Mr Maystadt prepared to accept external of EIB activities. The President of the European Investment Bank (EIB), Philippe Maystadt, is not opposed to the EIB's being subjected to external supervision, beyond the current controls of a committee appointed by its Board of Governors (made up of Finance Ministers of the Member States, shareholders of the EIB). He sees no problem with checks by a Community institution, which could, logically, be the European Central Bank (ECB). He said so in an interview the Spanish newspaper "El Mundo", which asked him about the report on the EIB being prepared by the European Parliament's Economic and Monetary Committee, whose rapporteur was Mónica Ridruejo, of the EPP group.
In general, Mr Maystadt said that he was open to the EP's comments and suggestions, but hoped to set straight some mistakes in the draft report, which he felt could have been avoided had Ms Ridruejo contacted the EIB. The President denies that the Bank applies a "funding quota" system between Member States: the only criteria are the interest of the projects, and their conformity with the EU's priority objectives. The main priority remains support to regions lagging behind in their development, which regularly receive one-third of loans. In 2003, however, Germany received more funding than any other country; this is because the eastern Länder come under this heading, and the projects put to the EIB were valid. For the same reason, Spain overtook Italy last year as a beneficiary country. Responding to other criticisms in the draft report, Mr Maystadt said that since last October, the EIB has been applying the same definition for SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises) as the European Commission, and that the Bank was taking care that the special conditions for funding to SMEs did not benefit the intermediary banks more than the SMEs themselves. All is not yet perfect on this, but everything will be put into practice to improve the mechanism for global loans.
The EIB and the Lisbon strategy. The EP's intention of keeping a close eye on the EIB's activities, and the basically positive reaction of Philippe Maystadt are significant. In its first years, the EIB had to earn its prestige and be accepted by the international baking world; now that this has been done, it is increasingly an instrument at the service of the Union's economic objectives. It is, therefore, entirely normal that the Parliament should intervene, and it is positive that the EIB has accepted controls which would, in all likelihood, have been rejected a few years ago. The EIB will play a leading role in the funding of trans-European networks and in support for research and innovation, which are both vital aspects of the Lisbon strategy. The efficiency of this role presupposes that the EIB is inventive and brave in defining ways of encouraging the private sector to get involved with investment, and at the same time, it must be able to safeguard its "triple A", which allows it to finance itself on the stock markets under the best possible conditions, to the advantage of its clients, and to give over part if its reserves to "guarantees" (which implies sharing risks with private investors), which are being looked into.
Although painstakingly prepared and based on solid documentation, the parliamentary debate could take account of all these aspects which, I repeat, are essential for the Lisbon strategy.
Increased role of the Social and Economic Committee. The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) is carving itself out an extended role in the institutional framework of the EU. It was the poor relation for a long time, because the employers' position was felt to be better expressed by UNICE, that of the unionists by their European confederation (ETUC), and sectorial positions by ad hoc organisations (such as COPA for agriculture, etc). Finding middle ground between occasionally diametrically-opposite positions weakened the clarity and incisive nature of the opinions. It was not easy, in these conditions, for the EESC to make its voice heard!
Its President Roger Briesch, like some of his predecessors, had two jobs: improving the quality of the opinions, and building co-operation with "organised civil society", beyond the categories officially represented in the EESC. Already, I find the result extraordinary. The opinion on what nuclear has to offer electricity production is one example of this: the rapporteur highlights the fact that the EESC has no intention of replacing political decision-makers, but simply wished objectively to furnish them with the elements for a decisions. Despite some criticism (see our bulletin of 28 February, p.15), this opinion will undeniably be an item of the debate on this difficult and controversial subject. The Vice-President of the Commission, Loyola de Palacio, has voiced her intentions of multiplying requests for "exploratory" opinions, returned before the Commission's deliberations. As for civil society, Monday will see the "Participative Democracy and the European Constitution" conference (see our bulletin of 2 March, p.18), and Jacques Delors will be there. (F.R.)