Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the , I should like to use the three minutes at my disposal to make a few telegraphic-style comments. First of all, as regards the diagnosis of the current situation, I shall not labour the point that the traditional economic, social and environmental indicators are not very good. The reports from the Commission are fairly clear on this matter. There are three points I should like to emphasise which have not featured very often in this debate. The first thing that strikes me is the diversity of conditions among the various countries of the Union. If you look at countries such as Denmark, Sweden or Finland, you see economies which maintain high social and environmental standards and are also globally competitive. These examples should give us food for thought. It therefore seems to me that any sweeping statements about the European economic situation need to be put into sharper focus. The second point that strikes me about the diagnosis relates to job creation. I never hear any mention of the need for differentiation between strategies adopted for areas of economic activity that are fully immersed in the maelstrom of international competition, for commercial activities that are relatively well protected from international competition and for non-commercial activities. And yet many analyses show us that these last two areas offer the greatest scope for job creation. The third and final point, which is rarely heard in this assessment, is an evaluation of liberalisation: are we really sure that liberalisation actually improves the supply situation, that it encourages innovation and that, as Mr Monti likes to repeat, it lowers prices? I am not so sure. I believe it has created numerous oligopolies. Mr President-in-Office, our concern with regard to this European Council summit is as follows: whenever we read your presidency papers, and when we read the letter from the Conservative and Socialist Prime Ministers and Heads of State who gathered in Berlin, we fear that the progress made by the European Council in Gothenburg is being rolled back, in other words that we are returning to the old ‘either-or’ philosophy which says that high environmental standards and social provisions guaranteeing a certain standard of living are incompatible with competitiveness and job creation. This is an old chestnut. It has surfaced again in connection with the REACH programme, for example. If the European Council wants to make constructive proposals, I would commend to it the adoption of an industrial policy that benefits the environment. How can it be that the Commission presents a good paper on environmental technology but does not accompany it with a road map for the funding and implementation of its proposals? To supplement the funds provided by the European Investment Bank, why should we not moot the idea of a grand European public loan to fund sustainable development, since we are in a part of the world where savings are in great abundance and serve to fund the US deficits? Finally, Mr Solbes, as regards prices policy or, to be more precise, the redirection of state aid and subsidies, Ecofin was supposed to present a five-year plan designed to phase out the subsidisation of environmentally harmful activities. Nothing has happened. Ensuring that prices reflect the true cost of production, including the social cost, would be another task for the Ecofin Council. Lastly, in order to move the process forward, it would also be desirable to make use of European legislation on public procurement, which permits recourse to environmental technology. I could say a lot more, but three minutes is such a short time for such a broad subject.

Political group: Verts-ALE