with a roadmap: a roadmap setting out precisely what tangible aims have to be achieved over which period of time; stating that the Council imposes an obligation to make an effort to actually do that, that EU legislation will be implemented and that this is then very carefully maintained, and that there is a coherent, consistent division of tasks between the European Council and the relevant national ministers, because that is generally lacking. The Lisbon document raises a large number of issues, some of which do, but most of which do not, fall within the jurisdiction of the European Union, and for these we have the fine term ‘open coordination’. It would be good, however, if we could have much more clear-cut agreement on how to proceed with this open coordination. As my group sees it, the emphasis would have to be placed on cooperation, on the exchange of best practices, on benchmarking, and also on respecting the role of the national parliaments and of the European Parliament. Lisbon is not a one-man show involving only the European Council, particularly if one were to now lay its achievements on the table. Mr President, the economic and budgetary reform process indicated by the Ecofin Council must be continued. We must then have the courage to take daring decisions. Then we must also get the debate on the revision of the pension system under way. We would call for the three-pillar system to be looked at, under which, of course, the solidarity of the state is maintained, along with the solidarity on the part of trade and industry, and of course individual responsibility. A three-pillar system may, in future, put us in a better position to tackle the problem of an ageing population. It is true that a large number of obstacles would then have to be removed. If we argue in favour of more entrepreneurship, we make it possible to achieve that aim of a 25% reduction. Let us then get down to enacting the European Charter for SMEs, too. Let us also ensure that something is done about the obstacles to the recognition of educational qualifications. If we say 3% R[amp]D, where is the timetable enabling us to ensure that that 3% can be achieved by 2010? It is lacking, so it must be put in place. We have been discussing patents for such a long time now. The intellectual elite, says the President of the Commission, must not leave. Indeed so, but how long will it be before a European patent finally appears? The credibility of the Council rests on this, and at some stage we must take up a position on it. It should not be the case that it is constantly being blocked by a number of the national ministers. Mr President, the knowledge-based economy is key. However, we no longer have any inkling that a significant part of software development, and all the research in the field of the knowledge-based economy, is currently on its way over to Japan because we in Europe have been consistently unable to establish the 3G sector. We are already three years behind Japan and, by the time we do bring it in, we will be five years behind. That is disastrous in a sector like this. I am therefore making an urgent plea to the Council: do not go on discussing the French proposal to give another six or nine billion back to one operator, but instead give some thought to devising a programme that will enable you to actually make 3G a reality in Europe. We need it. To sum up, what is important is not fine words, but deeds, and sending out a strong signal that the Council must actually get down to the business of implementation. What is important is getting a roadmap, so that we can see, in practical terms, who is going to do what and when. What is important is having a good working relationship between the different parts of the Council, and between the European Council and the relevant national ministers, because otherwise we will keep muddling along, and then the intellectual elite really will go to the United States and Europe will remain on the sidelines. Our Europe does not deserve that.

Political group: PPE-DE