Fernández Martín (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (ES) Mr President, this debate on the regulation amending certain aspects for the implementation of Community development cooperation operations which contribute to consolidating democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights has served to test, over recent months, the extent of our capacities and also to demonstrate certain defects in our procedures.

This is certainly a modest instrument in financial terms, but one which is very important in terms of its content and objectives, and highly valued by everybody, and particularly by the European Parliament. I would point out that one of the budgetary lines funding these programmes was created on our initiative in 1994.

As Commissioner Nielson has just told us, we are talking about a proposed regulatory modification which, in the Commission's opinion, according to what the Commission services have told us, affects purely technical aspects - he did not mention this specifically – and comes closer to what Parliament believes has always had an unquestionably political content, if only because the intention is to extend by two years the duration and the operational capacity of an instrument which according to all the reports and opinions received, and which are mentioned by the Council's communication, is of very great interest.

Nevertheless, Parliament considers that, as proposed in the Council's draft, the participation of our institution in the different stages of the procedure does not meet our aspirations, particularly in an area which is subject to co-decision.

From the beginning, more than six months ago now, we have spent a great deal of time debating formal and procedural issues but, fortunately, as Commissioner Nielson has said, today I believe I can perhaps confirm that we will make it at the last minute, but on time, so that this Community initiative will not be interrupted or paralysed for some time as a result of the changes that will take place in Parliament and the Commission over the coming months.

Before dealing with certain technical comments on our proposal, I must point out, Mr President, that there is a technical corrigendum which the services of Parliament must be aware of at this point, which changes the order of the amendments we are proposing and which we will vote on tomorrow.

In the report I have proposed and which is supported by the Committee on Development and Cooperation and in agreement with the Council, we propose an amendment to Article 4(1) by means of which we introduce into the legislative text that ‘in cases of EU electoral observation missions and amicus curiae procedures, natural persons can receive financial support within the meaning of the present Regulation’.

The experience of all of us who have participated in missions of electoral observers tells us that, despite all the restrictions we might wish to mention, the presence of international observers in elections increases trust in transparency and strict compliance with democratic principles in developing countries.

Parliament does not wish to give up its participation in the programming phase, in establishing priorities and in implementing initiatives. In the explanatory statement we have included this desire on the part of Parliament in case, as a result of the current legislative framework, as Commissioner Nielson has mentioned, this is not possible at the moment. We hope that the commitment adopted by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission can be confirmed in the future.

In my view, Amendment No 3, which appears in the opinion of the Committee on Budgets, should be withdrawn by its rapporteur. Otherwise, I recommend voting against that amendment.

This is the best agreement possible if our intention is to approve this report at first reading, as the Council, the Commission and Parliament wish, in order to respond to a widely shared demand. Furthermore, it is particularly necessary for the strengthening of civil society in developing countries. However, this does not mean, and should not be understood to mean, that Parliament is satisfied.

It is a co-decision procedure, an issue that affects human rights and fundamental freedoms, which this House has been very sensitive to for many years. Parliament believes that when it is a question of establishing a new programme and not just an extension for the next two years, as in the case we are debating today, we will demand a greater presence and more active participation within the framework of the rules regulating the Union’s institutional dialogue, on which those who succeed us here in the next legislature will have to establish a new framework which provides an equal basis so that this desire on the part of Parliament is fulfilled.