JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Wednesday, 19 May 2004

The Lisbon Agenda in a Globalised World.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Seán Haughey)

We will commence the third item on the agenda. The Chairman is in the national Parliament taking parliamentary questions. As Acting Chairman, I will commence the proceedings.

I reiterate an earlier announcement in connection with the visit to the President of Ireland, Mrs. Mary McAleese. The buses will depart at 5.45 p.m. sharp. I wish to clarify that only Members of Parliament from both observer and member states are invited to participate in that visit.

The third item on the agenda is the Lisbon Agenda in a globalised world. During the meeting of Chairpersons, the Presidency was requested to place this item on the agenda. The Presidency was happy to do so and agreed to prepare a discussion paper, which has been circulated to all members. We hope it will form the basis for a useful discussion this afternoon. I hope delegates will find the debate a useful resource for their own parliaments.

In our report we have identified several recommendations. We recommended that the European Commission requires some reorganisation to enable it to service more effectively the policy needs of the process. I support moves to appoint a vice-president of the incoming Commission with particular responsibility for co-ordinating and driving the achievement of targets set.

It should be the first task of the incoming vice-president to simplify and make more transparent the reporting process. A Europe-wide review of skills needs should be undertaken urgently. This has implications for education, training and even immigration policy. The next generation of EU funding needs to be more closely targeted at addressing the Lisbon Agenda and the employment guidelines and targets in particular. Increased emphasis should be given to promoting and improving a public and private investment in research and human capital. There should be a stronger role for the Competitiveness Council. I commend our report to COSAC and hope we can agree a contribution which will serve to advance our common desire to see a successful conclusion to the Lisbon process.

I have a list of 19 speakers who wish to contribute. I call Mr. Vilén from Finland.

Mr. Jari Vilén

I congratulate the Chairman for including the Lisbon strategy on the agenda and for his contribution to the debate. The Lisbon Agenda was accepted four years ago with the overall aim of increasing employment and competitiveness in the European Union. I regret to say that the Lisbon strategy is lagging behind, unfortunately. A major improvement is not in sight. We have the means to achieve our aims, but the political will is missing. We do not need any new measures to implement the Lisbon goals. We should concentrate on the existing plan and fulfil the decisions that have already been agreed.

One of the major problems is that implementation has been slow at all levels. We need to improve the Council's legislative process. Many of the Commission's legislative proposals are of great importance in implementing the Lisbon goals. The Council has been trying to solve common defence problems for years. It seems, after this week's meeting in Brussels, that the Commission is withdrawing the proposals because we have not been able to make the necessary compromises to have the legislation accepted.

National parliamentarians should take a look in the mirror. Some legislative measures which have been accepted at EU level are waiting for national implementation. Member states have not been able to follow the set timetable or to be more active in national implementation. We should pay more attention to ensuring legislation is implemented correctly and similarly in all member states. I refer to the old member states as well as the new ones.

The Commission has been a strong motor in the process and that should continue to be the case. I sometimes feel that the driver is pressing the gas pedal and the brake at the same time. The co-ordination between the Commission's different Directorates General is not perfect. We have received several proposals from the Commission in recent years. The chemical legislation package, for example, is important but does not necessarily improve our confidence in the EU.

If we wish to achieve the Lisbon goals we have accepted for ourselves, we have to find the political will to agree on common measures to improve confidence internationally. In the globalised world in which we live, we cannot afford to think nationally only. Better standards of living, higher employment, increased GDP and better quality of life can only be achieved if we succeed in the global market.

Mr. Michael Kretschmer

I thank the committee for choosing this theme, drawing up the report and putting this item on the agenda. The objectives of the Lisbon strategy are crucial if we wish to make Europe the world's most competitive region, to have greater employment and to ensure that our people have a good future. I refer in particular to those in the enlargement countries. I agree with the previous speaker. It is clear that our policy should meet the objectives of the strategy. Relevant issues include environmental legislation, social and economic policies and chemicals, which were mentioned a moment ago.

There is a great degree of enthusiasm for new technologies. We want more support for technological progress. Europeans do not understand, or may not be concerned, if we say that we will make changes in the future in respect of nanotechnology, for example. People prefer to be told about something more understandable, or a clear target such as the first man on the moon. They are interested in something obvious and new. If we speak about a new basis for energy supplies, for example, we should say if it will really touch people, for example by helping to reduce poverty, hunger, AIDS or cancer. We need new technologies, but we need to make our targets and objectives more clear and more understandable to people, especially young people.

How can we draw up a plan to bring other people on board and to make them back us? We need to ensure that the instruments are innovative. We should make clear the projects we will support. The sixth framework programme is not that innovative, to be honest. I argue that it has a number of problems. It is all very well that its intentions are good, but it has not necessarily worked out well in practice. Those of us who represent national parliaments should use the forthcoming weeks to get involved in the discussion and to examine the seventh framework programme to see what it should tackle and do, what its content should be and how it should pan out.

We need to consider structures, for example. If some states are weaker in respect of structures, they should be afforded an opportunity to take part in the framework programme. We need simpler mechanisms and key technologies which we support and which will help us to advance. It has already been mentioned that we need a great deal more money if we are to do that. The seventh framework programme will have to have the necessary budgetary appropriations. We have to acknowledge, on behalf of our states, that countries should not be allowed to withdraw. Nobody should be allowed to stand back. We should all work together. It is a matter for individual states and parliaments to ensure that countries do not retreat or withdraw. On the contrary, they should get involved more intensively. A handful of states spend more than 3% of their GDP on research and development at present. Most countries are well below that threshold.

Mr. Jozef Jerovsek

I congratulate the organisers of the 31st COSAC meeting. Slovenia, which has quite a high level of development, has embraced the Lisbon strategy as a complex economic project that will serve to provide development to all member states in the long term. We regret, therefore, that its objectives have not been implemented with the pace that was originally envisaged. Too little effort is being invested in the strategy, which should be part and parcel of a financial package. To put it bluntly, if we want to achieve objectives such as greater competitiveness, money should be made available from the European funds. If this is done, we will be able to achieve a better co-ordination of development projects on the basis of the European funds and greater effectiveness will be shown by Europe as a whole.

We cannot talk about a pan-European project if all member states do not start from the same point. I refer to the free movement of labour, for example. Although Slovenia is not in the same boat as some of the new member states, the new arrangement flies in the face of the EU's enshrined principles. It is much better to co-ordinate than to reach stalemate. Slovenia's experience is that the more money that is spent on research and education in the longer term, the better. At least 3% of GDP should be earmarked for this area. The contribution of the countries should be at least 1.24%. Thereafter, on the subject of globalisation we must keep our shoulders to the wheel. We have the projects under the Lisbon strategy which I would like to go hand in hand with the keywords "subsidiarity" and "solidarity".

Mr. Demetris Syllouris

While I have prepared a written text, to make a briefer statement I shall concentrate on just a few points. We want Europe to be more competitive in the context of globalisation. We must adopt a particular strategy, details of which can be found in the report which has been submitted to the Irish Parliament, our hosts today. If we want to increase competitiveness in Europe, we must implement the proposals from Ireland and build on them with new ideas. This will make it possible for us to meet the challenges of globalisation and competitiveness in Europe. I thank the Irish Presidency for its proposals.

Prionsias De Rossa, MEP

I represent the Dublin constituency in the European Parliament. I welcome the delegates and hope they enjoy their stay in the city. As a member of the employment and social policy committee of the European Parliament, I have a keen interest in social policy and the Lisbon Agenda. A constant source of irritation for me is that whenever we have a discussion on this, we tend to focus almost exclusively on competitiveness, to the exclusion of the much wider agenda Lisbon set out. While the strategy is aimed to create a competitive economy, this is supposed to achieve full employment in quality jobs while integrating social policy as a productive factor. We run the risk of having a low quality model in Europe if we fail to integrate social policy and employment strategies with the competitiveness agenda.

The proposal for a super Commissioner on competitiveness is, at first glance, a good idea. However, if the person appointed concentrates exclusively on the business agenda, we will have very lopsided development in the EU and lose the European social model which is one of the unique factors which contributes to the Union's cohesion.

There is no doubt that the model requires modernisation. It must take account of the fact that social protection was developed at a time when we had a relatively high mortality rate. People died much younger than they do now. We had a different demographic profile with many more children being born to parents in Europe. A new model must be created to take account of the different balance in our society vis-à-vis pensioners, workers and children. Migration policy must also take account of this balance.

We must give serious thought to ensuring the targets set are global in the factors they consider. If we fail to address the social policy concerns of citizens to enable them to feel part of what is being done and if our actions create a degree of uncertainty and insecurity, we will create a level of unrest which may well prove difficult to address politically. I am pleased the COSAC meeting is addressing these issues.

We discussed the draft constitution this morning. We must hope the IGC maintains the values and objectives set out in part 1 of the constitution which addresses the issues of solidarity, social policy, equality etc. The Lisbon Agenda sits very well in terms of its totality with those values and objectives.

There is a need to address the role of national parliamentarians. While I am now a Member of the European Parliament, I was a member of a national parliament for 20 years and I know the difficulties national parliamentarians face in coping with the volume of material which comes at them from European institutions. I suggested the idea and promoted it in the Convention on the Future of Europe that national parliaments should have a European week during which the Commission's legislative programme for the year would be debated across Europe. Commissioners and MEPs could be invited to debate the agenda to ensure that these issues were priority matters for national parliaments as well as for other institutions.

Mr. Denis Badré

The excellent report we are using as the basis of our work and discussion is very opportune. Europeans are nowadays very concerned about the relocation of companies to other regions. They are concerned about the fact that skills are moving to other countries while capital is fleeing. People are looking for remuneration elsewhere. This is a major challenge. Within the European Union itself there are also difficulties. While we must have the required political will to overcome these problems, we must also tackle some real difficulties between the European Union and other regions of the world.

I suggest a strategy with three main pillars. We need economic governance, scientific policy and development aid policy. While a constitution is important, economic governance is critical for the European Union to harmonise our social and fiscal contributions and to ensure that our assets and, in particular, training are valued. We require economic governance to maintain our authority in the world and ensure that our particular way of seeing things and our approach are in the lead. I remind the committee that 12 of our countries have a monetary authority. If one wishes a monetary authority to be important, it must have a dialogue with an economic authority.

We require a good scientific policy which relates to more than issues of capital and jobs. In many of our countries, including France, we must review seriously the way we manage science policies to give greater freedom to researchers while ensuring that they are not divided. Our poles of excellence must be supported to ensure that what synergy is in place is enhanced. We must concentrate on areas of activity in which we are strong and which enable us to lead in world terms. The European Union should provide support in a focused way. We cannot support everything across the board; we must make optimum choices to obtain the best benefit.

Finally, we need a development aid policy. There are other countries which are in a less advantageous situation than ourselves. We must not allow this to continue, but neither must we allow a situation in which they will one day turn around and be opposed to us. That is why we need a development policy — to make sure we do not have migration flows which are purely based on artificial criteria. Wherever one's roots, one must have the possibility of finding an identity, flourishing and thriving. Once we have established that, we will have made a great contribution.

Lord Shutt of Greetland

I have four brief points. In the papers I have regarding this meeting, I have a note that at the meeting of 1 March, Denis MacShane, MP, Minister for Europe, said that a likely priority for the UK Presidency in 2005 would be material Europe and how to drive the Lisbon Agenda forward. There are another two Presidencies before we get to the UK Presidency and it is slightly worrying that this is to be the priority, because it does not appear to me that there is an expectation of speed.

The Internal Market in services can be seen to be incredibly important when one realises how vastly greater these markets are these days than manufacturing. We must acknowledge the size of the service economy and hope we can allow it to develop. If we can get this market right for Europe, it can be got right for the external markets, which are also very important.

I thank the Irish Presidency for placing this on the agenda and I am aware of the distinguished parliamentarians I am able to be with today. There is clearly a galaxy of talent in this room. I hope and trust that these people will be able to persuade their governments to push on with this agenda and to take their Ministers to account, particularly when they are not moving with speed.

Mr. Algirdas Gricius

I thank the Chairman and my esteemed colleagues. The Lisbon strategy speaks about competitiveness in the EU economy. As the British representative has just said, without competitiveness, a good chance for competition and good conditions within the EU we can hardly speak about the ability of the Union to achieve these objectives globally. Whatever the case, we know that in terms of GDP the EU is in the lead, ahead of the United States. Since we have 450 million citizens and fewer than 300 million live in the USA, in order to catch up with the USA we should increase our GDP to 1.5 times its current size.

I remember during Soviet times, about 40 years ago, Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev said that we would catch up and overtake the USA. Of course that was a joke, but I understand that the Lisbon strategy and the tasks the EU has set itself are huge and it will not be easy for us to implement them. Whatever we say, we have economic vehicles in the EU which are represented by the big states, we have smaller states and at the same time we have the old-timers and new members of the EU. The differences between those countries will remain, irrespective of our efforts. In attempting to resolve all these tasks, will we be successful if we decide to give more regulation into the hands of Brussels institutions which decide the rules of the game or if we encourage a free market and fair competition? We should allow states to compete among themselves and at the same time develop the economy of the EU.

We have already discussed the tax system at the Convention. The introduction of a uniform taxation system in the EU, when we have different levels of development among the members, would not be right for a number of states. Therefore, our major task is to adjust social and environmental policies and develop the economy taking account of information technology and other factors. Most of those issues should be tackled by national parliaments and governments. If we have fair competition we will be able to move forward.

Ms Malgorzata Rohde

I congratulate the Irish Presidency on making it clear that the Lisbon strategy is an opportunity. It is the way for us to achieve a high level of competitiveness — the highest in the world by 2010. However, the report of the European Commission to the effect that we will unfortunately not reach that objective must be accepted. This is the reality.

What we have heard from previous speakers shows that we are all concerned by this fact. I hope we will manage to inject a new vitality and dynamism into the process. I am glad to note that the Lisbon strategy will be a high priority for the UK Presidency in 2005 but I hope we will start to do something about it long before that.

We have is to identify the problems in front of us and decide how to deal with them. Do we want a Europe that is more social, more unified, with more directives and more institutions, or do we want a more deregulated Europe, one that is freer? If we consider the ten new member states, we can see that there is a tremendous amount of positive thinking about freedom and about entrepreneurial approaches. The Lisbon strategy, the most significant socio-economic programme that the European Union is currently implementing, must be dependent on our vision for Europe. Do we want a Europe that is competitive and free, where entrepreneurs can act freely, or do we want to descend into a socialised morass?

The high-level group that was constituted with a view to assessing the Lisbon strategy will be developing certain proposals for 2005 that will amend the Lisbon strategy. It is already well known that it must be changed. The ten new member states, however, after 50 years of a completely different system, find themselves under different circumstances. That is something we must take into consideration. To measure us by the same yardstick is too audacious and controversial. Under fully peaceful conditions, we are undergoing a tremendous transformation. If we want a Europe with solidarity and subsidiarity in the genuine sense, it should be taken into consideration in the EU budget for the next few years that the new ten member states are making greater efforts in many respects than the old 15.

As previous speakers said, the opening of markets is obvious. If we close our eyes and do not see those borders, they will remain in place because they will be within us. If this debate does not result in a new economy, not only will we not catch up with the United States we will also be overtaken by Asia. We will be sitting back and resting on our laurels and becoming poorer and less competitive.

These are new paradigms that we have to learn to approach. We have to move closer to them. The ten new member states have a vitality and dynamism that can help. We are bringing knowledge capital to the European Union which regards us as something new, an innovation. In a spirit of true partnership, we need this to be transformed into deeds, not only to remain at the level of words.

Mr. Franz Timmermanns

I wish to address the issue from a slightly different angle. It is clear what Europe needs. It is also clear what the Lisbon Agenda is. The prescription is clear to everyone in this room. The only problem is there is a lack of willingness on the part of the patients to swallow the medicine. The problem does not lie in an analysis on the European level, it lies, perhaps entirely, in implementation on a national level. What we need is not another analysis or structure on a European level, what we need, to give one example, is for Italy to reduce its public debt which presents a much bigger threat to the Lisbon Agenda than a lack of economic policy on a European level. I can give examples from my own country where we have a lack of national policy to implement the agenda. The priority for us is implementation, implementation, implementation; not making new plans but simply doing what is included in the Lisbon Agenda.

Why is Europe incapable of doing many of these things? For instance, public debt is too high. Therefore, we spend too much money on servicing it instead of investing in our young people, education system or research capacity. We are spending too much money on an outdated agricultural policy, money that should be spent on innovation and new policy. We are also spending too much money on Structural Funds, part of which is not going to those countries most in need but from rich countries to other rich countries. We should change the system in order that we have money to invest in new developments. Those are the problems we have in Europe that can only be tackled by national politicians, not by creating new structures at European level but by putting one's money where one's mouth is.

I have one final remark to make on the credibility of European policy on the eve of the European elections. Never before has Europe made such a wonderful economic policy as the Lisbon Agenda but people will not believe in agendas if they are not implemented. They will not believe in European plans if they never lead to measures on a national level. We should go home, get back to work and implement what we discuss at a European level.

Mr. Sotirios Hatzigakis

I, too, echo the thanks extended to the Chairman for the excellent organisation of this meeting and the choice of subjects on the agenda. National parliaments ought to be part and parcel of all work at European level. When we talk about economic and social policy, national parliaments must be to the forefront. It is apparent that the European Union is facing perhaps the most important challenge since its creation. We are in a globalised world which has tangible effects on our economic policies and social cohesion. Are we faced by a need for change when it comes to the economic policy pursued by the European Union? Are we not here now to identify the need for transition, to make a quantum leap as it were, before moving on to the Lisbon Agenda?

The European economy is lagging behind the United States. After the partial application of the Lisbon Agenda objectives, here in Europe we are still rather weak when compared to the United States. We are talking about a recession and are falling behind the United States. What are the reasons for this?

Mr. Gonzales, the former Spanish Prime Minister, may have been right when he said the steps we are taking are not sufficiently bold. If we are trying to assert our competitiveness vis-à-vis the United States, we are still falling behind in terms of the proportion of GDP we allocate to certain areas. Perhaps we should consider reframing our economic policies. The economic policy of a country or continent will also determine its social policy. A hard-line economic policy may create unemployment and exclusion and a backlash from the citizens who feel the brunt of it, which may serve to hold up the development one is trying to introduce.

Today, European citizens are not prepared to sacrifice their social policy position. We may be called upon to re-examine our economic model in order to create an engine that will drive forward European policies. Speakers may say this is tantamount to a resurrection and that Keynes is dead and buried and cannot be brought back to life but I am more optimistic than my colleagues. If we follow the line taken by Engels, perhaps we should look at the European economy in terms of dialectic. Obviously, the principles of the welfare state are somewhat far removed from us. We are in the harsh climate of monetarism. We have moved away from the social preoccupations and concerns of these philosophers. What is the model? Obviously, there is no magic solution; there is no nostrum but we have to be realistic and demonstrate solidarity and base ourselves on a much more equitable set of policies.

Chairman

Mr. Hatzigakis has had over four minutes.

Mr. Sotirios Hatzigakis

Can I make one more point?

Chairman

Quickly, please.

Mr. Sotirios Hatzigakis

Economic and social development should be the hallmark of our policies. This must also apply to our external relations and policies. The adoption of a European constitution will confer legitimacy upon us when we act on the international stage. In our fight against terrorism we need to embrace a development policy that will provide for greater stability and allow us to meet our objectives, including the fighting of terrorism.

Mrs. Christina Axelsson

I, too, thank those who organised this debate. Having said that, it seems there is a dimension missing, namely, the work of women. If we want to increase growth within the European Union, women need to be able to contribute. When talking about women and employment, we do not want to talk only about brochures and leaflets in our party programmes and platforms. We do not just want slogans on our election campaign posters for the EU elections. That is not what the matter is about; it is about equality between women and men in the labour market. This needs to be mainstreamed and carried out in all member states. Therefore, when talking about the Lisbon strategy, it would be opportune to talk also about the right of citizens to good child care and care of the elderly. Furthermore, when children go to school, they should be entitled to a school lunch. The issue of the unpaid employment of women in the home needs to be resolved.

If the Lisbon strategy is to be a success story, we need to involve women. If they are to be involved, we also need strong decisions to be taken in all member states. These decisions should create the right conditions such that women can effectively make the desired contribution.

Mr. Göran Lennmarker

I want to focus on one of the main problems associated with the implementation of the Lisbon strategy, namely, protectionist policies aimed at both the outside world and member states. On the outside world, the problem arises if we have a "fortress Europe" protecting itself from the outside world. We should realise that competition from other countries in other continents is good. It is a way of shaping the European economy. Therefore, when we form our trade policies, our goal should be to have zero tariffs. Today we provide for far too much protectionism in our trade policies. We even have export subsidies which are forbidden according to the WTO. We work against other countries, particularly developing countries. On the one hand, we have development aid and, on the other, counter-productive export subsidies.

It is time that the European Union took the lead in world trade discussions. Traditionally, the United States has done this. As we do not have a huge deficit, it is, therefore, easier for us. We should try to form a truly global free trade area. We have free trade agreements with different regions, be it the Mediterranean or Latin America. The latter is under discussion. However, a spaghetti bowl of free trade agreements could not replace a more global attitude. Ireland is testimony to the importance of openness to the outside world.

The European Union makes many agreements but not all countries fulfil them. We must do so. It is up to our national parliaments to ensure we stick to the agreements we make. We are far too protectionist against each other. We have national subsidies and monopolies and do not fulfil the agreements we make among ourselves. Mr. Timmermanns from the Netherlands pointed to the fact that in our national parliaments we must meet our obligations.

Mr. Marc Laffineur

I, too, thank the Chairman for his hospitality and the way in which he has organised this meeting. In recent months we have witnessed important growth in the United States, China and India. Europe is beginning to recover but growth is not as spectacular as in these countries. Over the past three decades European growth amounted to about half that of the United States. This factor underlies the objectives of the Lisbon Agenda. Two examples associated with it include the investments we have had to make in high speed networks and research. While Europe is catching up with regard to high-speed networks, it has lagged behind on research. The United States now devotes 3% of GDP to research while Europe devotes only 1.5%. The negotiations on the 2006-13 financial perspective provide the European Commission with a wonderful opportunity to bridge this gap.

We should have three priorities in this regard, the first of which is solidarity in respect of the new member states which need to catch up with the old 15 member states. Rigour is the second priority. The European Commission is asking all member states not to become too indebted or have too big a deficit. It should also set an example in its financial perspective. The third priority is that the Commission should be a driving force for research in Europe. This is the challenge we face and, increasingly, we need co-operation as we have an extremely expensive research programme. The jobs of tomorrow are at stake. All of the national parliaments should be able to ponder on this and move in the right direction with the new financial perspective.

Mr. Rein Lang

I, too, congratulate the Irish Presidency on the very good work it has done. I will try to be brief because our good friend from the Netherlands, Mr. Timmermanns, said what I wanted to say. I, too, do not believe we can complete the Lisbon process without reviewing the CAP and a series of other decisions and policies that require so many EU resources.

We have sufficient political will at EU level but little political will at member states' level. This is evident from what they have done regarding the free movement of labour after enlargement.

I am very pleased to express my gratitude to the Swedish Parliament which, contrary to the suggestions of the Swedish Government, opened the Swedish labour market to the new member states. "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: Creating More Employment in Europe", the report compiled by Wim Kok, should be the starting point for all member states in implementing their labour policies on the free movement of labour. I very much hope that in the near future they will dismantle barriers to the free movement of labour and refrain from building more.

Dr. Hannes Bauer

Like my colleagues, I am most appreciative of the excellent organisation of this meeting and the kind hospitality of the hosts.

Our in-depth discussion of the Lisbon strategy shows how it has been pursued to varying degrees in individual member states. Certainly, the breadth of the strategy must be properly encompassed. We often tend to focus too much on its economic aspects whereas social policy and full employment are clear priority areas. I hope we will be able to recognise the fact that social innovations are just as important for our future as economic and technical innovations.

It is a shame that we have failed to identify the areas of priority in which the economy and society will be driven forward. If we are to aspire to having the most important world economy in the 21st century, we require better attunement of economic policies across Europe which requires a faster decision-making process. While we can all agree that social policy, consumer protection and the co-ordination of economic and fiscal policies must be taken into account, we must also consider the extent to which national parliaments take these issues forward into legislation and regulation. As has been said, the pattern varies widely.

This is a Union in which over 90% of the services we produce are geared towards the internal market. We could be more generous towards the Third World. We live in a global context and, given our huge market, could allow ourselves to be generous. Monetary union, created with no small difficulty, is now one of the crowning features of the European Union. We should move toward fiscal harmonisation across Europe which would necessitate the demonstration of co-operation among nations. Much of what we see applies not only in the social field but also to fiscal policy. People are talking about the right levels of tax contribution. While the rate must be acceptable nationally, it must also be sensible internationally to ensure we do not abandon our social aspirations.

Mr. António Almeida Henriques

I join colleagues in thanking the Irish Presidency for organising this COSAC meeting. This is an historic moment. Following the recent enlargement, there are now 25 full member states. Europe has never been so strong, although it sometimes seems that it does not know what to do with its strength and 50 year legacy.

We all identify generally with the Lisbon Agenda. Above and beyond its diagnosis and application, there are aspects of the strategy which must be further emphasised. A study of young people in the United States of America showed that two thirds wished to establish their own companies and become entrepreneurs. In Europe the figure is 50%, a level we must improve if we wish to complete the Lisbon objectives. Within the European Union we are told we could make savings while the IMF states if we deregulate, we could improve GDP by 7%. These are points we should address.

The Lisbon strategy has never been so important and should be the priority of priorities. We must set clear objectives and find ways to create the momentum to implement it. If citizens do not understand its advantages, we will not succeed. We must set concrete objectives which we must make clear to the people and try to achieve in a way citizens can understand. It is important for individual states to implement their own strategies and integrate them with the Lisbon strategy. We see this in Portugal in our economy which we believe is suffering the effects of globalisation. We must ensure we put the objectives into practice.

Chairman

I have time for only two more speakers. We must try to discipline ourselves in the next session.

Ms Maria Santos

The European Union must make a greater effort to improve employment levels and the environment, important priorities of the European political agenda. The Lisbon strategy requires the implementation of a sustainable development policy. The conclusions of the spring Council reiterated the European Union's dedication to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. The Council emphasised the environmental aspects of the Lisbon strategy and outlined how the productivity of the European Union must be retargeted to ensure sustainability. Productivity cannot be the only measurement in determining the value of a product and the cost of its production. The European Union must use new indicators, including quality of life, use of non-renewable natural resources, food security and environmental safety.

We must tighten the links connecting the environment, employment and competitiveness while maintaining the original orientation of the Lisbon strategy. There are a number of common measures on competitiveness which are important, as our German colleague said. However, we must not undermine the social and environmental dimensions of the strategy. We cannot accept economic growth at any price and cannot forget Goteburg and the environmental pillar of the strategy. While I agree that it is necessary to review our criteria for the assessment of economic growth and productivity within the European Union, we also require sustainability indicators. Here the role of European companies is crucial. Moreover, European public opinion must be well informed and the citizens of Europe must participate in the development and scrutiny of the Lisbon objectives. Europeans need to understand the benefits of the strategic objectives set out in Lisbon and Goteburg with a view to the development of the European Union. What is at stake in the upcoming review in 2005 will be the need to renew production and competitiveness policies in Europe and focus on innovation and modern productivity. This must be done in a spirit of solidarity.

We must, from a political standpoint, reaffirm our commitment to the European social model. As parliamentarians, we have special responsibilities. I agree that there is a need to establish a political interface among the national parliaments and the European Parliament in order to support the Lisbon strategy. I also agree with the point made by another speaker that we need to clarify the financial basis for implementation of the strategy. We need to reduce the disparity between political objectives and realities. We also need to stimulate innovation and strengthen the open co-ordination method. We must have greater active participation by national parliaments in European policy development. Greater discussion among the environmental, economic and the social dimensions also needs to be promoted. We must have a competitiveness policy which sets out clear and feasible objectives. We must also be persistent and tenacious in implementing these policies.

Chairman

We have run out of time but there are three speakers left. I ask contributors to take two minutes each in order that we may fit everybody in.

Dr. Werner Fasslabend

I shall be very brief. I draw the attention of the meeting to one matter in particular because it seems that in the discussion so far it has not emerged. I am talking about the issue of demographics. If we fail to take this factor into account, we will simply not meet long-term growth targets in Europe. We are told that we will lose one million people per annum from the labour force between 2010 and 2030. That is a problem in terms of immigration and the labour market and if we cannot compensate for this loss, we will have a problem on our hands. We must tackle this matter now. There are only two countries in Europe — France and Ireland — which come close to an appropriate fertility rate that will allow us to maintain current levels. All other countries fall well below this rate. This is a matter with which we must deal.

Mr. Yasar Yakis

I intended to dwell on the aspect of demographics because it had not yet been mentioned but now that it has I intend to develop the point further. World Bank statistics indicate that those aged up to 14 years constitute 17% to 18% of the population in the old 15 EU member states. According to the report distributed to us by the COSAC secretariat, the population structure of the ten new central and eastern European countries is less favourable than in western Europe. We may presume, therefore, that the new average of the same age group may go down to 16% or 17% of the entire population.

According to World Bank statistics, the figure is 36% in Turkey. That is to say, those aged 14 years and under constitute 36% of the population in Turkey compared to 16% in the 25 EU countries. According to the World Bank assessment, this gap may grow drastically in 2025 in which year those at present aged 14 years or under will be between 20 and 34 years. This is another factor that the EU countries may wish to take into consideration when they consider the accession of Turkey to the European Union.

Mr. Aydin Dumanoglu

Our objective is to bring our country closer to the European Union. We are aiming to meet the Maastricht criteria in the economic sphere. As part of the aim of sustainable innovation, we are trying to reach the Lisbon targets in an appropriate timespan. To this end, we have been elaborating on a strategy for innovation and growth to catch up with the European standard, bearing in mind the special conditions prevailing in our country.

As confirmed by international economic circles, the economy of Turkey has enormous dynamism. Despite several recent financial crises, the Turkish economy has proved to be strong enough to overcome all problems. When the current reforms are completed and the problems solved, it will be a source of dynamism for the European economy, helping to achieve the Lisbon goals. Should Turkey be accepted into the European Union, it will not be a burden on the European economy. To this end, an e-transformation project has been implemented in Turkey, in which we focus our efforts on strengthening information and communication technology.

Chairman

I thank my colleagues for their co-operation in bringing this section of the discussion to a close.