Mr President, being the last to speak gives me the privilege, Commissioner, of telling you that the majority of this House supports your initiative and has expressed a total, and, I believe, justified, confidence in you at the helm of this boat. But we all want to be oarsmen on it. We all belong on the same boat and want to row with you. I therefore believe it to be absolutely necessary to establish an interinstitutional dialogue so that we might reach a good conclusion and put all the finishing touches to this essential reform. The many ideas which have been expressed here could be put into three broad categories. Firstly, there is the concern that some have expressed, in particular Mrs Randzio-Plath, President of the Committee on Economic Affairs, of whether this new system of legal exception is absolutely compatible with the Treaty. I share that concern and I believe that this issue should be addressed. Secondly, we have the issue of companies’ legal certainty. It is true, Commissioner, that the Commission is not a machine for manufacturing legal certainty. We all agree on this. But it is nonetheless true – and this has been repeated from all sections of this House – that the European industrial fabric is composed of small and medium-sized businesses, and that the Commission often plays the role of auctoritas, of legitimising the nature of the internal market. On this point I will give my opinion on something which Mr Karas said. There have only been nine rejections. But here I would like to call on my experience as a lawyer. How often has a lawyer with two companies and one project, in the face of a Commission guideline given ex ante, changed that project in order for it to comply with the competition rules! This is therefore an aspect to be considered. Thirdly, we have the problem of the uniform application of Community law. In this respect, the excellent speech by Mrs Thyssen cannot be improved upon. I believe that biodiversity is good, as is cultural diversity, but not diversity in the application of the law with regard to the essential core of the internal market, that is to say, competition law. Here improvements should be made. Only in certain countries, Germany for example, is there specialised jurisdiction. Perhaps this is a promising avenue to explore, but we must also explore others. What we cannot do, Commissioner – and I would like to end on this note – is to give way, and give ammunition, to those who regard the European institutions as the property of the great and the good, of the rich, and not of the citizen, or the small and medium business, which, in the worst case scenario – which will never become reality because the requisite measures will be applied to prevent it – will result in courts which make disparate judgements, very late, with no real possibility of control apart from what the French call 'le parcours du combatant', that is to say, after Lord knows how many years, when the Court in Luxembourg passes judgement, a Court which we know to be inundated at the moment. Commissioner, it is impossible to overstate the importance of this reform. It transcends competition, it transcends the cohesion of the internal market. I believe that it profoundly affects the meaning of European integration, the meaning of the legitimacy of European integration. Therefore, Commissioner, we are relying on this interinstitutional dialogue to put the finishing touches to a reform which we are all hoping for and which we believe will lead us to a successful conclusion under your direction and with our cooperation.

Political group: PPE-DE