Mr President, one of the biggest challenges facing the Portuguese Presidency is the IGC. As you know very well, this Parliament is dissatisfied with the narrowness of the agenda envisaged. The three so-called 'Amsterdam left-overs' are very important and include what is probably the single most important issue for the IGC faced with enlargement, namely the extension of qualified majority voting. That is true. But these three subjects are very well known to our Member States. They studied them in depth during the Amsterdam negotiations. They know exactly what the issues are. They do not need a whole year's study. They need a deal. They need a night, a week maybe, of negotiations and a package to be agreed. That leaves the rest of the year – almost a whole year. That is twice as long as the IGC that negotiated the Single European Act in 1985. It is as long as the IGC that negotiated the huge Maastricht Treaty. That IGC lasted a year. It is therefore perfectly possible to address other issues. Nobody is actually asking for an all-embracing IGC with a hundred issues or more; with a Christmas tree where everyone puts on their favourite decorations. We are simply asking for a limited number of essential subjects to be added to the agenda; subjects which really ought to be addressed in what is the last IGC before enlargement, the last time we will have these negotiations without having nearly 30 Member States around the table making any agreement even more difficult than it is at present. That chance must be seized. It would be the height of irresponsibility not to seize this opportunity. Helsinki gave you, the Portuguese Presidency, a mandate to propose to add items to the agenda. That means, in the words of Mr Cox, – the Liberals always steal the best lines from other people's speeches – that the door is ajar. We firmly intend to put our foot in that door to make it stay ajar and open further. Thank goodness the door is ajar, because otherwise this Parliament would almost certainly have been tempted to give a negative opinion on the convening of the IGC or even to delay giving our opinion and thereby delay the start of the IGC, maybe even to withdraw our representatives from the IGC. But the fact that the door is ajar means we still have a possible way forward. What makes the difference for my Group is the attitude that has been shown by the Portuguese Presidency. You clearly share our concerns about the narrowness of the agenda. You clearly also would prefer the agenda to be widened and you have given us an undertaking to do your best in that respect, just as you have given a commitment to us just now to ensure the widest possible interpretation of the Helsinki provisions concerning Parliament's participation in the IGC. That makes a big difference as far as my Group is concerned. We welcome that. But like my colleague, Mr Seguro, I would ask you to specify clearly that you intend to make proposals to widen the agenda already to the first meeting of the European Council in Lisbon in March, and not wait until June. That would be very important in helping to convince this Parliament to give its opinion in time for you to be able to launch the IGC on Saint Valentine's Day.

Political group: PSE