Madam President, let me begin by saying on behalf of my group that we fully share the perspective of Mr Prodi that certainly from tomorrow we stand on the threshold of a new beginning; a new beginning in particular between our two institutions, Parliament and the Commission, and a new beginning for Europe itself. On the issues which the President-designate has raised of reform, which should be brought forward by Commissioner Kinnock next February with due consultation, the policy programme of next January, the moral and political imperative of addressing the enlargement challenge and preparation for the Intergovernmental Conference, I pledge my group to a positive and constructive engagement with the Commission in this regard. Indeed we look forward to getting down to serious and immediate work on questions such as East Timor, south-eastern Europe and the Balkans in particular. But today is an opportunity for this House to review the investiture process and to place on record some of the questions or observations that arise from that. In due course, within the House and in the appropriate fora, my own group intends to contribute to a debate which we hope will be initiated on lessons which we ourselves, as Parliament, must learn from the hearings process. We certainly would hope for the future that we might be able to develop procedures to allow for what might be described as more questioning in depth of nominees. That said, however, we believe that the exercise just completed has been a positive and valuable exercise. Some in this House – I believe from the outset that they have been a minority, though perhaps rather vocal in terms of the media – have talked of targeting individual nominees. This has not been the approach nor the view of my group. We believe that ab initio this kind of process, which, as I said, was a minority pursuit, to be a sign of weakness and not of strength. Tomorrow, when we vote on the college, the group will vote for a college and we will not seek at this point to differentiate, to pick or to choose between nominees. We respect in the act of voting tomorrow the essential collegiality of the European Commission and regard that as an essential value for its working method. But we have some questions that arise from the hearings and some observations. In the procedures to date, many of the nominee Commissioners were kind enough to, in effect, promise in advance a charter of reform for their own areas and have alluded to specific policy commitments. We have taken note of those commitments and we expect to see them reflected in the work programme in January. We shall check that programme against those commitments which were given in the course of the hearings. It is obvious from the hearings – indeed without them it is obvious – that there are major areas of overlap and therefore potential conflict in operational responsibilities within the college. Here again we hope that, in working through the programme for January, where these overlaps arise they will be explicitly identified and addressed in order that potential conflicts in spheres of responsibility should not slow down the reform process. I recall in particular questions about the overlaps between food law and food safety, the various overlaps that one can imagine with the World Trade Organisation and a host of other responsibilities, not least those of the Environment Commissioner. The President mentioned the importance of electronic commerce and information technology. These issues must clearly be addressed as to responsibility. Many colleagues have also raised questions about the desirability of separating the ex ante responsibility for budget control from the ex post responsibility for budget implementation or formulation within the Commission. Many in my own group have raised this question with me. I raise it today but hasten to add that this is in no way a reflection on the qualities or capacity of the nominee Commissioner charged to deal with both of these issues in the current sphere of responsibilities. There has been a certain diversity of views, Mr Prodi, among your nominee Commissioners about their personal political accountability in the future. They all accepted in the hearings that they will be responsible for themselves and their cabinets. Some did not quite accept what I believe is also a necessary requirement, that in the matter of policy formulation and implementation they carry a general responsibility for their departments, answerable to the college but accountable to this Parliament. Specifically, my group, has for many months now raised the question of individual responsibility. Again I return to that point today. I have already said we support as necessary the collegiate nature of the Commission. However we reassert, as we have done consistently, that an effective college requires the assumption of individual political responsibility. The buck must stop somewhere. Where everyone is responsible it can result in a system where no one is responsible. We do not contest, President Prodi, your prerogative to act in this regard. But we insist that, whatever the current state of law, the law needs changing and that if a Commissioner fails to enjoy the confidence of this House you must act accordingly. We urge you to do that. It is your prerogative but it is our right to insist that the confidence of this House be respected and its absence be respected also. Indeed, here I hope you will not adopt the Stoiber formulation referred to by Mr Barón Crespo. I should add, arising from matters raised in the hearings but not concluded, in respect of some of the individual nominee Commissioners that should any legal or criminal proceedings arise – which I do not anticipate would necessarily be the case but which would pose problems for the integrity of the Commission - we would expect the President of the Commission to act in such circumstances. We intend to negotiate later today and tomorrow a political resolution. That will formulate and specify a number of requests, not just on the area of individual responsibility but also specifically to do with areas of transparency and access to documents. When we vote on those my group will expect to hear from you a specific detailed and positive response before our final vote. In conclusion, we share the vision expressed here today. It is high time that we had this new beginning. It is the time for us to return to serious work. It is time that we recognise and rebuild as institutions – Commission and Parliament – our common European vocation. The group pledges itself to that task. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR