The parliamentary group of the Socialist Party unanimously expressed support for continuing mass privatization BUT IT DEMANDS: - Full transparency - Economic efficiency - A fight against corruption and the covert and open plundering of national wealth THE SOCIALISTS ABSTAINED ON THE PRESIDENT’S DECREE BECAUSE IT LACKS: - A privatization strategy - Guarantees for combating corruption - The legal framework for full implementation - Assurance that the value of the vouchers will be preserved THE PARLIAMENTARY GROUP OF THE SOCIALIST PARTY, EXPRESSING ITS HUMANITARIAN SPIRIT AND ACTING ON THE BASIS OF ITS SOCIAL PROGRAM, PROPOSED THAT THESE CATEGORIES OF PEOPLE ALSO BENEFIT FROM PRIVATIZATION THROUGH SECURITIES: - Landless peasants and those who have little land - People who have not benefited from the law on privatization of state housing and are still homeless - Orphans of all ages - In addition to age, the contribution each Albanian has made through work should be taken into account when setting voucher coefficients

Summary of questions during the parliamentary debate on privatization vouchers What strategy underpins mass privatization, who approved it and when, and what tasks are to be resolved, and within what time limits? What are the reasons for deciding to issue decrees concerning privatization vouchers? (The first decree and the second decree?) Which law was used as the basis for drafting each decree, and specifically which articles or paragraphs were departed from, and why? Are there any legal or regulatory acts that conflict with the decrees? Was the handling of the securities distributed to former persecuted persons based on the law, and if not, as the explanatory report states, what are the effects? Article 2 says that privatization vouchers will be valid until 31.12.99 and...» If the usage periods printed on the vouchers are different, what value do the vouchers retain apart from their use value? Apart from the usage periods printed on the vouchers, what other deadlines will the Council of Ministers set? Which foreign organizations have been involved in mass privatization here, and on what points (if the main points are numerous) have we disagreed with them? And where have the biggest debates taken place? In some countries that have used registered vouchers, there have been attempts at misappropriation. What guarantees are provided here against forgery, various forms of irregular appropriation, and the use of bearer vouchers? The spirit of the law indicates that the value of the vouchers is set by the Council of Ministers (Article 3), in accordance with the value of the assets of the enterprises to be privatized. What is the exact list of enterprises, and according to what criteria were they selected? Why does Article 4 not give citizens the right to use vouchers to pay the installments on state-owned homes acquired from the housing authority? The President has previously stated that the homeless should be favored through securities. Neither decree mentions anything of the sort; how is this justified? Why was it decided that peasant families (Article 5, paragraph 3) who have received too little land, and who receive assistance when land is unavailable, should receive no vouchers at all? Why was it decided that the value of the privatization vouchers should be set by the Council of Ministers and not the People’s Assembly? Why do the decrees not give specific references to the Criminal Code? Will the period during which money from privatization may be used with privatization vouchers come to an end? What will happen to privatization vouchers that remain unused in privatization after their validity period expires? To what extent will payment in vouchers be accepted in the privatization of an enterprise? Is it not considered necessary to promote mass privatization, starting with what a privatization voucher is and what it looks like, how an enterprise is valued, what joint-stock companies and investment companies are, the management of a joint-stock company, etc.? What will happen to the debts of enterprises that are to be privatized? (Continued on page 2)

- Speech by deputy SHKELQIM CANI on behalf of the parliamentary group of the Socialist Party - - Landless peasants and those who have little land - of state housing and are still homeless - Orphans of all ages - coefficients The Socialist group also proposed that people who have unfairly benefited from large amounts of wealth through privatization to date should not benefit from voucher-based privatization. FOR ALL THESE PROPOSALS BY THE SOCIALISTS, THE DP PARLIAMENTARY GROUP VOTED: AGAINST! In accordance with the rules of procedure, we have watched interpellations on RTV even about concerns regarding the “commune”; yet, also in accordance with the rules, debates on the budget and on mass privatization—which affects the interests of all Albania—are not broadcast. The rules of procedure will remain a paradox and an absurdity. While, following the call made in December 1993, the national study “The Present and Possible Future for the Years 1985–2005” was published, in Albania we are engaged with other issues. When someone suggests that it would be right for this very government to rectify illegal privatizations—the government that made the selection so that “the communists will not … privatization”—they have been making proposals for years that the budget should provide for a larger item from privatization, that is, greater revenues from privatization; in other words, they call for the privatization process to be accelerated. They do not even want to be associated with it in a vote, but in fact this proves what we are calling for. On many occasions, we Albanians argue and engage in pointless debates, while the majority, in the name of the East, presents national scientific studies on the country’s prospects and on the period after 2000. It seems that, true to tradition, we are fighting to win Pyrrhic victories. But let us look more concretely at the issues and talk now about privatization vouchers. First, quite by chance, on February 23, 1995, the first decrees on privatization vouchers were announced. A [unreadable word] later, supposedly to supplement it, another decree came out, two or more, but it changed the first almost entirely. After the discussions we held in the Economy Committee, seven amendments were passed by a large majority, once again affecting the substance of the decrees. As we also proposed in the Economy Committee, there are other elements that should be amended or supplemented: a) Article 5 should include among the beneficiaries of securities, for the difference, peasants who have received less than a specified minimum amount of land and who, being unable to earn a living, receive assistance. b) Article 8 of the first decree should not say that voucher recipients without entitlement are to be punished under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code; instead, it should specify the particular articles of the Code that we have now approved. c) Article 4 should add the right to use privatization vouchers to pay installments on state-owned homes transferred to citizens. This is justified, at the very least, by the fact that the privatization of housing is part of the overall privatization process. ç) Orphans should exceptionally be allowed to receive vouchers, regardless of age. d) We disagree with the amendment proposed by the Economy Committee that vouchers should also go to those who acquired properties without an auction; indeed, we think only those who took part in an auction with two or more bidders should be eligible for vouchers. We do not understand these such frequent and rapid reversals. Whereas the first and second decrees acknowledge that this group has been privileged and has already benefited once, with a stroke of the pen, overnight, the majority shifts to the opposite of what the decree proposes: dh) Without any argument, we are proposed a measure that, contrary to the decree, would allow the sale and purchase of vouchers by foreigners as well. Naturally, this has its advantages and disadvantages, but in any case we should be made aware of the effects. Second, in principle, we have been and remain in favor of mass privatization through securities. Moreover, we criticize the fact that we are behind schedule on privatization. As we have said on other occasions, the DP, with all its branches of government, is working on privatization without direction and in fits and starts. At times it falls into legislative slumber, at others it gasps from inactivity. What it failed to do in three years, it now seeks to accomplish by force, at the expense of quality and to the detriment of the economy. But what are we asking for with mass privatization? a) We are moving to a new stage of privatization. The decrees take the first step. We hope an account will be made of privatization over these three years. Although we requested it, this was ignored, even though it concerns one of the most essential elements of the reform. Transparency in privatization remains something imagined by the deputies themselves. With the doors closed to those who are listening, we read the concerns, but the state bodies have never provided us with an analysis of achievements and shortcomings. (Continued on page 3)

- Without paying any heed, as always, to the opposition’s obsessions, the majority approves the President’s decree “On the issuance and distribution of privatization vouchers.” - The day before yesterday, during a short afternoon session in Parliament, everything was decided as the President and the majority wanted. The matter was the President’s decree “On the issuance and distribution of privatization vouchers.” The new decree on the issuance and distribution of privatization vouchers was presented by the DP’s propaganda as a great hope for making Albanians property owners. The surprise of its presentation in Parliament made it seem that this was merely a formality to get through the agenda, after which the majority would approve the new decree and ... [text cut off] The parliamentary group of the Socialist Party presented its concerns and a series of questions it had raised in this way, but they received authoritarian, vague and unclear answers from the government’s representative, the Minister of Finance, Mr. Dylber Vrioni. Without ... [text cut off] (Continued on page 3)

READ ON PAGE 2