Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, it is no coincidence that we are now having a joint debate here on a number of extremely important reports. It is not coincidental at all, because it all concerns the question: are we going to take a new initiative or not. What is the issue? In Lisbon, we took a number of important decisions with a number of concrete objectives. The question now whether or not we can realise those objectives? That is what today’s debate is about. Let me make two observations before I start, two things I find really regrettable. Firstly, and that is understandable in a way, I note the absence of a debate on lifelong learning. That will come later, Parliament will have its say on this, but I regret its absence because the concept of lifelong learning is, in fact, a very important concept that should be an overarching framework for the things we are discussing this evening. I feel the lack of that debate. I also often feel the lack of links to the concept of lifelong learning in a number of the reports. This is understandable because of the timing. The second point a great deal less understandable and I will return to it shortly. Is it not strange that we should be debating education here and do not breathe a word about the Bologna Declaration on the eve of the Prague Summit. We simply have nothing to say on the subject, have we? Let me return to a number of reports before us, very briefly. Mr Perry rightly said that his report tends to be about the past and to a much lesser extent about the future and the present. Rightly, but we can nevertheless learn a great deal from it. Mr Perry is absolutely right when he says that the Commission has not achieved its objectives. The objectives were not concrete, they were not quantifiable, there were no indicators and where is the European value added of that White Paper? Let us reflect on that for a moment. Let us try to define what European value added is. We are again on the eve of a debate on the future of Europe. Certainly there is talk of the debate on ‘demarcation of competence’. Definitely very actively in Belgium on the eve of the Laken Conference. However, what is ‘demarcation of competence’? What is the debate when we are discussing education? It is about subsidiarity. But then let us define that properly and for goodness’ sake don’t let us beat about the bush, we do that all too often. In the report of the Council on the future of education and training systems, there are number of interesting points, and a number of objectives, which I can support, but once again they are vague objectives, no indicators, no methods of measurement and then we are occasionally in danger of becoming bogged down in endless palaver, and we must absolutely not do so with the debate that we are now conducting, following the lead of Lisbon. If we do not succeed in moving towards open European coordination with the European employment guidelines as an obvious example, I do not think we will make any progress. In my previous life, I worked for the Flemish Minister for Employment. Well, in that Ministry, people toiled to implement the European employment guidelines. I wish that the education ministries in all the Member States would toil over a number of concrete objectives in order to convert them into policy, then we would have a true European educational area. To return to Bologna. It is terribly embarrassing. I am scarcely, if ever, addressed as an MEP on European educational policy, except in respect of Bologna. I have received piles of letters and e-mails. Am I supposed to say, I am sorry, it was an intergovernmental method, the European Parliament has nothing to say about it? I would ask you urgently, Commissioner, to take joint responsibility with us for it, because the Bologna Declaration is not just about a number of concrete objectives, but also about the democratisation of education and lifelong learning. If we are unable to make that link I believe we will be missing a chance.

Political group: PSE