Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Andersson, very warmly on his report on modernising social protection which is now under discussion. In the capacity of coordinator of the European People’s Party in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, I am very pleased with the compromise which was reached and which Mr Andersson put so much effort into. I am also delighted that he based the report on a report which was written by myself as rapporteur under the previous Parliament and has partly followed the gist of this old report. The goal of the Commission’s notification of June 1999, on which the Andersson report is based, is to reinforce cooperation between the Member States and the EU in terms of social protection. Key sub-goals are: promoting employment and ensuring that work secures a fixed income; secondly, safeguarding old-age pensions and making these affordable; thirdly, promoting social integration and fourthly, guaranteeing affordable, first-rate health protection. Gender-related aspects must feature prominently in all these goals. I believe that congratulations are also in order for the Commission with regard to this notification, for these four points are, in fact, to a very large number of EU citizens extremely important – if not the most important points which merit further thought. The Commission’s communication is an important strategic document for bringing about European social convergence. Macro-economic policy, employment policy and social policy all affect each other and this is why they should be brought more closely together. The Commission has recognised this interrelatedness. It is our intention to bring about an integrated social strategy which is, of course, underpinned by a sound macro-economic strategy and a sound employment strategy. These aspects are very much interconnected. It is, therefore, surprising that this topic has, to date, not been incorporated in a strategy and this is why the Commission’s notification constitutes a break-through in a way. It brings me great joy to witness that the Council now seems to accept this break-through and also wants to bring it to the fore in Lisbon. We should, of course, not get overly excited about it. It marks the beginning, rather than the end, of a process. Some people have wondered whether our demands are too low or whether there should be more dialogue. But it is extremely significant for the process to be set in motion. The issues involved are extremely important but the systems in the European Union are quite different from one another. The challenges are different. The levels of employment are different and this is why it is very important to set the ball rolling gently but to make steady progress nonetheless. In this way, we will be able to meet a number of huge challenges. The majority within my group is of the opinion that something like this needs to happen. The funny thing about the Andersson report is that it does not get bogged down with too many details of how everything should take shape; from this perspective it is not a pie-in-the-sky report. It is a report which tries to give direction. There are, however, one or two aspects about which I have doubts as to whether or not we are being too specific. I think that a number of MEPs will make reference to this. But that does not take away from the fact that the report’s importance mainly lies in the fact that we are developing a strategy and that there is a reasonable chance that it can make a significant contribution in Lisbon. I believe that if it were to be adopted in Lisbon in this way, Lisbon will turn out to be a success. If it is not adopted, Lisbon will not add much to what has already been said in the past. As far as this is concerned, the report, albeit a component, may well be the key component of Lisbon, because it is really innovative, while many other things are merely a rumination of what has been said before. All in all, I am indebted to the rapporteur and the Committee for this report. I hope that Europe, in terms of social protection, will make a step forward, taking into account subsidiarity, for without subsidiarity, this would not be possible.

Political group: PPE-DE