Mr President, I hope that, at this late stage, we will not be taking up too much time. It is unfortunate that we now have to round up this important debate, which is important on its own merits. If I can use this opportunity, I would just like to say that it would perhaps be sensible if in future, for example, we do not manage to vote on a Tuesday evening, we could squeeze in an extra round of voting, so that we do not incur further delays during the rest of the week. You might be able to submit this to the Bureau for their consideration. But this is, of course, not really related to these issues. I do not need to add too many explanatory notes. Firstly, it is indisputable that non-governmental organisations play a vital role in Member States, in the European Union and outside of the European Union. Everyone is agreed on this. This is something which the Council states, and which is backed up frequently by the Commission and this Parliament. Also, Article 136 of the European Treaty, in combination with declarations 23 and 38, underlines that cooperation with Wohlfahrtsverbände (welfare associations) is necessary, and these are also non-governmental organisations, of course. The European Parliament has always put its money where its mouth is and has for some time, for some considerable time, created a line, B3 4101 in order to finance non-governmental organisations. However, as a result of different provisions which have been agreed in conjunction with the Council, and following judgments by the Court of Justice, this line has now more or less expired after three years. The European Commission has been aware of this for three years. This is not the issue. This issue is that so little is happening. On the one hand, the great need is staring us in the face while on the other we see little in the way of specific action, except for the document which the Commission has issued and which we are specifically asking after. The six million dollar question now is how we can translate the finely worded ideas we have all expressed into reality. What I am saying on my own behalf, not on behalf of the Commission, is that bureaucratic issues are bound to crop up. The reason for this could be that there are different Commission directorates involved. NGOs are not restricted to one directorate general. It could be that they are looking for a general angle and at the same time specific angles, but at any rate, this is all taking up too much time, as the budget lines are expiring. This is also the reason why we are drawing the Commission’s attention to this issue this evening, in itself not a very appropriate time. Speed is the main issue. It is not so much the Commission’s intention which is at issue, but the speed with which certain things can be brought about. We might otherwise run the risk of failing to implement not just a core task stipulated in the European Treaty, but also what has been stated by the European Council in Feira, because NGOs – and this is the only problem – are extremely sensitive, at least the majority of them, to breaks in payments to them. They are far more sensitive to this than other organisations, and certainly Member States. This means that if we wait around for too long, the patient will die. This is the serious concern which we have in our committee. This is the reason why we are asking these questions and this is also the reason why we hope that the Commission will tackle this matter with due haste within the scope which the Treaty offers and within the generally benevolent climate which the Council and Commission have displayed in Feira, as witnessed by the European Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE