Mr President, Commissioner, unfortunately I cannot really defend my report on support for networks at European level in the field of culture. My main proposals were narrowly defeated in the committee vote. I hope that Parliament will be able to correct the situation in tomorrow’s vote, especially as the committee’s proposal to continue the practice of earmarking in the funding of cultural organisations is clearly in contravention of the Financial Regulation, according to an opinion of Parliament’s legal department. I am appalled that even the Committee on Budgets is so obviously determined to act in contravention of the Financial Regulation. Up till now I have defended the work of the Union to citizens in many contexts, because it is based on law and not on the power of the strongest. Now I do not know what to say. The Commission proposal for a Community action programme to promote organisations active in the field of culture was born of necessity: switching to an activity-based budget has made it unavoidable. European cultural organisations formerly financed from Section A relating to administrative expenditure need a legal basis for funding to be able to continue. The change will give us a unique opportunity to create an action programme for networks active at European level in the field of culture, where funding criteria can be determined and EU support for the networks can be organised in the way set out in Title 6 of the Financial Regulation, which emphasises the importance of the principles of transparency and equal treatment. The Commission proposal under discussion covers not only cultural organisations active at European level funded under former budget line A-3042, but also the European Bureau of Lesser-Used Languages and the Mercator network centres funded under budget line A-3015 as well as grants under budget line A-3035 awarded for the preservation of Nazi concentration camps as historical monuments. In this connection it should be stressed that the problems with the report do not concern these points: what is most essential for the funding of the European Bureau of Lesser-Used Languages and concentration camp memorials is that the legal basis should be brought into force from the beginning of the year. We spoke here of haste, but I think that if we want to we can obtain some results quite quickly. Differences of opinion regarding the funding of organisations active in the field of culture are connected with three points. Firstly, the application process and Parliament’s practice of earmarking are at odds with one another. Secondly, there is the matter of how long the programme is to last. As the Council on Education, Youth and Culture, which must decide unanimously on the issue, is, according to my information, definitely of the opinion that the programme should last until 2006, and not 2008, I have tabled an amendment on the matter. I think it would be a very good idea to make the funding of cultural organisations part of the new culture programme in preparation. The third problem is linked to degressivity with regard to amounts for grants. On that point too I disagree with the majority on the committee. A small and gradual fall is, I think, acceptable, to be able to make room too for new organisations. We have to bear in mind such matters as EU enlargement. Furthermore, the amendments I tabled contain the suggestion that, owing to a lack of time, the list the Committee on Budgets has decided upon, could be finalised next year. This way the continuity, which is necessary, is guaranteed. The application procedure for 2005 could then be commenced in good time at the start of the year. I also propose that multiannual funding be made a possibility and that an addition be made to the funding criteria that safeguards the financing of, inter alia, European orchestras. These proposals were overturned in the committee vote, although they are clearly in the interests of cultural organisations. Thus far the debate on the Commission proposal has been in many ways a mind-broadening, though not entirely elevating, experience. As I have stood for an open application procedure, I have wanted to make the present arbitrary and haphazard practice an open one based on clear rules. At present there are organisations on our list which in fact no longer even exist. We also have to bear in mind the interinstitutional division of labour. The Commission puts forward a proposal and implements the will of the legislator. Parliament is the legislator and in my view it should not try to wield any executive power. As the draft EU constitution makes Parliament the primary legislator, Parliament must itself respect that role.

Political group: PSE