Thank you, Mr Prodi, for your statement, but also, and perhaps more importantly, for your introductory comments. This statement is peppered with ‘constructive’ ambiguities, and I hope that, on this basis, we will manage to complete the fruitful discussion that we started in this House, following the resolutions that Parliament adopted on 13 March and 5 April 2001, and the publication of the Lamfalussy report. I have two comments to make on the important nature of the discussion that we are holding today. My first comment is that, as the rapporteur pointed out, following the introduction of the euro, it is crucially important that we put in place an action plan on financial services, especially if we want to reach the objectives that we set collectively at Lisbon, namely to make the European Union the most competitive economic area in the world. However, the institutional issues are also important and provide the evidence of democracy. From this perspective, the discussion that we are holding today is of major importance when you take a look at the timetable before us: the Convention and the IGC, the Commission’s White Paper on Governance, the essential reform of Article 202 of the Treaty and the redrafting of the interinstitutional agreement on comitology, which patently does not take account of the evolving powers and role of the European Parliament as a legislator, in particular, in the economic and monetary Union. I think that, from the Commission’s point of view, the fact that the two pillars of economic and monetary Union are working well means that the European Parliament is a full partner and this demonstrates the importance of the discussion that we have been holding with you for almost a year now. We will all appreciate the outcome of this discussion, from our own perspective, both in economic and institutional terms. Personally speaking, I would like to underline two points, the first on the issues that you brought up in your statement and the second on what will certainly be the subject of future discussions that we will hold, particularly within the framework of the Convention. Regarding the first point, I think you mentioned the notorious ‘constructive’ ambiguity of doing business on an equivalent basis. We do not believe that equal treatment is a matter of discussing complex subtleties: it is in the hands of the Council. You are aware of this, Mr Prodi. In any case, this is how we are interpreting your statement and comments. Behind this, however, there is the idea that this request, in addition to the formal statement that you have just made, must be used as a reference each time that we have to issue an opinion on a document within the framework of the financial services action plan. Then, also, there is the issue that you have not tackled today and that we will continue to bring up in the forthcoming meetings that we shall have with you, namely, how can we avoid a possible disagreement between the European Parliament and Commission? On this point, we believe that the idea of an informal trilogue enabling us to reach a balanced and mutually acceptable agreement, as proposed by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, is the correct negotiating basis for the future.

Political group: PSE