Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, the annual debate in this House on the Annual Report of the European Central Bank, just like the quarterly Monetary Dialogue, always provides us with an opportunity not only to take stock but also to examine the outlook. Against this background it is therefore especially pleasing to note that no one disputes the successes achieved in establishing the issuing bank, introducing the notes and coins, and also in combating inflation. I would also like to thank you very sincerely for your cooperation and for the contribution you have made. The fact that 75% of Europe's citizens are now in favour of the euro must certainly be due in part to your work and your actions. We will of course do everything we can to win over the remaining 25%, and we hope that the three Member States still outside the euro area will soon be part of European monetary union. (Applause) Although interest rate levels are at an historically low level in Europe, I find myself wondering, when I consider the European Central Bank's monetary policy, about the appropriateness of those rates, given our failure to achieve our growth potential and the price stability guaranteed for the foreseeable future. That is why I ask myself if our monetary policy strategy is the optimum one. The bank itself has of course investigated to what extent it can be satisfied with its own monetary policy strategy, and I do indeed see that as being very helpful. However, we as politicians also need to consider at all times whether this monetary policy strategy is optimal not only in terms of monetary policy, but also as regards those aspects of macroeconomic policy that relate to the Lisbon objectives – growth, employment and social cohesion. I know that does not make your job particularly easy, because there is also room for improvement in the coordination of economic, employment and finance policies. Nevertheless, I wonder what scope there is for making a further contribution. The definition of price stability now agreed upon, with a medium-term inflation rate target of under 2%, if only just, will help here. But I still believe that our bank of issue has a more rigid definition of price stability than other internationally important central banks. That is why we need constantly to reflect upon whether a certain change of course would not be appropriate. I also believe that it is important for us consistently to consider inflation, deflation and how they are defined, especially in view of the risk of deflation. Even during times of strong economic growth a symmetrical target of 2% with a range of plus or minus 1% should certainly be considered. The ECB must not underestimate the importance of a strategy for low growth and increased employment in the euro area. Although this is, of course the secondary rather than the primary objective, we still do not as yet have a clear definition. It is apparent in the current economic situation that incentives for growth are urgently needed and I wish to specifically welcome new investment initiatives and also the support of the European Investment Bank. I view this initiative very much in the context of structural and fiscal reforms, but such reforms alone will not enable us to achieve the Lisbon objectives. That is why I believe this to be so important. You will not be surprised if I refer once again to transparency of monetary policy, because this House has made its views on this very clear over the years. I still cannot see how it would jeopardise the effectiveness of the bank if summary minutes were to be published. Nor do I see how it would put the ECB or its independence at risk if the result of weighted votes were to be published without naming names. To my way of thinking, it would result in greater clarity, more information and it would avoid false reporting. I have in mind your last press conference and the way it was reported in the British press, which led to much speculation and aggravation on the markets. We could do something to change that. Greater transparency prevents inaccurate assessments, which in turn lead to bad investments – something we all wish to avoid. That is why I think it is important to do still more in this area. There is also scope for gaining greater public acceptance for the euro, for example by abolishing the 500-euro note or by printing a 1-euro note. After all, there is a 1-dollar note! (Applause)

Political group: PSE