Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ‘empty chair’ of the Council, colleagues, I should like to begin by congratulating Mr Prodi and his colleagues in the Commission on the considerable progress that has been made in the past year, in particular the work that has been done on reform, which is not one of the high political priorities of the Union but is, nonetheless, one of the inescapable institutional requirements. On behalf of my group I salute the progress which has been made there. We note with particular concern the Commission's report of last week – the pre-Stockholm report – about the Lisbon process. Although we have set the very high aspiration that within a decade we should become the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, we are moving towards it at a lesser pace than ought to be the case. I do not exclude Parliament from this, I am not a sore loser but I was part of the minority which lost in the postal services liberalisation proposal. We are all in this together. I am reminded of a story which is told in the United States about the famous Mayor Richard Daley, who was mayor of several Chicago administrations. In launching one of them he gave a speech and wanted to talk about new plateaux of achievement. But he made a mistake, as we are wont to do when we read our speeches quickly in politics. He committed his new administration to achieving ever-higher 'platitudes' of achievement! It seems to me that we must ensure that is not the commitment we bring to Lisbon, rather that we really drive forward. There is a message for Stockholm that our commitment is real and deep and must be prioritised to deliver. Progress on giving real credibility to food and consumer policy has been substantial in the past twelve months. Much remains to be done, but very substantial progress has been made. On trade and development: my group supports the everything but arms proposition. I hope that as the Commission itself contemplates the sensitivities in agriculture relating to the World Trade Organisation and to the agricultural reform debate, the sequencing of those debates will not be allowed to get in the way of the trade-related initiative. It is an important European initiative and I hope the College will go for it, notwithstanding some of the sequencing difficulties to do with other negotiations which may arise. The believes that we need to focus more urgent attention on asylum and immigration. I congratulate Mr Vitorino on the work that has been brought forward, but Tampere set an agenda and I wonder why, so long after Tampere, we are still struggling to define what that agenda should be. Regarding enlargement: my group is deeply committed to that process but I would say to the Commission – and I say it also to this House and to Mr Solana – that we really need to focus quality time and attention on Cyprus. It is not simply the acquis communautaire – they are doing very well on that. It is not simply their ability to implement the acquis – they can deliver on that. Yet surrounding it are grave and serious political issues that are not getting the quality time and attention that we believe they need if this is to be a success. On the legislative programme: as regards its form I am glad it is going to the committees within the House. I am glad we get a chance to reflect on it and to look at the priorities. Mr Prodi has said that it is not simply an assembly of disparate ideas and indeed he has offered some priorities here. But I have looked at it. It is 49 pages of high-density non-communication. It is 49 pages covering 593 different initiatives. It is very difficult to find in this methodology which are the real priorities, where there is political passion and focus, and which are merely the issues that we have to deal with because they are part of due process. We have to move away from this. (Applause) We have to change the way we do our business. I would hope that next September we will have something where each initiative, in methodological terms, is justified. I do not mean that everything here is not justified – but tell us the story. Maybe we asked for some initiatives but, on reflection, we would say that they are not such a priority after all. How much of this came from the European Council inviting the Commission to take initiatives? We do not find the answers in here. I would like to see them. It is not a question of interfering with the Commission's right of initiative in relation to the treaties, but a question of quality control. If I could say one last thing, it seems to me it would be very useful if we did this next September and completed the debate by December and that you, Madam President, as President of this institution, and Mr Prodi, as President of the European Commission, could go to the European Council and tell them ex ante: this is our priority for Europe. Is it yours? That is how we need to do our business, to put a drive, a focus and an energy behind it. Finally on Nice – on après-Nice – just to make a point. We in the European Parliament should be involved in encouraging a wide and open debate as a prelude to a full institutional participation après-Laeken. My group would insist in the post-Laeken period on some convention-style method with deep involvement for the European Parliament and the national parliaments to include the active engagement of Council. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR