Mr President, first of all, I should like to thank Mr Poos for this report on the much-needed Council reforms. We sometimes say in connection with the Pope that there is no need to be married to be able to talk about marriage. However, in the case of Mr Poos, we can say that he has every right to talk about the Council as he has formed part of it for a very long time. How badly the Council functions at crucial moments was evident at the Ghent Summit where three Prime Ministers had made prior arrangements outside of the Council, where the President of the Council made essential statements on the evaluation of the attacks on Afghanistan which were subsequently not backed by the Council, where various Prime Ministers made various statements following the European Summit, where decisions were taken on a payment issue of banks in relation to the euro, but where no decisions were made on crucial anti-terrorist measures proposed by the Commission and Parliament and where, to cap it all, an embarrassing dispute arose between the President of the Council and the President of the Commission. That is how the Council comes across to the public. And that negative image dominates the entire decision-making process and the way the Union is viewed throughout the Union. How can the Council be reformed in such a way as to ensure that the Union functions better and to improve the Council’s image with the citizen? How can the Council be reformed in such a way as to ensure that the Union’s entire institutional structure is more democratic and open? In my opinion, a few factors are of crucial significance in this. First of all, the Council must confine itself to its original brief, namely to express the view of the Member State governments, under the supervision of the national parliaments and the European Parliament. Secondly, the Council must coordinate its tasks more effectively, thus ensuring that the General Affairs Council and the joint committees speak with one voice. In my view, the number of joint committees could be cut down even further. Thirdly, the General Affairs Council should function far more forcefully on the basis of solid positions of national members of government for European affairs, preferably in the capacity of Minister. Belgium set a good example in this connection. Fourthly, where legislation and the budget are concerned, all Council meetings should be public, which means that both discussions and decision-making should take place in public and reports that are compiled on these should also be made public. Fifthly, in the case of legislation, including the budget, only ministers should be granted a right to vote, which means that it is not acceptable for them to be replaced by, for example, the permanent representative or by officials. In my opinion, the Council should function entirely in line with its actual task as a Federal Council, much like its German model, so that it becomes crystal clear to the citizens what its role is in the democratic process of the Union. I truly hope that the report by Mr Poos will play a key role in the forthcoming IGC and above all, I hope that the Council will take to heart what has been expressed here in Parliament in the way of criticism, but also the odd word of praise.

Political group: PPE-DE