President. – The next item is the Council and Commission statements on Council reform.

  Solana, Council. – (ES) Mr President, we are now dealing with a completely different issue and we will have to adapt our mental ‘chips’ to the new topic. I would very briefly like to talk to you about two issues.

The first relates to a report which I had the honour of producing at the request of the Council with a view to studying whether, before the end of the whole process of reforming the European Union – in particular institutional reforms – the Council could operate more efficiently, naturally within the existing legal framework and in accordance with what the Convention and, later on, the Intergovernmental Conference, may decide.

The proposals which have been presented and which are being analysed at the moment, so that some of them can be approved at the Seville European Council, are very simple and easy. The first would involve a change in the operation of the European Council. The Council, as you know, does not operate as it should, at least in my opinion. The European Council was conceived as the motor for the European Union’s great political strategies and it should therefore have a speedier and simpler working mechanism which is more suited to that objective.

The European Council currently has far too packed an agenda, which the Heads of Government do not have time to prepare. Those Heads of Government spend a very large amount of their time approving conclusions on a huge number of dossiers – sometimes more than 60 – which means a tremendous amount of writing, and the effort required to produce them does not correspond to the number of people who read them. We therefore have to do everything we can to ensure that the European Council operates in a speedier and more rational way, just as the cabinets in the majority or all of the countries of the European Union operate, with well prepared agendas which focus on decision making in those Councils which require it. This does not require great institutional changes: all it requires is the political will to achieve it.

We should also try – and this is my suggestion – to hold European Councils of at least three different types: a European Council intended to take well-prepared decisions, with a clear agenda in which decisions could be taken, in my opinion, also by a qualified majority in the future; a second Council which would be of a more monographic nature, that is to say that the Heads of Government would concentrate on one part or element of Europe’s great political life and in which they do not only try to give instructions but also, if possible, offer practical solutions which could aid the functioning of the European Union; and thirdly, European Councils of a more informal nature, in which the European Union leaders could sit around the fireplace – although it would be a huge table rather than a fireplace – and discuss issues which are of importance in terms of the present, the near future and the long-term future of the European Union. I feel there is a lack of in-depth consideration of very important issues which perhaps relate more to the future than to current times.

Having said this about the European Council, I would now like to discuss its preparation. This includes deciding what Council to prepare and what form it should take. Until now, as you know, the tradition has been for the General Affairs Council, which is made up of Foreign Ministers of the various European Union countries, to be responsible for preparing it. However, these Ministers have an increasingly busy and packed agenda, on issues which strictly relate to the European Union’s foreign and security policy. If you see the agendas, you will realise that they are increasingly full and this raises the question of whether it is possible for the General Affairs Council, with its current structure and form, to devote sufficient time to horizontal issues which are ultimately issues dealt with by the European Council.

There are many formulae for solutions. I am not going to point out any particular one: I suggested three or four which are now being discussed, but I do believe that in one way or another, we should opt either for separating the Councils or for dividing into separate sessions – which cannot be the same Council with different sessions – issues strictly relating to foreign and security policy, of which there are many, from those issues which relate to the preparation of the agenda of the European Council. In the end, what happens is that those issues are not prepared thoroughly enough for the European Council to be the effective organ we all want to see.

Therefore, there may be two or three models for Councils: one in which there is a separation of the General Affairs Council with the essential role of preparing the European Council, which will imply an increasing amount of work; another possibility is that the General Affairs Council could consist of general affairs in a stricter sense, where each government could send somebody to contribute more effectively to the preparation of the European Council, in accordance with the issues, and another formula which would mean that it devotes itself strictly to foreign and security policy issues.

The third issue raised in the report is an issue whose solution will fall to the Convention and ultimately to the Intergovernmental Conference. However, I believe, Mr President, that it is an issue which we will have to start thinking about. It is undoubtedly a difficult issue which changes certain fundamental elements of our European Union tradition, and that is the notion of the rotating six-month Presidency. During my long political life, which is becoming too long, within the European Union, I have been a Minister in the Presidency of the European Union twice and now I see that Presidency from a different point of view.

I honestly believe that, as the number of countries increases and international life becomes more and more complicated, it is going to be more difficult to maintain the six-month rotating Presidency. In the early days of the European Union, when we essentially dealt with internal problems exclusively affecting the countries of the European Union, we were able to do so with the six-monthly rotating system. As the Union takes on many more responsibilities, which do not relate to us – to our countries – but also to third countries, I believe that speed, the maintenance of certain common positions and the tenacious defence of certain elements of our policy, make it difficult, unless we adapt the model for the Presidency, to achieve all the results which the honourable Members frequently say in Parliament can be achieved.

I know this is a very difficult issue and that there are countries for whom it is essential or very important to their conception of being a Member of the Union that they hold the six-month Presidency on a regular basis. I understand this, but all countries should consider that when the day comes that we are twenty-something countries, they will have to wait a long time for the Presidency to come round again. So perhaps the value of holding the six-month Presidency on a regular basis will be reduced when the interval between one Presidency and another becomes many years.

However, my comments on this issue are of a purely personal nature, because it is clearly something which the Convention will have to deal with, just like the other issues, and which ultimately the Intergovernmental Conference will have to decide on.

The fourth issue which I believe we should devote some time to – and that is why I put it in writing, so that it might be discussed – is the issue of the transparency of the Council in general, but, in particular, when it is acting as legislator. I believe we must think about a way to involve public opinion more closely at times when the Council is acting as legislator; this is another issue which must only be dealt with in the Convention and subsequently in the Intergovernmental Conference, but I do think it is important for us to start creating a certain environment or culture in which, sooner or later, and the sooner the better, this type of consideration takes place throughout the collective life of the European Union.

But to return to the two fundamental issues, which do not require either the Convention, in principle, nor the Intergovernmental Conference, but simply political will, the will to get things done, I believe that achieving a more effective preparation and management of the European Council, ensuring that it focuses more on the fundamental issues, that it carry out more rigorous analysis, with more solid, serious and effective preparation, is something which can be done without waiting for tomorrow. If there were currently the political will, it could be implemented today, because there is nothing to prevent it – the Treaties do not prevent it – and it would in no way alter the fundamental operation of the European Union.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, this is the kind of work we are immersed in at the moment. As I have said, in Barcelona I presented an initial brief report indicating these kinds of issues almost in note form. Today, the Presidency – together with the team of the Secretariat – is making contact with the different capitals to see whether there is any possibility, between now and the end of June, when the Seville European Council takes place, of reaching a consensus on some of these issues which strictly require the political will of the fifteen leaders, and the Commission, to sit around the table.

This is very briefly what we are working on at the moment, ladies and gentlemen. There are many other things to do in relation to the reform of the Council, which will no doubt be on the agenda of the Convention and the agenda of the Intergovernmental Conference. We will have time to discuss them and, if possible, to reach agreements that favour a more efficient institution which can deal with issues in a more rational and effective manner in a Europe which, fortunately, is new, because the world is new; a better Europe because the world is better.

  Barnier, Commission. – (FR) Mr President, Secretary-General of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, all the opinion polls on Europe which we have been analysing show that, in the eyes of our citizens, our institutions are very complex, in fact too complex, that they are not transparent, and that they are too far away. I myself believe that this complexity, or at least part of it, should be assumed and explained by each of our institutions, because this complex aspect is the price we have to pay in order to have a Europe which is united without being, at the same time, uniform.

That does not mean, however, that as far as the remaining – not inconsiderable – amount of complexity is concerned there is no room for improvement, or no need for changes to be made, particularly at a time when we are getting ready to face numerous threats to the operation of the European Union, with 30 countries (initially 25) sitting around the table instead of 15. We are well aware, as Javier Solana has said, that the essential reforms will require amendments to the Treaties. There have already been some amendments, but they were, to say the very least, far from being enough. This means that if we are to succeed this time we must first of all discuss the tasks of the Union, and that is what we are doing in the context of the Convention. That is the Convention’s work on the future of the Union.

However, other reforms can be carried out now within the present legal framework, simply, if there is a willingness to do so, by changing habits or practices. As far as the European Commission is concerned, on whose behalf I am speaking, at President Prodi’s instigation we have begun a series of internal reforms. We have launched quite a broad programme of administrative reforms involving the working methods of all our departments. As for the Council, it has been carrying out its own reflections, initially on the basis of a report whose recommendations, made in 1999, have not yet been followed up. It seems to me that the great strength of Javier Solana’s report is that it relaunches the debate in very specific terms, even in a somewhat pedagogical manner, and, as he himself has said, that it provides – already in Barcelona and shortly in Seville – a basis for creating political willingness among the Heads of State and Government.

These basic documents remind us of the need for more structured planning of the Union’s initiatives at the level of the Presidency, and confirm the need for better horizontal coordination of the various formations of the Council. They envisage a European Council which is centred on its role of providing political impetus and, finally, they recognise the need for greater transparency in the legislative process.

For the Commission, this debate is a very important one, and Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, is making an extremely constructive and substantial contribution to it, thanks to the work of your rapporteurs, Mrs Maij-Weggen and Mr Poos. On behalf of the Commission, I should simply like to assure you of our support for the four aspects of the reflections being undertaken regarding the reform of the Council.

Regarding the first aspect, we say yes to the idea of introducing, as soon as possible and wherever possible, improvements to the way in which the Council works. The Commission supports the Council’s intention of implementing, in the near future, every possible initiative which does not require an amendment to the Treaties, while leaving it to the Convention to draw up more global and definitive proposals for the future institutional system of the European Union.

On the second aspect, we say yes to the principles of consistency, efficacy and transparency on which the Solana report wants the reform of the Council to be based. As the Commission has already had occasion to emphasise in the White Paper on governance, each of our institutions must, of course, concentrate on its essential tasks. However, the reform of the Council is not only necessary for the Council itself: it is also necessary for the other institutions and for the Union itself. As for making sure that the Council goes back to concentrating on its essential functions, I would just note in passing that the conclusions of the European Council in Barcelona, the Commission’s proposals and those expressed by Parliament in its various resolutions, including those that you will be adopting at the end of this debate, are all in line with one another. For example, the Council should be organised differently when it is creating legislation, with open debates and public votes. On the subject of a possible legislative Council, I have nothing to add to what I told you when we were examining the Poos report last October.

Thirdly, on behalf of the Commission I shall say yes to what I would call the rediscovery of the Community method, because this is the only method that gives us a chance of resolving certain difficulties immediately. For example, one of the objectively important and delicate questions concerning the way the Council works is the question of the rotation of the presidency, a question which Javier Solana spoke about just now. We have two options: one option which, in order to stabilise the presidency, assumes that the Treaties will have to be amended, and another option which would not require any such amendment. In the case of the second option, I would point out that continuity in the Council’s work and consistency in the planning of successive presidencies can be achieved by the traditional route: the Commission proposes, and the European Parliament and the Council deliberate. The annual policy strategy submitted by the Commission will thus make it possible, this year, for the first time, for Council and Parliament to enter into a real and stable dialogue on the policy priorities and the working programme for next year.

We also support the idea, without amending the Treaties, of creating a Council responsible for horizontal questions. We support this idea, which would lead to such a body having assigned to it the original mission of the General Affairs Council, in other words the coordination of the Council’s specialised bodies and in particular the preparations for the European Council. Let us rely on Coreper, which should once again become the traditional route by which the Council’s meetings are prepared.

Finally, and following Mr Solana’s example, I shall close by saying that we also say yes to more transparency. This is now obligatory, following Regulation No 1049/2001 and the measures which Parliament, the Council and the Commission have already taken and will be taking shortly with regard to the question of access to preparatory texts. This will make the Community legislative process easier to understand. However, a number of documents are already accessible. Above all it is a question of helping members of the public to find more easily the information that they are seeking. There will soon be a joint brochure issued by the three institutions, which should help them to do just that. Above all, we shall achieve even greater transparency by giving maximum publicity to the deliberations of the Council, particularly when it is engaged in the legislative process.

That is the spirit in which we welcome Mr Solana’s report, together with the innovative and practical proposals that it contains and, of course, as Mr Solana has said on several occasions himself, knowing that a large part of the progress, the reforms and the improvements will depend on the existence of an immediate political willingness on the part of the European Council and, a little later, on the existence of a political willingness within the Convention, and then within the future Inter-Governmental Conference, when we shall have to discuss more fundamental and more substantial reforms.

  Poettering (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Secretary-General, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first a warm word of thanks to Secretary-General Solana – and of course to the Commissioner – but especially to the Secretary-General, because we generally agree on most points with the Commissioner anyway; a word of thanks for having kick-started the reform process in the Council.

Secretary-General Solana, I should also like to offer you a heartfelt word of recognition for the almost superhuman work which you carry out around the world as our High Representative – with particular commitment in the Middle East – and as Secretary-General. It is only because you are such an extraordinary person that you can do this. I do not want to start an institutional debate on your office right now, but I cannot even begin to imagine that there is anyone else out there who could bear the double burden you have to bear and shoulder it so brilliantly.

(Applause)

I should like to offer you my warmest thanks for having tabled these proposals. As Commissioner Barnier said, we have a joint duty to reform our institutions, in this case the Council. The first thing we need to do here is to make a distinction between the General Affairs Council, the Council as legislator – which is, in fact, the most important Council – followed perhaps by the Council that prepares the meetings of the European Council and then of course the Foreign Affairs Council for foreign policy matters.

We know – by name – who arrives late at the Foreign Affairs Council, leaves early and, in between, sits looking rather bored while the Council legislates, which is why we feel we need a European Affairs Council for European legislation and a separate Council for foreign policy in general. This European Affairs Council would always be present at legislative work and could also prepare the meetings of the European Council, the most important task of which is, of course, to legislate.

The European Affairs Council would, of course, be responsible for appointing the representative to the Council/European Parliament conciliation committee when legislation is on the agenda. We know that at the moment officials – nothing against officials, it is just that they are not politicians – often attend as Council representatives and then consult with the European Parliament on the issues in question. But we need politicians who have the courage to bring about results with Parliament and we expressly support radical reform in this direction.

We would also be doing the legislative process a service if the Council of Ministers or, perhaps, the Europe minister representing the presidency also attended Parliament when legislation is on the agenda or even that one or more representatives of the European Parliament – i.e. MEPs – attended the European Affairs Council when it is acting as legislator, so that the Council can ask the European Parliament for its views.

There is still a great deal that needs to be debated here. What I should like to ask you to do, Secretary-General, is to discuss the matter again with the relevant committee – its chairman is right here – while you are preparing your paper and before you send your final report to Seville. If, understandably, you cannot do so personally, your representative could consult with the relevant committee.

You rightly addressed the question of transparency, which is a matter of particular concern to Mrs Hanja Maij-Weggen who, with Mr Poos, drafted the resolution to which our group still has a number of proposed amendments. Mrs Maij-Weggen is not here today because she left for the Netherlands after today's vote in order to take part in the elections, the outcome of which we are all waiting for with bated breath. We want maximum possible transparency, which is why the Council, when it holds legislative meetings, should meet in public once the reform process is completed. The media – including the television – should report on the Council, so that we know exactly how each individual government voted at the end. Please, Secretary-General, once it has finished with the regulation on transparency, let us instruct the interinstitutional working group to draw up guidelines for greater transparency which ensure that we get through to our citizens. Your proposals, what the Commission has said and our contributions basically go in the right direction. If we carry on working with commitment, we shall together achieve a good result for our institutions; and not just for our institutions, but for the European Union as a whole and for the citizens of Europe, and I wish both you and us success in our endeavour.

(Applause)

  Poos (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Secretary-General, in its resolution of 22 October 2001 on the reform of the Council, the European Parliament expressed the opinion that the proper operation of the Council is essential in order to guarantee the democracy, efficacy and coherence of the decision-making process in the enlarged Union. That resolution also condemned the present institutional drift away from the Community method, as well as numerous instances of the malfunctioning of working methods and of the way in which the Council operates.

The European Council in Barcelona last March finally tackled this recurring problem, though not without deciding, yet again, to postpone it to the European Council in Seville which is planned for June 2002. Nevertheless, we should welcome the fact that, in the meantime, the Blair-Schröder letter and the report by Mr Solana entitled ‘Preparing the Council for Enlargement’ have defined those questions which will require an answer before the next reform of the Treaty.

The proposal to lighten the agenda and to get the European Council to concentrate once more on its role of providing guidance and impetus, as laid down in the Treaty, is an initial step in the right direction, and I should like to thank the Secretary-General for having emphasised this important point in his speech. The restoration of the importance of the General Affairs Council and a radical reform of the way in which it operates are obviously the essential corollaries to a reform of the European Council. The Ministers for Foreign Affairs and/or European Affairs, of which it is composed, should work more and better. In other words they should meet more often and subject themselves to greater discipline. Instead of being interested solely in the CFSP, they should pay more attention to horizontal issues and should once again become the principal decision-making body and the principal body preparing for the European Council.

If the General Affairs Council – and I am delighted that the President of the Council is with us today, so that he can pass on the message to his colleagues – as I was saying, if the General Affairs Council does not pull itself together, it will sink into oblivion. It will be the Heads of State and Government who will take over everything, who will deal with everything, via their secretaries of state or other delegated ministers, and who will, in short, bypass the Community preparation process, including Coreper.

If this happens, make no mistake, the intergovernmental method will have triumphed and we can kiss the Community mechanism goodbye. That Community mechanism requires the Commission to propose and the European Parliament and the Council to dispose, all in the greatest possible transparency. In the draft resolution that we have in front of us, the two rapporteurs remind us of the principles which, according to the European Parliament, ought to inspire the reform of the Council, and they emphasise the fact that there is now an urgent need for action.

  Duff (ELDR). – Mr President, I thank Mr Solana for his extremely interesting statement. But reading between the lines, as one should, it is fairly clear that not much progress is being made to reform the Council. Perhaps it is quite unrealistic to think that there could be progress before the problems are dramatised with the presence of 25 or so ministers at the table. But, frankly, I find it extraordinary that Mr Solana and Mr Blair and several others can float the idea of creating an executive committee formed out of the Council presidency without referring to the role of the European Commission.

It would be best to be blunt here. The imposition of a board of directors of the Council would steal the Commission's right of initiative and destroy its critical role in identifying and expressing the common interests of all the Member States. It is only the Commission that can ensure the equality of all the states.

As to the question of the presidency, no debate could be complete without considering whether it would be the proper thing, in the end, to let the Commission chair the ordinary meetings of the Council, while letting Mr Solana chair the Foreign Affairs Council, preserving the routine six-month circus for the European Council itself. That might be the most appropriate approach to ensuring tight coordination and continuity within the Council.

Finally, we should refer to the Byzantine tangle of comitology. The efficiency of the Union will be greatly improved as soon as the Commission is granted sufficient executive authority to act without the constant interference of the Council. So reform has much further to travel before the Convention will be satisfied that we have grappled satisfactorily with all the important questions.

  Frassoni (Verts/ALE). – (IT) Mr Solana, one of the European Union’s strangest idiosyncrasies is demonstrated by the fact that, after discussing the Middle East crisis with us, you are still here with us, immediately afterwards, discussing an issue which could not be more peculiar or further removed from your role of High Representative for Foreign Policy: the Council reforms.

Moreover, I have to say, by way of introduction to this brief speech, that, in my opinion and the opinion of my group, your place is not on this side of the Chamber: it is on the other side. From this point of view, we feel that the basic shortcoming of your proposals lies in the fact that you still believe, or appear to believe, that the role of the Council, be it the European Council or the ordinary Council of Ministers, is that of government. In our view, this is not the case, for, in terms of both effectiveness and democracy, the Council’s role should be that of co-legislator. We therefore see quite considerable cause for concern in the direction the debates are taking on two issues in particular. The first is the rotating Presidency. You say that it is not effective, that it is not working properly and that the term of office should be extended. In that case, you must explain to me what sort of relationship will be created between this future Presidency, which will last for two or two and a half years, and the President of the Commission. I am sure there will be a problem of inconsistency and the potential for conflict. Therefore, let us leave the Presidency alone and rather endeavour to enhance the Council’s role of legislator, for that must be the basis of the forthcoming reforms.

Moreover, the Council reforms can only be carried out as part of an exercise restoring the balance of powers of the different European Union institutions and strengthening the power of the European Parliament as co-legislator.

Now, I would just like to make one brief observation since you have mentioned transparency. We would really be extremely pleased if the Council, as a sign of its commitment to transparency, were not to follow the opinion of its Legal Service, which has stipulated that the European Parliament is not to have access to common positions on external relations and accession negotiations. I feel that this is in total conflict with your statements on the issue of transparency. In this regard, we would like to know whether we can rely on you and the Council to remain independent of your highly esteemed Legal Service.

  Kaufmann (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, Secretary-General of the Council, the Council is without doubt the institution most in need of reform. There is much that is no longer acceptable, be it the complicated structures and sub-structures which have got completely out of hand or the lack of coordination of Council work by the General Affairs Council. Blurred structures, overly complicated decision-making processes and, above all, a lack of transparency and openness are the reasons why much is beyond our citizens' comprehension, when they even know about it, that is. Ask anyone you like to tell you the difference between the European Council and the Council of Europe.

We know that European regulations cannot be passed unless the governments agree in the Council of Ministers, but still one of their favourite games is to tell the public that "Brussels" is to blame or to attack the Commission simply because it goes down well with the voters at home. Unfortunately, my government has gained a rather dubious reputation here recently, which is why we need really radical reforms, reforms which stop ministers from hiding from their responsibility for European decisions behind "Brussels".

So how should we proceed? We need clear regulations so that national parliaments can exert a democratic influence on, and democratic control of, what their governments do in Europe. Secondly, we need a Council that meets in public when it is legislating, with television cameras to relay debates and votes and allow the public to follow the decision-making process. And thirdly – and I agree with Mr Poettering here – we need to create a European Affairs Council which takes account of the progressive drive towards European integration, because European policy is no longer foreign policy in the traditional sense, it is actually European domestic policy.

(Applause)

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN). – (PT) Mr President, I would also like to start by thanking Mr Javier Solana, the Secretary-General of the Council, for attending this debate and by congratulating him on the document he presented in March and which was the subject of a preliminary debate in Barcelona. I find it difficult to understand the criticisms made by some Members given that this document is largely in line with this Parliament's own views. Nor can I subscribe to the critical comments that I have seen in certain diplomatic circles to the effect that the document produced by the Secretary-General of the Council does not contain many new ideas, but is a collection of ideas that have already been discussed for a long time in the Council. As I see it, this is not anything negative, it is in fact positive, especially if the decisions to be taken in Seville are to be effective and vigorous and cover ground that has been an issue for a long time. However, the Heads of State and Government have hesitated to take such decisions or have even resisted taking them.

There are sometimes areas in politics on which we all agree, and there are other areas on which we all differ. The issues of building Europe and institutional reform do not fall into either of those categories. We neither agree on everything nor differ on everything. These are issues on which we partly agree. I would also like to make another point: sometimes we agree on objectives but not on the means of achieving them; at other times we agree on the means but not the objectives. We wish to clearly distance ourselves from the motion for a resolution presented by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs in that it suggests that the proposed reform should favour the Community method or the intergovernmental method.

We do not believe this is the path we should be going down. But we agree with the concrete steps proposed, especially regarding what must be achieved in the short term and as regards the so-called transparency of the functioning of the Council in its legislative capacity. I even believe that it would be helpful for us to give this transparency another name, because the transparency we are talking about here is not the same thing as transparency in access to documents. Publicising the workings of the Council in its legislative capacity or open meetings are in fact important ways of achieving reform in working in this area and a way of tackling the heart of the democratic deficit of the European Union.

I am associated with sectors that are calling for greater involvement of national parliaments in the building of Europe. And I even believe that this can only happen when the Council opens its doors during legislative debates. Our colleagues in the national parliaments will relate and react differently to EU legislative work done at Council level if they can directly follow what our governments, the governments of every Member State, are discussing and the positions that they are adopting within the Council.

So there is a serious contradiction in this secretive approach, a fundamental contradiction between the democratic basis of the Council and the undemocratic way in which the Council works. We believe that this needs to be put right, and that is not because we want to weaken the intergovernmental axis of the European Union; just the opposite in fact. We want to protect that axis and strengthen it, but we want to give it more visibility and make it more democratic and participatory.

I would like to see reform heading in this direction and to leave other subjects until later, in particular the more sensitive issue of the presidency of the European Union. We are not willing to contemplate any departure from the principle of the rotating presidency.

  Bonde (EDD). – (DA) Mr President, the proposals named by Mr Solana today have scarcely all been prepared by him. Dispensing with the rotation system resembles successive French Presidents’ attempts to make their mark on the EU through what was termed a ‘directorium’. Is it the Deputy Secretary-General of the Council, Mr de Boissieu, who is behind this? The rotation of the presidencies is the most democratic thing about the EU. It means that everyone is equal. Luxembourg can chair the meetings in the same way as France. Lilliputian Luxembourg has in actual fact had some of the best presidencies. President Chirac of France’s Treaty of Nice does not do credit to France, and it would scarcely get past the French electorate in the event of a referendum. The majority of Frenchmen are, in general, more intelligent than France.

Mr Aznar, the Spanish President-in-Office of the Council, has specifically used his presidency of the European Council to instruct the President of the Commission to postpone the reform of the common fisheries policy and sack the Commission’s Director-General for Fisheries. On Friday, Mr Smidt was Director-General and was not on the rotations list. On Sunday, a trick was played in the course of a telephone conversation. On Monday he was sacked, and the Commission lied directly about the reason. The events are the biggest scandal I have experienced in my 23 years in this House. It requires an independent inquiry, which the Chairman of the Committee on Fisheries has quite correctly requested. For now, it must simply be concluded that coming from a large country is not in itself any guarantee of a good presidency.

Let us bear in mind the similarities between the countries and share the tasks. We must not have group presidencies involving the large countries, in which the small countries are allocated the least interesting tasks. It would be wiser to reduce the number of Councils of Ministers and working parties and focus on the transnational tasks we cannot carry out as effectively in our own countries. It would be wiser to limit and consolidate EU legislation so that it becomes more manageable. It would make more sense to introduce full transparency in the Council of Ministers when the Council acts as legislator. In that way, we should all be able to see when officials legislate instead of the elected representatives who have legislative power under the constitutions of all 15 EU countries. In that way, we could have openness, democracy and proximity to the people instead of secrecy, a lobbying culture and government at a distance.

  Berthu (NI). – (FR) Mr President, the European federalists are not very happy with the report on the operation of the Council prepared by its Secretary-General, Mr Solana. That report says, and I quote, “The European Council is the Union’s supreme political authority. It possesses a legitimate power of decision. It represents the unity between the Union, on the one hand, and its Member States, on the other, in its closest form”.

Yet this statement is perfectly true, and it could also apply to the various Councils, in particular as regards the essential, or even vital, link which it establishes with Member States. I will go even further by saying that, with the prospect of an enlarged Europe, which will of necessity be a flexible Europe, the Council will naturally play a pivotal role, because it can be easily adapted to fit the variable geometry, whereas the Commission is a more rigid institution, as is the European Parliament, at least in its current form.

Therefore future reforms will have to take into account the Council’s central position in order to improve its efficiency, its visibility and its transparency. The reforms proposed by Mr Solana seem to us to be along the right lines, subject to certain reservations, which I shall refer to in my explanation of vote.

  Fiori (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, whatever the outcome of the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference, one of the Union’s main problems will be preserving its decision-making capacity, its governability and the coherence of its policies.

In the future institutional architecture, the Council will be defined, on the one hand, by its power of co-legislator, on the other, by its role of guaranteeing the governability of the Union as a whole, and, in addition, by the attempt to achieve coherence between the Union’s policies at all levels.

We are firm believers in an effective, transparent Council exercising all the powers currently conferred on it by the Treaties, but we certainly cannot deny that the model we have been following in recent years, in which the Council has the role of laying down political guidelines – which is certainly essential for the Union’s progress – has been struggling recently and may well need to be adapted and brought into line with growth and with the global changes which have taken place in our institutions themselves.

There are countless examples of this: just now, a Member mentioned the excessive expansion of our agendas, but we will not go into the details of specific cases. What is quite clear is that the situation creates anomalies to the detriment of the Community method. That is why we decided to call for urgent reform of the Council, precisely with a view to making the Union as efficient as possible. These reforms are in the interests of the citizens and all the other institutions, they would not necessarily take long to implement and they can probably be carried out without amending the Treaty.

We must take note of the fact that, thus far, the chief victim of this uncomfortable situation has been the Community method, for it has meant that the Commission and the European Parliament are deprived of some of the roles conferred upon them by the Treaties. Complete transparency must surround the reorganisation of the mechanisms, and the process must be completed before the enlargement of the European Union takes place.

I would like to thank the Members for their contributions to this resolution, which I trust will lay down the direction we must take to achieve a strong Europe which is close and, above all, open to the citizens.

  Corbett (PSE). – Mr President, all the institutions face a major challenge with enlargement bringing in more members to each institution, but none more so than the Council. The Commission and Parliament are better placed to deal with these difficulties, but meetings of ministers flying in for a short time to Brussels, when it takes half a morning just to have a tour de table – really provide the Council with a challenge.

Much of that will require treaty amendments. That is a matter for the Convention. In the immediate future, in Seville, the Council will be facing changes that can be made within the framework of the existing Treaties. I too welcome the identification in Mr Solana's report and elsewhere of the changes that could be made.

It is right that we should try and get the European Council to focus on strategy and on the key strategic issues and no longer be a court of appeal when the ordinary Council is deadlocked. That is of fundamental importance. In addition, where subjects which, in the ordinary Council, would be taken by a qualified majority, go to the European Council, they should similarly be dealt with by a qualified majority in the European Council. That is also well and good.

It would also be a good idea to split the General Affairs Council from the Foreign Affairs Council. Some Member States will want to send the same minister to each for various internal reasons. Others will not. That is up to each Member State, but the functions should be separated so that they are both done well instead of badly.

Other changes can be made without amending the Treaties. Meeting in public when the Council acts in its legislative capacity is one of them. Yes, we have made progress in terms of access to documents and publishing the results of votes in the Council. That was an important step forward, but we must go that step further and actually meet in public.

Finally, members of the Council should establish a better rapport with members of their national parliaments. The protocol set a six-week period for them to do this for any item of legislation. They should do this properly. That is the way to involve national parliaments, not by creating some new institution which would duplicate the Council, some sort of third chamber. Get the ministers to do their jobs properly and it will be done well without needing new structures.

  Brok (PPE-DE) , chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. – (DE) Mr President, Secretary-General, Commissioner, well done to the Council for thinking about its own reform. There is, in fact, a great deal we can do without treaty amendments and it is indeed important for us to think about efficiency and transparency as we do so. I think that splitting the Foreign Affairs Council from the General Affairs Council is, as Mr Corbett has just said, the right starting point on the administrative side.

On the legislative side, we really do need public meetings. Public meetings in the sense that the Council as a whole is publicly accountable, so that our citizens know who is responsible for what and so that the public interaction between the legislators, between Parliament and the Council, can take place in public, so that our citizens can understand who is responsible for what in Europe. I think that this also has a positive side effect and will bring about a degree of improvement in that the individual specialist Councils would then become committees of the legislative Council rather than legislative bodies in their own right, with the negative, unbalanced results which that might bring.

But what is also of paramount importance, I think, is that we make sure in our declarations in the run up to Seville that these endeavours, which are right and proper, do not end up stealing the Convention's thunder and we make sure that the control functions tally and that Parliament's codecision function is not undermined. What we want to avoid, when decision-making procedures are dealt out, is a situation in which the European Council becomes the supreme legislator in the European Union with no codecision ties to the European Parliament – a situation in which only the Council can legislate. I warn you, if that is what is being attempted, we should write down anything and everything which might weaken Parliament and the Commission and reduce the potential for control before the Convention reaches any conclusions, because otherwise the good image of Seville may be in serious jeopardy. Be careful not to entertain notions such as these, notions which I sometimes hear coming out of Berlin and London.

(Applause)

  Cederschiöld (PPE-DE). – (SV) Mr President, openness will be one of the most important yardsticks for citizens in assessing the results of the EU’s efforts concerning future reform. The EU institutions must show citizens that they are prepared to live up to their expectations. In European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, we have a specific set of rules whose Article 4 addresses the need for secrecy. This must not be sidelined through the institutions’ internal rules and classification.

The Inter-institutional Committee has an important brief and it must push ahead and implement existing legislation in a spirit of greater openness. Hopefully, the Spanish Presidency will manage to push through proposals in Seville that will comply with expectations. Spain has a big responsibility in terms of openness. Spain could take the initiative in helping to foster a more positive attitude in those who still harbour doubts about openness. Particularly in view of Spain’s earlier reticence, it is now important to demonstrate a more positive approach to openness.

The fact that the Council of Ministers is to meet openly when discussing legislation is a step in the right direction. To this I would like to add a wish list for Seville. All the documents – – including those from Council working groups – – that are subject to the co-decision procedure and the first pillar, must be available. This would be the logical follow-up to your earlier comments. Subsequently, we should also be provided with information on national positions. Finally, we also need reasonable democratic control of documents covered by the second and third pillars. The pillar structure is, at the end of the day, a totally useless construction for establishing openness.

  Almeida Garrett (PPE-DE). – (PT) Mr President, Mr Secretary-General, Commissioner, there are gestures which deserve our applause in their own right. That applies to the plans for reform of the Council. Some of the subjects that the Secretary-General referred to, which are highly complex politically speaking, need a revision of the Treaties. For this reason it would be very helpful if the Council could present these proposals to the Convention on the future of Europe in time for them to be discussed and incorporated, if that is agreed, into the outcome its work, which is to be presented to the Intergovernmental Conference next year.

However, I think we all agree that many, indeed the majority perhaps, of the reforms needed for the Council to function well do not fall into this category. There is essentially a consensus that the day-to-day working of one of the most important institutions of the European Union has drifted away from the model set out in the Treaties. In practice, this "intergovernmental drift" has not only deprived the Commission and the European Parliament of some of their powers under the Treaties, but has also deprived our national parliaments of means of effectively scrutinising their own governments.

For this reason, I agree with Mr Poos, the co-rapporteur of the report presented to Parliament on the reform of the Council, when he says that people expect the European Council to have an open and forward-looking political vision, and strategic options and guidelines, rather than responsibility for coordination or taking decisions which should be made by the General Affairs Council.

It is also crucial to recognise that as a co-legislator the Council should not hold its discussions behind closed doors and that it should be open in exercising its political responsibilities. It is important that it should be possible to identify who does or does not make decisions at European level. For many of our citizens, Brussels is distant and needs to be given a human face. The Council bears a great responsibility for this failure to bring the Community institutions closer to the public, making its mission very important. I wish them good luck!

  Solana, Council. – (ES) I will say very briefly that in the 16 speeches I have counted, issues of all types have been raised. I can see that the Convention will have an enormous job to do in order to agree on all of them.

As for myself, what I wanted to present to you was a much smaller and more modest idea, which can be carried out immediately with just political will and which could have positive results in terms of the good functioning of the European Union.

The majority of suggestions made go much further than what I wanted to discuss with you and are not within my remit, but will fall to the Convention and subsequently the Intergovernmental Conference. However, I would like to say that I have learnt a lot and if the 620 MEPs had been here I would have learnt a lot more.

  President. – I am sure we would and I hope we would.

The debate is closed.⁽¹⁾

The vote will be taken tomorrow at noon.

IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTA
Vice-President