Brussels, 24/01/2003 (Agence Europe) - A brief debate on Thursday enabled members of the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs, chaired by Georgio Napolitano (Democratici di sinistra) to draw lessons from the first European Convention's debate on institutions. Many comments related to the Franco-German document aimed at creating a full-time president of the European Council. Thus, British Liberal-Democrat Andrew Duff painted a picture of a Convention divided into four groups. The first, headed by Valery Giscard d'Estaing, is opposed to Parliament electing the Commission president, he explained, considering that the fact that the chair of the Convention had repeatedly pleaded in favour of the Commission's right of initiative being reduced were the EP to elect its President was a "warning that we should take seriously". The second group, that "revolves around Elmar Brok", supports the EP's electing the Commission president. The third, where the British, French and Spanish may be found, favours this election on condition of at the same time securing a permanent president of the Council. Finally, the fourth to which Andrew Duff subscribes, would prefer not to elect the Commission's president rather than pay the price sought by the third group if that meant weakening the Commission. For German Social-Democrat Jo Leinen, who emphasised the other important progress made by the Franco-German contribution, the debate has clearly demonstrated that there is no possible consensus on the creation of a permanent Council president. For British Labour MEP Richard Corbett, the Convention has progressed well but it really must avoid making a link between qualified majority voting in Council and co-decision. "What needs coupling is co-decision and the legislative procedure", he said. Regarding the Franco-German text, he predicted that a double presidency would inevitably produce competition and confusion in the public's mind. "That's already the case with Solana and Paten, why want to reproduce that at a higher level?" he wondered, before stressing that it was in the EP's interest to have a single presidency. On a more light-hearted note, Mr. Corbett suggested: if the Congress (mentioned in the Franco-German document) only met in Strasbourg once a year, "we could accept that in exchange for the definitive removal of the EP to Brussels". "The tasks described in the Franco-German document do not warrant a full-time president", noted Napolitano, stressing that the document refers in particular to the preparation of guidelines relating to external relations which should precisely be the job of the European Foreign Secretary. He also said he was convinced that there would be no full-time president without a whole team around the person and that such a job would automatically trigger situations of competition. Answering his colleagues, the head of the EP delegation within the Convention, Inigo Mendes de Vigo (Partido Popular) considered that the Franco-German document was a "start", with many things in it already. It does not answer all the questions and it will now have to be completed, he explained not without giving his own personal point of view: "half-yearly presidencies are dead; there will be a body at the head of the Council that will have a permanence …, the role of the European Council will need defining, as well as the role of its president".