Mr President, it was gratifying to listen to Commissioner Vitorino. Our work can have practical results, something which is needed. We have economic stagnation and growing problems in the labour markets in the EU. The resulting antagonisms concerning ‘the right policy’ are increasing, something we have noticed in this Parliament too. It has been my great ambition throughout my work as rapporteur to try, despite the difficulties, to unite Parliament behind a common policy. The basis for this policy was the Lisbon strategy, according to which economic and technological development should be combined with a concentration on work of good quality, cooperation between the parties, production and, especially, solidarity with weak groups. We have therefore put forward a range of proposals. I am able to summarise them very briefly now, because Commissioner Vitorino has already commented on some of them. Firstly, we have proposed increased attention to unemployment. That is important, for it is not enough just to increase levels of employment, as is done in periods of prosperity. That is not the same as combating unemployment. There can be access to the labour market at the same time as the long-term unemployed remain long-term unemployed. There is therefore a need for attention to be paid to this area as an important measure of renewal. Secondly, we have placed considerable emphasis on the fact that, in an economic situation like the present one, new jobs and new businesses are needed, something that certainly also requires political initiatives. We are now presenting a programme for entrepreneurship and new jobs that is much more comprehensive than the one contained in the Commission’s guidelines. At the same time, we are maintaining and emphasising our demand for quality, sustainability and a perspective upon the future. Thirdly, we focus much more intently upon the equality perspective than the Commission’s proposal does. Above all, we propose that equality be made into an overarching objective alongside the three objectives proposed by the Commission. The Council is clearly not ready to adopt this as yet, but we should no doubt continue to exercise pressure. It is not the last time we shall have that opportunity. Fourthly, we have put forward clear demands for regional and local employment strategies. I am pleased that there are clear responses to these demands, for it looked rather bad for a time when this feature had disappeared from what was the last guideline. Now, it has been reintroduced, which is important, because there is a need to be able to mobilise people and businesses from below if we are to be able to create the 22 million jobs talked about by Mr Vitorino. Finally, we have agreed to recommend that the Member States’ parliaments adopt positions on the national action plans. They can then be more firmly rooted and combined with national employment policies. The problem has been that European employment policy has not been linked up with, or integrated into, the national policies. There has therefore been a considerable lack of efficiency. I appreciate that the Council is not ready for this, either. Perhaps we ought to go via the Member States and ask certain Member States at some point to raise this issue in the Council. They will then have Parliament’s support. We have also agreed about other issues, a fact I think we can be proud of. We made no less than 16 compromises in the committee and reduced more than 160 amendments to a relatively manageable number. I should naturally be disappointed if, after all these compromises, it emerged that the Group of the European People’s Party were still not completely satisfied. There therefore remains a certain lack of agreement, something upon which I wish to comment shortly. Firstly, the Group wishes to strengthen the Commission’s wording on immigration and immigrant labour and does not want this matter to be addressed in the guidelines. Yes, this is a ‘hot potato’ in a number of Member States, but that cannot be helped. Irrespective of whether they border upon the EU or are in a particularly exposed position, all European countries face a common global reality whereby we are seeing increased immigration across our borders, something we must deal with in a document on employment policy. I am therefore opposed to Amendment No 62. Another disagreement concerns tax policy. There are quite a few amendments about this. I think that tax systems are very national in character. If we are to come up with views on this, we must express ourselves in very general terms. It is impossible to produce practical proposals on tax policy for 25 countries. I am therefore opposed to Amendment No 66 by the Group, which is very radical and demands a general reduction in tax for both individuals and businesses in all the Member States but says nothing about how the financial position is to be regarded. In my own country, Sweden, reducing the tax burden is not at all the thing to do, but I appreciate that matters are different in Germany and other countries. In conclusion, I just want briefly to say that the Liberals’ amendments on tax issues are of a quite different character. They are interesting, but very drastic. It is a question of shifting the tax burden from personal taxation to environmental taxation and taxation of consumer goods. That is something I consider to be worthwhile, but it is not something we can probably decide in this type of document. In conclusion, I want to say that we have, in general, reached agreement. It is very important for us to be able to agree upon a document so that we have an answer to give to the Council that is sitting and waiting and will listen to what we are to say today.

Political group: GUE-NGL