Mr President, first of all, in relation to the Dimitrakopoulos/Leinen report, I would like to welcome the work of the rapporteurs, who I believe have produced a piece of work which reflects not only our concerns but also an approach which is very pertinent and reasonable with regard to the objectives which the Union must have. The intention is to set a sensible attitude on the part of the Council, which would try to resolve what remains after Amsterdam, against a sort of Christmas card on the part of Parliament. I would like to say that Parliament, as it did before the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam, has opted for a line which consists of a short and precise list dealing with fundamental issues. I believe that our ambition should be, firstly, to create a Union that works well and, secondly, we should be in a position to enlarge that Union. It is simple: we cannot say that we need a small reform when this Union was designed for six and now, thanks to its success, has fifteen Members and we are willing to allow 25 or 30. This cannot be sorted out by moving the furniture around. We will have to take a radical approach. Therefore, I understand that the fundamental questions – and I have listened attentively to the President-in-Office of the Council – will raise other questions and this requires an Intergovernmental Conference, which must be sufficiently ambitious. The second comment I wanted to make, Mr President, relates to the method. We talk a lot about transparency and contact with the citizens. It is difficult enough to explain an Intergovernmental Conference to them, but it is even more difficult to explain it if it is done behind closed doors. At a time when we are trying to popularise the Euro and gain greater support for the Union, and when the Council – and I welcome this initiative – is embarking on the task of writing up and debating a Charter of Fundamental Rights with the participation of the European Parliament and the national parliaments, it seems rather shocking that a closed door procedure is being considered in which the Council has still not said whether the European Parliament will be represented. I draw your attention to this issue because it seems absolutely contradictory and opposed to our own interests and needs. We have to open up to civil society, we have to involve national parliaments and there must be an open debate within Parliament, otherwise it will be very difficult to gain sufficient support. And the third consideration, Mr President, concerns the tasks which face us, because they cannot be left until the end of the Intergovernmental Conference. We are carrying out a reform of our institution, for example with the work on the Statute for Members – and I welcome the Council’s good will – and also the reform of our Rules of Procedure. The Commission is committed to a reform programme. I believe that the Council – which of all our institutions is, in a way, the one which has been most fragmented by the increase in specialised Councils and a myriad of related committees – must lead by example. But it should not only think of the future but also of the need for a democratic and effective Community. To this end, I welcome the words of the President-in-Office of the Council and I hope that, while we prepare the Conference, we are capable of advancing along this road.

Political group: PSE