Mr President, Commissioner, the annual legislative and work programme is an incredibly important tool for decision-making and planning here in Parliament. It is on this basis that we proceed when we prepare our work – work that has consequences for ourselves, for the parliaments of our Member States and for our citizens. We know how important it is that it should be possible to monitor the decision-making processes in the European institutions. That is the purpose of the work of reform in our Parliament. It is on President Cox’s agenda, and this ambition is the basis of the laudable work being done by Mr Corbett when it comes to reforming the methods of working. Increased openness and accessibility are also the basic ideas behind the Commission’s work on the White Paper on European Governance. Unfortunately, work on the annual programme has not always proceeded so well. In a majority of cases, Parliament has criticised the procedures. The programme has been late in arriving. The priorities have been unclear. There has been insufficient follow-up, and many proposals have been recycled. Parliament’s role in preparing the programme has been unsatisfactory, in spite of the fact that the framework agreement states clearly and unambiguously that the Commission must take the maximum account of the guidelines proposed by Parliament. Parliament has, however, responded with extremely long ‘shopping lists’ which have perhaps not always been realistic. Immediately before Christmas, when the Commission’s proposal was presented, Parliament chose, of course, not to regard it as a legislative programme on the grounds that it was a text with only general objectives. The development of the co-decision procedure makes it necessary not only for Parliament but also for the Council to play a greater role in preparing the programme, even though it is of course, as stated in the Treaty, the Commission which has the right of initiative. As the Commission takes more and more legislative initiatives, it may be difficult for Parliament to keep up, and we shall sometimes be blamed for legislation’s being delayed. It is therefore important that the Council and the two countries holding the presidency during the year should play their part in planning the annual programme so that it can be synchronised better. Now, following nine months of negotiations and a great many meetings, we have agreed upon how to improve the procedures. I believe that we have made a very great deal of progress in the best interests of ourselves, the institutions and the people. The agreement involves quite a long process involving staging posts, regular dialogue and checkpoints, as well as close cooperation and partnership. The year is to begin with a kind of ‘State of the Union’ debate for the coming year, involving all the institutions including the Council. It will be based upon a draft work programme prepared by the Commission and, during the spring, there will then be discussions between the Commission and the committees affected so that priorities within the relevant areas might be debated jointly. Those of us who sit on the committees and work with the issues on a daily basis naturally have a feeling for which issues are topical and for what supplementary legislation and what common positions are needed. By involving the committees at such an early stage, we shall be better prepared when the legislative proposal is, in fact, submitted, and the work can then proceed smoothly and easily. The agreement also includes a mid-term review of the ongoing legislative work, a feature I think is very much to be welcomed if a situation is to be avoided in which proposals are recycled. The forthcoming programme will then be taken stock of at the time of the Conference of Presidents. The Commission’s proposals will be presented in Parliament in November. All this is to be found in the appendix to the proposal we are to vote on tomorrow. The annual legislative programme is to be presented with reference to a calendar, to the legal base and to any budgetary implications. It is also important to think of the priorities and of the need for the principle of subsidiarity to have a major impact. These are obligations for the Commission, but they are also based upon Parliament’s taking responsibility and demonstrating self-discipline when it comes to the number of proposals we ask the Commission to take up. We cannot draw up long lists, but we must show that we know how to prioritise. We should also become better at appointing rapporteurs promptly. We have everything to gain from creating a good climate of cooperation with the Commission. To make it easier for the electorate, ourselves and the mass media to follow the legislative work, a common database should be set up showing who in the Commission and Parliament is responsible for a particular proposal. The database should also contain information about the calendar, budgetary implications and legal base. The database should be publicly available. I believe it should prove to be of very great help to our colleagues in the national parliaments. Mr President, I hope that, no later than in the course of the next few days, the Commissioners will begin to visit Parliaments’ committees so that a start can be made as soon as possible on following the agreed timetable and method of working. By changing the procedures in this way, I believe we can obtain a method of working and a legislative cycle which are more effective, more transparent and more comprehensible. It will then be possible to improve considerably European forms of governance. Finally, I want to thank Mrs de Palacio who has really made an effort to enable us to bring about an agreement. It is obvious that she has been a parliamentarian herself and understands Parliament’s problems and concerns. I should genuinely like also to thank the other political groups for cooperating with us in reaching this final result.

Political group: ELDR