Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it was three years ago that the European Council, meeting in Lisbon, decided on a thoroughly ambitious strategy, according to which the European Union was to become the world's most competitive and dynamic economic area by 2010, and was to do so on the basis of qualified knowledge. This was intended to achieve lasting growth, along with full employment, more and better jobs, and greater social cohesion. Were we too ambitious, too euphoric? Were not today's crises foreseeable even then? Eurostat tells us that we currently have almost 14 million unemployed. The primary causes of this are the failure to resolve structural problems in the Member States, such as bloated bureaucracies, the distortion of competition by the failure to remove subsidies, and extremely high unemployment among women, young people, older workers and people with disabilities. Official figures indicate that there are 4.7 million unemployed in Germany alone, the highest level for five years, and the wave of bankruptcies among its businesses and the high level of taxes and duties, which spare neither businesses nor private citizens, are set to reach record levels. There is no doubt that the European employment strategy has achieved successes by coordinating national, regional and local employment policies. Although the subsidiarity principle has been adhered to, the continual expansion of the European employment strategy, from horizontal objectives to the Four Pillars, has led to constant reductions in its effectiveness. I agree with the Council and the Commission in their assessment that the new guidelines should be tightened up for the sake of greater efficiency. We need, above all, evidence of their having been transposed and of resultant changes in labour markets. Whatever the orientation in the medium term – the Commission proposed three years – it is my view that we must keep checking up on an annual basis whatever happens, so that there will be healthy pressure on the Member States, some of which have problems with implementing their National Action Plans. What we need is voluntary undertakings, of the same calibre, let me add, as the Stability and Growth Pact, and these elements must not then be altered in the way they once were when the stimulation of growth and investment are high up the agenda. Strict adherence to the Pact is the foundation for stability, for confidence on the part of the markets and the public, and so economic dynamism and employment are essentially dependent on it. The one is inseparable from the other. The new thing about the European employment strategy is the adherence to three priorities: firstly, getting as close as possible to the Lisbon employment rates of 70% for men and 60% for women up to and including 2010; secondly, improved quality of work, the direct effect of which is to increase productivity; and thirdly, the opening up of the labour markets to the vulnerable and those on the margins of society. Jobs call for the right financial framework conditions. The tax laws of many Member States are inimical to enterprise and employment. Far from there being further increases in taxes, these should be reduced. Consumers and enterprises must have the burdens lifted from them, and administrative expenditure must be reduced. We must get back to job creation being worth it in financial terms. Reducing VAT on services up to the end of this year was the right way to go about it. I propose that there should be more mini-jobs subject to reduced taxation and levies, quite independent of full-time jobs rather as an alternative to them – as I am alleged to have said. It is always a matter of balance between, on the one hand, greater flexibility, and, on the other, long-term security. Above all, small and medium-sized enterprises need favourable conditions, for they are, after all, the driving force behind employment, providing as they do 70% of all jobs and 80% of all traineeships. I have not contented myself with generalised commitments to support for SMEs, but have made very specific demands. They range from the making available of venture capital at favourable rates via favourable tax treatment for start-ups to the speeding-up of approval procedures, from networks for people starting up businesses to ways of freeing them from bureaucracy. Different experiences at national level meant that there was intensive debate on these proposals in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, but together we achieved compromises with some reservations. Let me, at this point, thank all the groups' shadow rapporteurs for their constructive suggestions. We learned a great deal together and from each other. We can also expect employment to receive impetus from more flexible ways of organising work, such as contract work and part-time jobs, from which women benefit in harmonising work and family. We call on the Member States to do more to provide childcare facilities and tax benefits for the people who work in them. Flexibility is also of benefit to the long-term unemployed, to those starting work and to those with few qualifications, who can acquire new employment skills. Too little attention is paid to demographic change and the lack of specialists. The way people are treated when they are in their fifties is not acceptable; many of these, who find themselves laid off and excluded are willing and able to work, and want to learn more. They want more training and can take the strain. Experience is a bonus; it cannot be a defect. One final thought: if this new European employment strategy focuses on the three priorities I have mentioned, we may well not have long to wait for effective changes in our labour markets, and so we will be taking a significant step closer to the Lisbon targets.

Political group: PPE-DE