Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the future of the European Union is, as a subject for debate, no doubt closely related to, and in part inseparable from, the reform of governance, which forms the subject of my report. You will see, on reading it, that it is not exactly sparing with its criticisms. It takes up a very definite stance on numerous subjects addressed by the Commission in its White Paper, and, to use a phrase currently popular in Germany, a good thing too! It is precisely for this reason, President Prodi, that it is important to me that I thank you and your colleagues for your initiative in producing this White Paper, above all for the Commission's willingness, expressed in the White Paper, to unreservedly and even self-critically examine and change all the rules, procedures and ways the EU has of exercising its authority, in short, everything summed up in the word 'governance'. This merits every respect, being, in fact, about nothing more or less than the reduction of the prevailing gulf between the EU and its citizens. In this, the Commission finds in Parliament a close comrade-in-arms. We are, as is well known, only at the beginning of the debate on the reform of governance. Many of the Commission's proposals need to be considered in depth. The White Paper announces several initiatives, and when they are definitely on the table, we will express our opinion of them. I assume that certain proposals can become reality quite soon and not only at the end of next year at the earliest. I would put under this heading the committees and working parties listed in Commissioner Kinnock's White Paper on reform of the Commission, and which are participating in the consultation procedure. I will take this opportunity to point out that I think that every future legislative proposal could have an appendix listing all the experts, associations and organisations that played a part in drafting it. Parliament does indeed support the improved participation and consultation that the White Paper calls for, but we take the view that this requires an interinstitutional agreement on democratic consultation, and I am pleased, President Prodi, that you have mentioned this today and given it your clear support. President Prodi, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, my report takes at length a very definite position on the issue of better lawmaking, and this is not by chance, for the fundamental issue is the role of Parliament as joint legislator. Parliament has repeatedly emphasised that it puts its trust in the Community method, and that it sees the maintenance of the balance between the institutions as the best way to make progress towards integration. It is not, then, some concept that we are defending, but rather its content and political essence, so I want to make it very clear today that, to put it mildly, there has been great disquiet in Parliament about the Council’s and the Commission's long-standing efforts to draft an action plan for better lawmaking, about the working parties that have already and secretly been drafting papers with the objective of putting this programme of action on the Laeken agenda – all of which has been done without involving or even informing Parliament, the joint legislator. As item 30 of this report quite clearly states, we see this as a grave breach of the Community method. The report therefore also demands that the action programme for better lawmaking should not be on the agenda for the Laeken Summit. This is certainly not about this House being unwilling to take part in any consideration of how lawmaking could be simplified or even improved. President Prodi announced today that the Commission will be producing a consultative document aimed at starting a dialogue with this House on this issue, and I can tell you that this Parliament is ready for it. Let me say, though, and say quite emphatically, something to which we attach the highest importance: that if Parliament's legislative authority, given to it alone directly by the citizens who elected it, is restricted, Parliament will not take it lying down. It is, especially, co-regulation that is at issue here. The use of so-called framework directives is something we view with a highly critical eye. There must be appropriate mechanisms of democratic control, and on this point, Mr Prodi, there are evidently differences of opinion. We want a time-limited 'call-back mechanism'. So I was very surprised that the Council representative made no comments on this of all issues. Better lawmaking is indeed a matter for all three institutions, and I would be interested to know what the Council Presidency has to say on this issue or on that of the proposed interinstitutional working party.

Political group: GUE-NGL