Madam President, I am pleased that Mrs Smet has prepared this report and am very much in agreement with her concerning many aspects of it. I am very well disposed towards the open coordination method. I am, however, also a little concerned that it is often regarded as a sort of soft legislation and poor man’s alternative to ordinary legislation, or as something that should only be used in emergencies. I think in precisely the opposite terms. I think that legislation must be applied when there are no other options and when authority, strength and discipline are genuinely needed. A number of public tasks can, however, successfully be carried out other than by using laws, discipline, compulsion and the whip hand. The open coordination method is a modern form of project administration. It is used for the public sector when it is aiming for change, development and ongoing renewal and when it needs to be able to change its methods of working to keep pace with accumulating experience. It is perhaps no coincidence that the open coordination method has grown out of those societies that are run as market economies, in which the public sector must be as flexible and efficient as the market at its best. I therefore find it pathetic to hear representatives of the right-of-centre parties say that they do not want this flexible and efficient market tool but, instead, an old-fashioned bureaucratic, controlling and law-governed form of government in the public sector. That is something I find odd. I think that the open coordination method should be written into the constitution so that – and I think this is important – it is generally accepted. I am, however, extremely concerned that it is to be incorporated with prescriptions as to how it is to operate, which methods it is to use and which processes it is to comprise etc. That is what happens with a traditional legal text but, in this case, it would be a question of putting strict parameters around a method that ought to be adaptable, flexible and versatile and putting a straightjacket on it. It would then be nothing like so effective. I support the amendment by the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party on that point. I have also myself tabled an amendment that, to my great surprise, went and got voted down by the committee. I am now tabling it again. It is about the fact that the open coordination method is also a cooperation, and not only a coordination, method. It cannot be based upon sanctions and penalties. In common with other free social relations, it must be based upon trust and respect. We cannot therefore make use of naming and shaming and worst practices. What we need are best practices. That is where the focus must be. Otherwise, this method and its possibilities will be spoiled. It is different from the legislation method, and it would therefore be quite wrong if, inspired by ancient legal tradition, there was considered to be a need for disciplining, penalising and singling out those who are disobedient. This method is quite different. I should like to see this method promoted. That is how it has come to be used in a number of European societies. It is not so widespread everywhere, but it is usual in the Scandinavian countries I myself come from, where it plays an extremely progressive role. It is also more prevalent in the Anglo-Saxon countries. It is not, however, to be found in certain other countries which have much more traditional administration systems. I believe that we must move towards this open, democratic and modern cooperation method. I particularly wish to emphasise the word ‘democratic’ – democratic being what the method in fact is, albeit in a way not involving legal and judicial control.

Political group: GUE-NGL