Mr President, first of all I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent report on the EIB 1999 annual report and my compliments to the bank of course for the report itself. This is the first time that the European Parliament has delivered its opinion on the annual report. Naturally this opinion is of a political nature and it casts a critical eye over the institution. Thus, for example, the report examines such things as the priorities and the internal and external scrutiny of the resources employed by this bank. The EIB is the primary banker and investor for the European institutions and that is why the report analyses what the EIB’s priorities are and whether these priorities are in line with the European Union’s priorities. Where significant differences were found, the rapporteur has looked at what the EIB should give greater or less priority to. For example, the report asks the EIB to concentrate more on those investments that enable the EU to meet the Kyoto criteria. As we see it, the fact that more priority should be given to this does not mean that matters such as the trans-European networks should be given less priority, as the rapporteur proposes in one of his amendments. Next, the report draws attention to the EIB’s internal scrutiny. The rapporteur believes that the EIB should have a better overview of the quality of the loans. To this end, the EIB should devote more attention to evaluation of projects in the fields of regional and environmental investment, for example. At present, there is still too little insight within the EIB into the effectiveness of the loans. In a normal operational management process, a company keeps tabs on the returns on its investments. The EIB should also evaluate effectiveness and the return on investments more. A final important point is that the EIB is subject to scrutiny by the European Court of Auditors where the Community resources are concerned. The European Court of Auditors is then required to scrutinise the resources at the disposal of the EIB as to the effectiveness and lawfulness of the investments made. We have tabled another amendment in order to ensure that the EIB is supervised adequately and according to the same rules as any normal commercial bank regarding its banking business. The rapporteur proposes that someone from the European Central Bank should be appointed as a member of the Audit Committee, but an audit committee has more of an accounting function than one of real banking supervision. Both functions must be fulfilled. However, my group feels that the European Central Bank does not have the in-house capacity for banking supervision in the real sense. This must be organised differently, for example by the Luxembourg Central Bank. My other two amendments are adaptations designed to remove a few minor flaws from the text. For example, we recognise the important role the EIB has in the European investment climate and we also feel that the EIB should take more account in its internal scrutiny of the effectiveness of the European funds spent on the environment. I am sorry to say that we do not agree with the majority of the rapporteur’s amendments because he is using them to emphasise a radical and one-sided position. Naturally we also appreciate the importance of the environment and of NGOs, but other priorities must also be given a crack of the whip. The Socialist Group has also tabled two further amendments and one of these has to do with a promise made by the President of the EIB. This promise related to recruiting more women, so that the EIB employs roughly the same number of men as women, or at least works towards that goal. That is also one of the European Union’s priorities. We call upon the bank to make a start with this. I hope that the EIB takes Parliament’s advice to heart, particularly where the scrutiny of European funds is concerned. That is why we support this report wholeheartedly.

Political group: PPE-DE