Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will not repeat Mr Langen’s excellent introduction, which clearly sets the context of our report. A few years ago in Lisbon, the European Union set itself the objective of becoming 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. I am convinced that this objective concerns industry most of all, manufacturing industry in particular, because the industrial base is the backbone, the economic engine for growth in the European Union. That is why the Commission’s communication, which gave rise to this report, is vitally important. It is to be welcomed. Over the past few years, however, we have had the impression that manufacturing industry had rather been forgotten, with all attention being given to the service sector or new information and communication technologies. Industrial policy as such had not been mentioned for several years. This communication at long last raises the question of what the European authorities can do to help our industry. According to the Commission, industrial policy can have only one objective: competitiveness. There is some logic in this. Indeed, in an increasingly open world economy European industry can only have a future if it is able to integrate successfully into the global economy. But we have to agree what competitiveness means. Let us remain true to the spirit of Lisbon and Gothenburg. The balanced three-pillar approach – economic, environmental and social – really must be our guide in our analysis of competitiveness. European competitiveness must be competitiveness in research, skills, manpower training, productivity, respect for the environment and, last but not least, the quality of industrial relations. Any quest for competitiveness by continuously cutting costs, especially labour costs and/or through environmental laxity, would be totally fanciful. As for the means of achieving that objective, we know that industrial policy results from the interaction of policies in a number of fields: research, training, competition policy, the internal market, taxation, employment and social affairs, and many other fields besides. While the European Union has a considerable involvement in many of these fields, it is essential that we find the best way of coordinating all those different instruments in order to arrive at a genuine industrial strategy for the European Union. The Commission communication asks the right questions but fails to offer enough definite answers. The communication opens a genuine debate, as we shall see this evening. The Council has already made its views known. Parliament will do so through this report. We must, of course, as Mr Langen said, make this a useful exercise by following it through with specific measures. That is why we are asking the Commission to embody the ideas expressed in this communication in an action plan, which will then be submitted to the Council and Parliament for adoption. The main points of the action plan will be as follows. Firstly, the aims of industrial policy must be incorporated into all the Community’s common policies, especially the policy on competition and the control of state aids. Secondly, the objectives must include the harmonisation of national taxation systems, which are adversely affecting the single market. Thirdly, the plan must also include major administrative simplification for setting up new businesses. Fourthly, research and how to make the most of it for industry and innovation must be a central issue. The question of the three per cent for research and the question of the European patent are clearly far from insignificant. Fifthly, the questions of finance for businesses, especially SMEs and risk capital, cannot be overlooked either. Sixthly, implementation of this industrial policy must include the dimension of dialogue between management and labour: a good industrial policy can only come about in cooperation with employers and worker representatives and certainly not in opposition to them or without them. Finally, other crucial factors we should mention are education, training and skills: human resources or human capital are in fact increasingly important for industrial competitiveness. That is why I am proposing that the European Union launch an ambitious initiative, such as setting a target figure for expenditure on lifelong learning. The role of large European industrial projects involving private operators and public funding, like Galileo, should also be underlined where key sectors like alternative or renewable energy, nanotechnologies, space and steel are concerned. The technology platforms initiative seems to me to be a step in the right direction. We are also all aware of the need for a good transport, energy and communications network if we are to make the most of the potential of the large single European market. With the Union expanding to include regions that are not so well served, we need to give some thought to the necessity of increasing significantly the resources available to pay for the major works required. I think last week’s European Council also confirms this view. A good European industrial policy must not only take the opportunities offered by the new sectors of the future, but must also be capable of anticipating change in the traditional sectors so as to best manage the restructuring at both social, territorial and economic levels. The Commission has sketched out a sectoral analysis. That is a significant and welcome change from the purely horizontal approach. It would, however, be desirable not to stop at the sectoral analysis but to use it as a basis for sectoral action. The subject of industrial policy is therefore at the heart of our debates. You only have to read the conclusions of the last European Council. I join my colleague in hoping that we will get past the stage of incantatory declarations and move on to determined and fruitful action.

Political group: PSE