Mr President of the Commission, circumstances have contrived to focus the debate on the acceptance of the new Commission upon the operational problems of the institution. You announced your intention to set your house in order, fight against corruption, demonstrate efficiency and strictness, and you announced the implementation of ambitious reforms. We are delighted to hear it. You even went beyond this debate, mentioning a number of challenges facing the Commission and the European Union: expansion, consolidation of growth, sustainable development. Having said that, I do not see any hierarchical ordering in this list, and I do not believe we can get away from what seems to me a crucial challenge for the future: overcoming the possible lack of coherence between the policies run by the European Union. Let me take one example: you declare yourself in favour of greater liberalisation, yet it will be difficult, in this context, to achieve real sustainable development. You will recall the commitments on biodiversity made by the European Union, whether at Kyoto or at Rio: the convention on the subject is still at the draft stage. Do I also have to remind you of the Copenhagen Declaration on social development with its very ambitious handling of the North-South divide and the divisions within the North between rich and poor: the European Union made a number of commitments in this regard, none of which has to date been upheld. I therefore believe we must look into the tools which are available to us and not be content to use the tools which have already existed for many years. I am thinking, for example, of our relationship with the WTO. It goes without saying that the regulations of the World Trade Organisation are, to a great extent, incompatible with the objective of sustainable development. Finally, I would like to mention a second and final point: you wish to reconcile the European citizen with the European institutions. Very well. You also speak of transparency. Certainly, it is an effective tool, but it must not be limited to routine mechanisms and usual administrative procedures. There must also be transparency on the major stakes involved, particularly those which, justifiably, are of concern to citizens, as is the case right now with food safety. In this connection, I observe increasingly, hence my disquiet, that important decisions on the subject are both discussed and digested in advance in the inner sanctums of diplomats, thus escaping the control of both Members of Parliament and citizens. I am thinking in particular of a statement made a few days ago by the United States Ambassador to the European Union, in which he declared his delight that the biotechnological working party resulting from Transatlantic economic partnership had arrived at a draft agreement on procedures for the approval of new transgenic varieties. You know, Mr President, that transgenic varieties are not well thought of within the European Union and that we are therefore on the verge of a probably very heated conflict between expert opinion and public opinion on the subject. I would like to see more clarity from the Commission regarding the role it intends to play with regard to Parliament and the citizenry. Are you on the side of the experts and big industry or are you on the side of the citizens and Parliament?

Political group: Verts-ALE