Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to welcome the presentation of, and the first ever debate on, the Commission’s programme for government – the word President Prodi is so fond of; as I am –for the whole legislature. Firstly, this is welcome because it explains, to our fellow citizens, what we are intending to do and what we are already doing. We must also express our regret at the current situation and try to improve on it for the future. We have taken almost eleven months – President Prodi was nominated at the Berlin Summit in March last year – to establish a legislative programme. This is not entirely President Prodi’s fault. We are recovering from a crisis. However, I believe that, in the future, it would be appropriate for the investiture of the next Commission to coincide with the presentation of a legislative programme. We are breaking new ground and doing so in complex circumstances. President Prodi began his speech by talking of a paradoxical situation, a paradox in the European Union and also throughout the world: we are at the dawn of a new secular millennium, dominated by the web of the Internet and the sorcery of biotechnological advance, and we are living through a genuine change of epoch. However, to focus on the European Union as it is today, and on the subject of government and governance – a word which, at least in Spanish, brings to mind the previous name of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, although it may be an appropriate word anyway –, the most important thing is that the European Union be provided with a good government, and, since President Prodi always defends his home town, Bologna, I would advise him to go to Siena for a while and see something which we all understand: the frescos of Ambrogio Lorenzetti, which speak of bon governo [good government] and mal governo [bad government]. What we need here is good government, Madam President. Since we are recovering from a very complex crisis, we must try to enhance our institutions and give them substance. I would like to remind the House of something which we often forget, and that is that the investiture of the Prodi Commission, last September, received wide support. In our opinion, this demonstrates that the majority of us are in favour of progress and in favour of Europe. I would like to point out that, within this broad consensus, there were some Groups which said that the majority of Parliament should form an opposition to the majority of the Council. It is precisely this which, in a sense, is hindering the important process of developing codecision within the legislative programme. I am pointing this out because I believe that our support for the Commission also has to lead to continuity in the work carried out throughout the legislature. On the other hand, we are witnessing the birth of a political Europe, which entails a collection of shared values which we all agree upon, and a European Union at the service of the citizens. With regard to the events of recent days, I would like to say – and I am saying this on the day, and the week, that the Intergovernmental Conference is starting – we have to place far more value and fundamental emphasis upon the charter on fundamental rights which, given what we have said about the Austrian crisis, I believe should be fully included in the Treaties. I have absolutely no doubt about this and I believe it is an essential point. In this regard, Madam President, I would like to say that we should remain aware and watch our language. Last week, the new Minister for Finance of the Austrian coalition described the Austrian Parliament as a farce and a theatre. Those of us who have had to live under a dictatorship know of the existence of dictatorships with cardboard governments. There can be no democracy without a living parliament. I believe that this type of language is extremely dangerous and I would like to condemn it here and now. With regard to the four great priorities which President Prodi systematically refers to and with regard to his analysis of the challenges facing us, I would say that we are very much in agreement. Nevertheless, I would point out to the Commission that, as far as the Socialist Group is concerned, there has been a change of priorities. We understand that the first priority is the economic and social agenda, which also includes what is known as ‘quality of life’ priorities, that is to say, the rights of citizens as consumers and as people, in relation to those questions which we always talk about, but never give sufficient priority to, that is, the European social model and its adaptation to the new circumstances, consumer rights, respect for the environment and sustainable development. When speaking of the commitment to full employment, we have to bear in mind that, these days, full employment does not mean what it meant in the era of Beveridge at the end of the Second World War, that is to say, employment for the male head of the household. We must argue for equality of the sexes, the famous ‘gender mainstreaming’, which is one of the least developed questions in the Prodi Commission’s programme. This means prioritising sex equality, the adaptation of the social model and, above all, an unequivocal fight against populism whenever our economic and social cohesion is under threat. This must also be a main priority in the work of the Commission. It must be complemented with a forthright fight against racism and intolerance so that we may come to recognise, in practice, the evolution of a Union which has become a magnet for the rest of the world and an immigration zone, given its prosperity and seasonal demographics. I believe that this is the first objective for us to pursue. In this respect I would also add another element, which is economic government, given the single currency, and I believe this is inescapable. This is another question on which the Commission must make progress. With regard to the ambitious objectives and, above all, the Commission’s important step of adopting this broadening of the process of negotiation and integration, I would like – and my Group would like – more clarification in relation to the revision of Agenda 2000. Does the Commission think that there will be never be any revision? The issue of taxation also seems to us to be absolutely essential. With regard to governance in general, I believe it might be worth thinking in theoretical terms. I would like to remind you of one thing: it is dangerous to rethink the entire governance of the European Union from here. I would be clearly in favour of subsidiarity. If we are capable of defining what our area of governance is, I think that would be very positive. In all other areas, I believe that subsidiarity is also relevant to this discussion. Not only should the Commission discuss this, but also our states, our parliaments and our civil society. Madam President, I would like to refer briefly to the last objective, which seems to us to be absolutely fundamental: the stabilisation of the continent and the strengthening of the Europe’s role in the world. It appears that there is agreement and support with regard to the prioritisation of South-East Europe, with regard to enlargement and – as I have said already – with regard to the process of integration and the strengthening of the Euro-Mediterranean programme and our ability to prevent conflicts, as well as an issue which we seldom talk about; the North-South challenge. We must not forget Africa, a continent which has been forsaken, not only by God, but also by Europe, nor our important contribution to cooperating with development. Lastly, an issue for which we are increasingly responsible, as the world’s foremost economic and commercial power, that is, Europe’s voice in the world, which does not simply mean adopting an active approach to the Millennium Round. It means the reform of the United Nations and the international financial institutions, for which Europe has an enormous responsibility. Above all, Madam President – and here I will end – we must be able to express this in plain language, clearly, by changing to some extent the jargon which we use, because we cannot ask the Europeans, who are living through profound changes, to take part and show enthusiasm towards us if we continue to use a form of language which they find completely inaccessible. This is a fundamental way to increase and strengthen their confidence in us. I hope this will be demonstrated when we hold the next European elections.

Political group: PSE