Mr President, the exercise I was asked to participate in has proved extraordinarily instructive and, I must say, a real pleasure. There were three constraints I had to manage: the doubts and questions of my fellow Members in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the criticisms expressed by civil society, particularly through the CEE Bankwatch Network and finally the answers and arguments presented in response to both these types of question or criticism by the European Investment Bank. I would like in particular to thank my fellow Members on the Committee of Economic and Monetary Affairs for the relevance of the questions that they, in a way, entrusted to me to put on their behalf to the European Investment Bank. I would like to thank the civil society volunteers for their competence in monitoring the activities of a bank which, in the final analysis, has an influence on 5% of all investments within the European Union, making it the EU’s largest investor. Finally, without any sycophancy whatsoever, I must thank the President of the European Investment Bank, and his colleagues, for the good will and indeed the warmth with which they undertook to discuss matters with me, to take on board and respond to criticisms, either convincing me of the legitimacy of their approach or accepting our comments and outlining with me appropriate solutions. We have thus arrived at a report on which we are practically unanimous. You have been able to note, indeed, that the amendments concern two mere details. I shall discuss these in the latter part of my speech. Broadly speaking, we were unanimous on the proposals for policy which are directed at least as much to the other bodies of the European Union, and even the Member States, as to the European Investment Bank. We fully share all the priorities which the European Investment Bank set itself and indeed with the pillars forming the basis of the bank’s policy, and grant it full discharge. We must, however, stress that times are changing. Europe is expanding eastwards. It is taking on greater responsibilities with regards to the Balkans, which are not yet included in the accession process. Moreover, Europe has signed up to the Kyoto Agreement which requires it to reduce its production of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 8% on average by the year 2010. In other words, this international agreement will become binding in 7 years’ time. Furthermore, since Lisbon, Europe has given itself the objective of becoming a world power in terms of the knowledge economy and new technologies. Finally, Europe has given priority to the development of SMEs. Europe is seeking to obtain this position of excellence not by means of a ‘Europe Incorporated’ with huge multinational businesses but rather by relying on SMEs. There are three new objectives, then, in relation to the 1999 report, which we shall examine formally today. However, in so doing, we shall of course be examining all the policy directions of the EIB: accession, Kyoto, the development of SMEs towards achieving excellence. We wished to call upon the constituent bodies of the European Union and the EIB itself to reorient its policy in the light of these three objectives which were perhaps not as clear at the time when the EIB adopted its priorities or drew up its 1999 report. The initial paragraphs of the report before you are absolutely unanimous and aim essentially at expanding or facilitating loans in these three areas. To briefly mention the points on which we did not achieve unanimity, there was the official importance of the NGOs in the preparations for the EIB’s decisions, the affirmation of the Kyoto objectives as a genuine leading factor and finally, the arrangements for the prudential supervision of the EIB. These three points I refer to the decision of the House.

Political group: Verts-ALE