Mr President, non-state actors, non-governmental organisations, private companies, trade unions and civil society have a major role to play in the European Union's development programmes. They are crucial to us for four reasons. First, good development practice means that aid is successful when the beneficiaries themselves participate in the programmes that deliver that aid – helping people to help themselves. Second, non-state actors provide pluralism, alternative views and alternative experiences to those of governments, views which are at best representative of grass-roots communities of marginalised people, who in turn are representative of those in greatest need. Third, a strong civil society is part of a healthy democracy, providing scrutiny of governments and promoting principles of anti-corruption and good governance. Democracy and development go hand in hand. Fourth, from a European perspective, the best of independent actors – renowned non-governmental organisations like Oxfam or the Save the Children Fund from the UK, Médecins Sans Frontières from France and so on – have helped to deliver public support to the whole notion of development, as well as providing a record for ensuring the swiftest, most direct and efficient provision of aid which, in itself, commands that public support. However, as the proposed resolution lays down, that relationship is not always a comfortable one. For example, non-governmental organisations are themselves not immune from criticism. I supported Commissioner Nielson when he made proper criticisms regarding the management and efficiency of the former liaison committee of EU development NGOs in Brussels. It is true that non-state actors can suffer from the same problems of bad governance for which we sometimes criticise governments of developing countries. Yet the Commission's communication and this Parliament's conviction is based on the principle that we can do better. I am grateful for the active cooperation of the Commissioner's services, but the results of my questionnaire – showing that non-state actor consultation took place in only half of 63 beneficiary countries and that the totals by region record only 2 or 3% of the total funding provided going to non-state actors – represents a challenge for the time ahead. It is a challenge which can and must be met in the forthcoming mid-term review. I welcome the fact that the Commission supports my proposal in the resolution for one staff member per delegation in developing countries to be responsible for NSA consultation and participation. We have taken such steps in relation to financial management and it is right that we give equal weight to quality as well as quantity of aid. I hope the Commissioner tonight will not simply support the principle of training in this respect, but will also commit himself to beginning to deliver it in practice. I propose in the resolution that this process be supported through the creation of multi-stakeholder committees by country or region, a proposal which is meant not to increase bureaucracy but to ensure systematic means of participation by NSAs. I know that the Commissioner has a healthy scepticism of my interest in budget quotas, but the 15% identified in his own programming guidelines should provide a firm baseline in the budget for non-state actor participation – 85% for governance seems not an unduly small amount. I welcome the fact that the Commissioner has now invited MEPs, including myself, to contribute to the reform of the specific NGO co-finance budget line. I advance the proposal that the delegation should manage its own small-scale, capacity-building funds – a model which is effective for some Member State interventions, including those in the United Kingdom. In conclusion, I accept that non-state actor involvement is not simply – nor principally – an issue of funding. It is now five years since the Commission established a small, informal working party under the then Director-General of DG Development to recommend a new relationship with non-governmental organisations. The evolution of those discussions has, in part, taken in Commissioner Kinnock's reform programme and the White Paper on Governance from Mr Prodi. Now it includes the proposal from the European Convention for a legal base on civil dialogue. In development specifically it has included the legally-binding, contractual participation laid down in the Cotonou Agreement, a principle that we believe should be extended to the EU's relationship with all regions of developing countries in the world. However, it is now time to move from discussion about NGOs, civil society and non-state actors in order to effect real change and improvement. Commissioner Nielson's communication gives us the opportunity to do just that. We must, we should and we will.

Political group: PSE