Employment results today constitute a key element of the principal objective of Lisbon, set in 2000. As you surely know, this objective is the following. I quote: ‘making the European Union the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion’. We must not forget that Europe has already made considerable progress as we have created six million jobs on the European continent since 1999. That being the case, it is clear that, despite this progress, Europe will not reach the intermediary quantitative objective: to reach an employment rate of 67% by 2005. Today, a major French newspaper used the headline ‘Europe’s growth at a standstill’, growth that will only reach 1.7%. This is the reason why, faced with the observation that the economy is slowing down, we must bring everything into play, and it is the duty of the European Union to react. It is in this context that Mr Wim Kok’s report was produced. This report stressed that there was an urgent need for practical action, by putting in place some decisive measures on a fiscal, social, environmental, research and innovation level in order particularly, in all areas, to create jobs, taking into account, of course, globalisation and the problems linked to the ageing of the population. This requires to a great extent a rapid reaction and good management of the change. This is why we have a duty to choose this change in order not to be subjected to it. This is why, in my report, I wished to insist on the practical implementation of the employment guidelines. Firstly, it is advisable to improve the reaction capacity of businesses and their employees. This requires an adaptation through an increase in levels of human capital and a policy of life-long training, which should be encouraged. This also requires active encouragement of the creation of businesses, particularly small businesses. It is in this spirit (this is the subject of Amendment 7 of the report) that Europe must support networks and partnerships, for example platforms of excellence that link small businesses, research centres, universities and private businesses. Secondly, there is cause to mobilise the working population, indeed the entire population. In this spirit, I recommend (this is the subject of Amendment 5) making the employment of young people a great European cause. Thirdly, it is advisable to launch a huge European plan against de-industrialisation. In this spirit (this is the subject of Amendment 6), it is certainly important that the European Union support the most disadvantaged regions without neglecting the development of the most dynamic areas. This is the subject of Amendment 5. Fourthly, very specific guidance, intended to improve governance. This is, in fact, the conclusion of the Wim Kok report. Improved governance, meaning the need to mobilise all of the players – national parliaments, regional and local players, social partners, trade unions and associations, but also businesses – and also to facilitate, in this spirit, improved access to the structural funds. Until now, Europe has supported the policies of the Member States, but in a spirit of assistance, by adopting a policy of what I would like to call assistance in the form of a crutch, but not in a spirit of economic dynamism. I think that if it is advisable to keep in mind the need to support the most disadvantaged regions, Europe must both show overtly, and demonstrate, to the outside world its ability to be dynamic. Community financing policy must be established in this spirit of economic dynamism. This is very specifically what I would like to say. Furthermore, Mr President, I am sorry that, following the votes that took place yesterday, which were on such important issues as the environmental life cycle, tyres, marmalades and sweetened chestnut purée – all votes of great consequence – we are obliged to discuss employment policy now, and, moreover, without the Council. I am sorry about the conditions under which we have had to produce this report, given the ambiguity that surrounds it. Indeed, you are producing a report on the guidelines, a legislative report, but you cannot amend it because the guidelines have been fixed for the past three years, as if the environmental context, the international, sociological, financial and fiscal context of this matter, were not changing.

Political group: PPE-DE