Madam President, I should like to make a few comments regarding the procedure we have followed so far, because that is where the necessary difficulties have arisen. I should also like to say something about Lisbon, about Mr Kok's report on the quality of work, about China and India, and finally about the amendments. As regards procedure, I think that this is the second or third time that we have realised how little time we have when it comes to determining employment guidelines. This causes conflicts among us, beyond the normal political differences, as to how the guidelines should be interpreted, how they should be amended, what needs to be changed and so on. I would suggest a different approach next year; that is a piece of advice to the future presidencies of the Council and to the Commission. It is vital to ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to play its role under the Treaty, namely commenting in an appropriate manner, so that we need not vote down a series of votes on a pile of amendments, which, let me put it this way, are not in the correct procedural order. I also wonder whether the triennial procedure we have adopted is the most sensible approach. Given the fast pace of change in the economy, and in view of the fact that the Commission soon had to adjust its optimistic outlook and accept that things were not going as smoothly as expected, I think that we need to have the opportunity to alter some important aspects of these economic and employment guidelines. I would also like to point out a major shortcoming in the Treaty. It needs to be said. According to the definition, employment guidelines are, in fact, subordinate to economic guidelines. We do not want that. It causes all kinds of problems, for example when liberalisation is on the agenda, but it also means that all kinds of other measures are put forward that have their impact in this way. I agree with what a number of other speakers who have already taken the floor, including Mr Jonckheer and Mr Goebbels, have said on this point. Little progress has been made since Lisbon. This has been commented on in our committee as well. We have achieved little on poverty and on the participation of older people and women in the workforce. There has been some progress, but far too little and we must really revise the guidelines. We should revise the Lisbon agreements in the light of various factors, including the evolution of the economy. Against that background the position adopted in the Kok report, namely that we must achieve better implementation of the agreements in their entirety, is welcome. That is what the Council was supposed to be doing. I wonder whether it is enough though. Mr Kok proposes discussing and encouraging flexibility and security. He certainly addresses the issue of flexibility, but I see nothing about security. Both Germany and the UK are still blocking the Temporary Agency Workers Directive. That is not in keeping with the principle of promoting the quality of work, also one of Mr Kok's ideas. In other words, I think we must look carefully at this and that we should get back to, for instance, the proposals of the Belgian Presidency on the quality of work. That was a useful report, not only with regard to a simple category like job satisfaction. I also think that we should look not only to the United States but also to developments in China and India. We are currently facing massive off-shore outsourcing with all its consequences. Finally I should like to thank all those who have cooperated during this last term in office. I can also tell you that the Group of the will support the amendments submitted by Ms Hermange and probably also the oral amendment tabled by Mr Bushill-Matthews.

Political group: Verts-ALE