Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, of the two reports before us today, the one by Mr Morillon is more political in nature, whereas mine is more technical. The Council is proposing that Turkey be added to that group of countries that can be granted loans from the European Investment Bank, so that these credits may be backed by a European Union guarantee. The Council is proposing with unanimity that Turkey should join the group of recipients of guarantees, and Parliament’s Committee on Budgets is also unanimous in this. Unanimity does not mean that we are all satisfied with the state of Turkish democracy or that country’s treatment of human rights; we are not. As Turkey has submitted its application for membership of the European Union, it will certainly be very aware of the criteria for membership as laid down at Copenhagen. As the European Union agreed at Helsinki that Turkey should join that group of countries with which membership would be negotiated, the human rights situation in Turkey is not just that country's internal affair. Through its application for membership, Turkey has given the Union the right to adopt a position on its internal affairs. There has been a huge temptation to impose conditions on loans to Turkey, with reference to issues of democracy, but there has been no opportunity, technically speaking, to do so in this report. The issue here is just to supplement the earlier Council Decision 2000/2024/EC. If we had wanted to impose conditions they would have had to be imposed last year when the earlier decision was adopted. We did not know then that Turkey would be selected to join the group of recipients of guarantees, as a consequence of positive developments. Besides, conditions could not have been imposed exclusively by a decision of the European Parliament. I would like to focus attention on how little Parliament is able to influence the work of the European Investment Bank and how badly the European Union monitors that work in general. The Guarantee Fund in the EU budget, which guarantees the loans to Turkey, comes under the category of compulsory expenditure, and the Council, as a result, did not need to take account of Parliament's positions. In the European Parliament we would in general like to impose conditions on European Investment Bank loans as far as environmental considerations and the social protection of the citizens of non-member countries are concerned, and, in the case of Turkey, this also concerns a respect for human rights. But the present legal basis for the Guarantee Fund does not make that possible. Better cooperation is needed between the institutions of the EU. The problems associated with the monitoring and examination of the management of the European Investment Bank also stem from the fact that there are only representatives of the Member States in its governing body, and some of them want to prevent the Commission and the European Parliament from taking a stand on bank matters. As a result, the European Investment Bank is one of the last havens in the world of banking. The ripples of social debate do not reach its shores. Finally, I would like to draw your attention to something the Commission already knows and, for that reason, I would like to draw the attention of the Council in particular to it. I refer to the fact that the 2001 Guarantee Fund is not large enough to meet all the commitments made. That may also be true for 2002. If we are to keep to these commitments, we must amend the residual reserve for guarantees. That is the only matter on which Parliament can give its legal opinion. The Council is granting more loans and offering guarantees than there are legal preconditions for.

Political group: GUE-NGL