I wish to thank you all for waiting so long as we have been relatively busy today and for a long time we did not know when the report would come up. However, today and tomorrow I should like to be able to vote on the procedures of guarantees by the Community for the European Investment Bank, the EIB for short, because if possible, we want to decide before the Council and because we also want to make certain changes, which I shall refer to in detail. The provision of these guarantees concerns the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean, Latin America, Asia and South Africa. It relates to the period up to the year 2003 under my proposal, to be precise until 31 January 2003, then there will be a review half way through and we shall then deal with it again or extend it until 31 January 2007. It involves a sum of EUR 9 475 million and the provision of guarantees amounting to a maximum of 60%. There are few inconsistencies in this regard. The inconsistencies are to be found in other areas. The main problem area with which my report deals, which became clearer as I worked on the report, is that the European Investment Bank, as far as modern business management, transparency and public work are concerned, is trailing rather far behind. Some of the people I have spoken to have explained that the European Investment Bank is trailing some twenty years behind the World Bank as far as modern business management is concerned. I therefore believe it is important that we deal with this subject more intensively. The European Investment Bank is the largest public bank in Europe, its general owners are the Member States and it works primarily with low-interest loans. Owing to the fact that its shareholders do not expect high interest rates and the thus possible low gearing rate, that is the ratio of the lending volume to equity capital, of 2.5 – market rates are usually over 10 – the Bank enjoys considerable confidence on the capital markets. This high level of confidence on the capital markets enables it to take up loans under favourable conditions and to on-lend at accordingly favourable rates. Furthermore, the Bank enjoys tax exemption and not least, guarantees from the EU budget for political risks too. Despite this direct and indirect assistance to the Bank from the European Union, the EIB is keen to appear to the public as a quite ordinary bank and in the past that was how it justified its relative inaccessibility for cooperation and monitoring to the public compared to other public institutions like the World Bank. In our view, that should and must now change as a matter of urgency. My report therefore also deals first and foremost with the subjects of accountability and transparency, that is, modern business practice. Over the last few years there has been a lot of criticism of the internal administration and business management of the EIB. Nevertheless, for a long time the Bank refused to allow the Court of Auditors or OLAF to inspect its books, invoking its special nature as a bank. The particular “constipation” of the EIB in matters of public monitoring and transparency even led the ECOFIN Council on 8 August 1999 to state the following, and I quote: “In view of the important financial task assigned to the European Investment Bank by the Treaty and a series of Community regulations, it must take an exemplary attitude to fraud control and allow OLAF, where necessary, to undertake inspections. The Council does not doubt that the governing body of the Bank will shortly submit a proposal to their board of governors for a decision in accordance with the inter-institutional agreement.” We are now seeing the first signs that the Bank will open its books. However, in my view they are not yet adequate and there is still mistrust. This mistrust is increased further by its dealings to date with Mr Blak, the rapporteur of the Committee on Budgetary Control, who has been waiting for a long time to answers to his questions. I should like once again to thank the Committee on Budgetary Control for its preparatory work in this regard, which has allowed me in the short time available to draw up this report, and I should especially like to thank Mr Blak and Mrs Theato. In the future we shall also have to watch the development of the EIB with regard to more transparency and for all sceptics, it is also a matter of economic efficiency. A business that cuts itself off will be taking its decisions on a very narrow basis. Dialogue with society in general, as the World Bank, among others, has been practising in the meantime, also provides information for investment decisions. Here, also, the Bank has been criticised in the past, both regarding its investments in the health sector in my own country, that particularly consolidate antiquated structures and in the transport and environment sectors in Eastern Europe. It cannot and may not suffice in the future for the Bank to restrict itself to the isolated inspection of individual projects – such as, for example a section of motorway -, it must also inspect the projects in context – for example within a transport development plan in a particular country, in order to be able to identify duplication and to develop an acceptable and financially sustainable alternative. For this reason the Bank should undertake a public relations offensive in the regions that have received assistance. The European Parliament should therefore in the next few years direct its attention to the development of the EIB. The bases are set out in my report and I hope that they will be adopted tomorrow. Thank you very much! I have overrun a little, but I wanted you to understand what this report is all about because the report is all Greek to most people!

Political group: Verts-ALE