Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 5 September 2006 - Strasbourg

16. Commission Question Time

  President. The next item is Question Time (B6-0325/2006).

We will take the following questions to the Commission.

Part One

  President. Question No 39 by Manuel Medina Ortega (H-0601/06)

Subject: Enlargement and illegal immigration

With a view to the enlargement of the EU to include new eastern and central European countries whose borders are difficult to control, what measures does the Commission propose in order to prevent fresh enlargements from making it easier for illegal immigrants from third countries to enter the European Union?

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. As you know, new Member States have to ensure a high level of border control upon accession. As far as the lifting of internal border control is concerned, new Member States are evaluated by experts of the Member States and of the Commission, whether they fulfil, amongst other preconditions, the high Schengen standards of external border control.

In January 2006, the evaluation of the non-SAS related acquis of the new Member States started, and a first assessment of their preparation will be available for the Council in December. I will be reporting to the ministers.

With respect to illegal immigration, the Commission outlined the areas it considers to be future priorities in a communication which, as you know, was adopted on 19 July. The communication in particular explores how to further secure external borders, for instance by introducing intelligence-led ‘e-borders’ management and addresses the possible creation of an automated entry-exit system, the issue of regularisations and the need to tackle employment of illegally resident third country nationals.

In addition, I would like to underline that in July the Commission adopted a proposal on establishing a mechanism for the creation of rapid border intervention teams. This mechanism, that will strengthen the solidarity between Member States and the Community, will allow Member States which face extraordinary obstacles in controlling their external borders to make use of the expertise and manpower of border guards of other Member States on a temporary basis.

  Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, the events of recent days appear to be demonstrating that the European Union is not prepared for waves of immigrants from areas close to the Union. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania next year, we will have a new European Union sea border on the Black Sea, that there are States on the Black Sea such as Ukraine, Moldavia, Russia, Georgia, Armenia and Turkey and that that sea opens us up to the whole of Asia.

Does the European Commission plan to establish a system for the Black Sea similar to the one it is beginning to establish on the Atlantic in order to prevent an avalanche of immigrants from descending on the European Union from the Asian continent?

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I can reply to the honourable Member that one of the priorities on which we are working with the Finnish Presidency is precisely to propose a European model for the integrated surveillance of our maritime borders by December, with an initial assessment in October.

We are aware that a maritime border is very different from a land border or an airport border, and therefore the Black Sea will clearly also be one of the areas to be examined.

May I just say to the honourable Member that I met the Bulgarian minister for internal affairs again just yesterday and once again I told him that Bulgaria and Romania must prepare appropriately for a strong European contribution in controlling an extremely sensitive border.

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) That the flow of illegal immigrants needs to be cut off is not a matter of doubt. The example given by Mr Medina Ortega highlights practices in his own country whereby national governments, by proceeding to – as they term it – legalise illegal immigrants, are actually sending out the wrong signal. Does the Commission see possibilities here, and is it contemplating indicating that a stop should be put to such courses of action, as a consequence of which these illegal immigrants can find their way into all the other Member States of the Union?

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) You have touched upon an issue which really is a priority. I have said on a number of occasions that the huge problem of massive regularisations threatens to undermine the principle of solidarity between Member States. We addressed this issue for the first time in the Council some fourteen months ago.

We decided then that every national measure to regularise illegal immigrants must be preceded by a European consultation that permits the rotating Presidency and the European Commission to give their opinion on the impact of such a regularisation measure on the other Member States. There too, we spoke of the principle of solidarity, and we approved a document. This document has not yet formally entered into force, but it has the value of a political decision. I therefore call upon every Member State of the Union planning to carry out regularisations to comply with this obligation to a preliminary consultation, in order to allow other Member States to adopt measures to take into account the impact of this massive regularisation.

  James Hugh Allister (NI). – Commissioner, considering the huge scale of citizenship granted over recent years in Bulgaria to immigrants from Moldova, Ukraine, Russia and elsewhere, what realistic steps will be taken to control that immigration by proxy through Bulgaria and Romania?

With most other Member States not taking their fair share of immigration under the 2004 enlargement, would countries like mine, the United Kingdom, not be wholly justified in refusing to extend their present open-door policy to Romania and Bulgaria?

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this is certainly a highly sensitive subject, and I can confirm that I have personally raised the issue in my talks – including recent ones – with the government authorities of both Bulgaria and Romania.

The answers are reassuring in that both these candidate countries, which are close to joining, realise what impact dual citizenship may have on the other European Union Member States. They have, however, posed us a problem that the European Union should be concerned about. It is the problem of countries like Ukraine and Moldova, which are demanding a new facilitation scheme for temporary EU entry visas. If we do not give serious consideration to these demands for a visa scheme for Ukraine and Moldova, the citizens of those countries will obviously try to resort to dangerous stratagems.

As for workers’ freedom of movement, there are of course references in the accession treaties for Romania and Bulgaria to the possibility of extending, for a transitional period, the freedom of workers to go to other European Union countries.

The European Commission’s argument, as regards the ten new countries that have been members of the Union since 2004, is that there is no longer any danger of an invasion by workers, and we have published a communication in that respect.

If the two new Member States join at the beginning of next year, as I personally hope they will, they will have some restrictions. That will be understandable, considering that they will be new Member States within a second phase of enlargement.

  President. Question No 40 by Johan Van Hecke (H-0613/06)

Subject: US oil reserves

In the week ending 16 June, US reserves of crude oil rose by 1.4 m barrels to 347.1 m barrels. As a result, the country's oil reserves are now at their highest level since May 1998.

Was this issue of the USA's unusually large oil reserves discussed at the annual EU-US summit in Vienna? Might the USA be holding these large reserves in order to keep the price of oil artificially high, with all the adverse consequences this would have for the European economy? How much American crude is being imported into the EU?

  Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. It is true that the United States’ reserves of crude oil and petroleum products have recently reached record levels. However, growing reserves of crude oil or petroleum products in any consumer country should normally not put upward pressure on the world oil price.

It is a well-documented statistical belief among experts that prices of oil and oil products increasingly relax with growing levels of reserves in major consumer countries. That is because risk premium is an important element in the price of oil in the world markets and is priced in by market operators on the basis of evaluations of various risk factors. Besides due political considerations, the probability of supply disruptions caused by insufficient spare capacities and reserve levels is a primary risk factor. Hence comfortable or even record levels of crude oil or petroleum product reserves in important consumer countries such as the United States tend to reduce the perception of risk by a vast majority of operators in global oil markets.

Against this background, there was no need to discuss the question of levels of US crude oil and petroleum product reserves at the annual EU-US Summit.

As for the crude oil imports from the US to the European Union, in the past three years the United States has supplied negligible quantities to the EU – less than one million tonnes per annum. That is less than 0.2% of EU’s total crude oil imports. In fact, the US itself is highly and increasingly dependent on crude oil imports.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Plans for affordable hydrogen-fuelled cars have in fact been lying around in drawers for years now, and some manufacturers are now in a position to put hybrid cars on the market at the same price as conventional ones. What practical steps is the EU taking to promote such alternatives in order to make us less dependent on both American oil policy and the oil-exporting countries?

  Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. It is true that given the situation of oil prices, a number of initiatives have been studied and included in the five-point plan presented by Commissioner Piebalgs since September 2005. These were further developed in the Green Paper on a European strategy for sustainable, competitive and secure energy.

The Commission aims gradually to reduce the EU’s dependency on imported oil by creating energy efficiency, on the one hand, and by replacing it, on the other hand, with other energy sources, including biomass and other renewables. It also aims at strengthening the producer-consumer dialogue with oil-producing countries in order to promote new exploration and development to meet rising global demand; promoting transparency and predictability of the oil market and being well prepared for emergencies, especially by ensuring that Member States maintain the stocks as set out in the relevant EU legislation.

It is important to know that all these policies – the ones on the use of fuel for cars, biomass and all the other measures just mentioned – will have a beneficial impact mainly in the medium to long term and not for the immediate future.

  Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) One of our aims, of course, is to make the European Union rather more independent in matters of energy supply, and there is no doubt that branching out into alternative and renewable types of energy would be important as a way of doing this.

Which particular types of renewable energy will you be taking deliberate steps to promote in the near future, and to what extent? Can you also supply figures for this?

  Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. There is a number in the plan of Commissioner Piebalgs in this respect, so I would not, at this point, list which are priorities or otherwise. The issue of biofuel is one of the priorities in the European Union. It has been discussed in the College of Commissioners and in the Council, as have other areas such as the use of wind and solar energy. What I can do, given that I am not an expert on this issue, is to make sure that there will be a written reply from my colleague with more detail on this issue.

  President. Question No 41 by Karl-Heinz Florenz (H-0639/06)

Subject: Classification of passive tobacco smoke as a human carcinogen

In its resolution on the European Environment & Health Action Plan 2004-2010 of 23 February 2006, Parliament encouraged the Commission to designate environmental tobacco smoke a class 1 carcinogen as soon as possible. However, no mention was made of this measure during the informal consultation on smoke-free policies at EU level (closing date: 14 June) organised by the Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection.

Has the Commission taken any steps to classify passive smoking as carcinogenic to humans? If not, why not?

Does the Commission intend to follow the recommendation of the ASPECT report and classify passive tobacco smoke as a carcinogenic agent? If not, why not?

  Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. I should like to thank Mr Florenz, because every time he asks questions on this subject he really helps our policies.

It is true that it is estimated that 25% of all cancers in the European Union could be attributed to smoking. The World Health Organisation, the Finnish and German Governments and US agencies have already classified environmental tobacco smoke as a human carcinogen. As I have said to Parliament on many occasions in the past, action towards a smoke-free Europe is one of my main priorities. Before the end of 2006, the Commission intends to put forward a document on smoke-free environments, which will discuss the way forward to tackle passive smoking in Europe.

It is true that DG Sanco’s informal consultation did not mention the classification of ETS as a carcinogen, firstly because it had a preliminary and informal character and it tried to get the opinion of selected players. However, we place great importance on Parliament’s view that classifying tobacco smoke as a carcinogen would be advisable.

The problem is legal and not political, because we agree. There is a gap in the European legislation, so I would cover two aspects. Firstly, we have the problem that the existing legislation in the European Union that deals with dangerous products and substances does not cover smoke as such, but only products placed on the market. Therefore there is a gap there in the legislation.

At the same time, the approach was similar to the legislation that deals with protection from carcinogens in the workplace. These two pieces of legislation unfortunately apply only to substances and preparations placed on the market. Under the purposes and intentions of these pieces of legislation, tobacco smoke as such is not considered a product.

We have two approaches. On the one hand, in the consultation document we are to bring forward on the smoke-free environment, we shall ensure that we refer to the classification of ETS as a carcinogen – the one made by WHO, the US, Germany and Finland, so that we give the right information. At the same time, as components and ingredients of the smoke are already classified under European legislation as carcinogens – such as arsenic, butadiene, benzene, nitrogen oxides and other oxides – we shall ensure that we make reference to that as well. Therefore, legally we cannot say at this point that ETS is a carcinogen, but we can say that ETS contains components and substances which are carcinogens. I think the message is quite strong. This is what we can do in the immediate future.

However, in the mean time and in the long run, we hope to find ways and explore the possibilities of how we can use or amend in that respect European legislation so that we have the possibility of classifying ETS as such as a carcinogen. This can be done both by exploring amendments to our legislation. There is also an ongoing debate now on the review of the legislation on carcinogens in the workplace, and perhaps we should consider including that as well. That would apply to the workplace, but it would be a first step.

In conclusion, we will present every possible aspect in the paper which will be published soon – before the end of the year. However, in the meantime we will look at how to improve our existing legislation to ensure that we also have the legal competence to classify ETS as such as a carcinogen.

  Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, in view of the fact that, in any given year, 10 000 people in Europe lose their lives as a result of passive smoking, I am sure you will understand why I am not particularly happy about that statement.

While I do of course understand that there are loopholes in the law, it is – if I understand these things rightly – your job to close them. Thinking back to how, at the time of the BSE crisis, we responded to a vague suspicion of risk by turning Europe’s whole food policy on its head over a period of one or two years, we really should do more about this issue, where facts are actually to hand in the shape of some 10 000 victims per annum.

We can tell you that my group will certainly do something about this by producing an own-initiative report along these lines with the aim of supporting you.

  Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. Definitely, I agree. I could also point to the problems mentioned in a report today, in the United Kingdom press I think, that are caused to the respiratory system and to the lungs and breathing problems caused by passive smoking. We also know that it causes heart problems.

Our target, as you will realise from the paper we are to produce, is a smoke-free environment in the European Union. All these arguments help us to move in that direction. We will continue striving to achieve that target, but in the meantime we will explore what amendments are needed to our legislation so that we can proceed with the classification ourselves. Member States can do it and other international organisations can do it, so I do not see why the European Union should not be able to do it as well.

  David Martin (PSE). – Commissioner, I wonder whether you saw in the press this week – certainly in the British press – reports of a plan by a German entrepreneur to start smoking flights from Europe to Asia.

Firstly, does the Commissioner condemn this and, secondly, is there anything the Commission can do legally to stop this from happening?

  Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. I am afraid not. I do not know who would want to fly in such conditions. I conducted a small poll myself. I asked smokers if they would fly on a smoke-filled plane and they said ‘no’.

As you know, there is no Community legislation on banning smoke on planes. It is the Member States that decide on that. Therefore it will remain the competence of the Member States. Given the recent messages from Germany regarding promoting a smoke-free environment, I am hopeful that they will look into that and that special legislation will come into force in 2007.

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Although none of us want to live in a world in which everything is forbidden, I do believe that smoking – and passive smoking in particular – are examples of a situation in which our own actions are harmful to others. European hotels and restaurants have in fact undertaken to set aside certain parts of their premises as smoke-free areas, but this is no more than a voluntary commitment. Would you consider enacting a Europe-wide regulation according to which certain areas would have to be smoke-free, and with this actually being monitored, since controls on this are, to a great degree, more or less effective from one Member State to another?

  Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. I am sure you know I have views on that, but I do not want to anticipate the outcome of the consultation process that will be launched very soon on smoke-free environments. Based on that we will see what will be the next steps we can take at European level.

I am very much encouraged that one Member State after another is introducing smoking bans in public places. Lithuania and Slovenia recently took similar decisions, and Germany will also do so in the near future. However, for the European Community as a whole, the Commission will await the outcome of the consultation process before deciding what steps to take. As I said in my hearing before the committees in Parliament, my target would be to have a smoke-free Europe and to protect all citizens from passive smoking, not just in some Member States.

My personal view is that just separating smokers from non-smokers is not enough and does not offer sufficient protection. If we really want to achieve benefits for all we have to go for full smoking bans. Nevertheless I look forward to Parliament’s contribution to the consultation process.

Part Two

  President. Question No 42 by Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (H-0599/06)

Subject: Measures to promote the viability of small and medium-sized businesses

In 2005, there were 140 000 company insolvencies in the European Union of the 15, threatening 1.5 million jobs. In the same year in Greece, there was a significant increase of 54.55% in the number of small and medium-sized Greek businesses which declared bankruptcy compared with 2004. In the light of these figures, what immediate measures will the Commission take to rescue small and medium-sized businesses?

  Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I must begin by pointing out that the Commission has no direct responsibility where the law on bankruptcy is concerned. Since, however, this area is one of particular importance to smaller and medium-sized businesses, the Commission is endeavouring to act as an intermediary.

We have ensured that tried and tested procedures have been publicised, and have encouraged Member States to adopt them. In the Commission’s view, its work is focused on preventing insolvencies and promoting restructuring rather than on the winding up of businesses. We are working towards more business-friendly provisions for non-fraudulent insolvencies, and we are, finally, giving consideration to how to support new starts and give businesses a second chance.

Reference is made in the European Charter for Small Enterprises to the fact that some insolvencies can occur despite the exercise of responsible initiative and entrepreneurial risk-taking, and a review of national insolvency laws in the light of proven best practice is accordingly called for. Various steps have been taken to this end. Early in 2001, a seminar on the failure of enterprises was held in Noordwijk, at which the most important issues discussed were the improvement of bankruptcy legislation and the prevention of insolvencies. In mid-2002, the study ‘Bankruptcy and a Fresh Start’ was published, including a collection of data on the legal and social consequences of business insolvencies.

This survey formed the basis for the Commission’s Best Procedure project 'Restructuring, bankruptcy and a fresh start’ in 2003, which focused on the two issues of to what extent national insolvency law was an obstacle to an enterprise’s continued existence and to its making a new start, and what effect the blemish of failure has on the prospects for success of a business making a new start after failure and on the culture of entrepreneurship in general.

The outcomes of this project were presented in a report intended to support the trend in European policymaking towards changes in the legal framework of insolvency legislation. The principal recommendations and benchmarks ranged from an emphasis on the usefulness of external advice in preventing insolvencies via the role of up-to-date and reliable insolvency legislation in promoting settlements and restructuring measures through to the importance of drawing a clear distinction between fraudulent and non-fraudulent bankruptcy, while the report also set out the various relevant legal consequences. It did indeed help to step up efforts across Europe towards the reform of insolvency law.

In response to a number of positions adopted in the ‘Entrepreneurship in Europe’ Green Paper, the Commission, in 2004, expanded the Entrepreneurship Action Plan by including in it a priority measure on business insolvencies with three specific objectives.

The first of these was that the Member States should be encouraged to implement the recommendations of the group of experts on ‘restructuring, bankruptcy and a fresh start’. The second was that business failure should be better understood, and the third was the promotion of preventive measures for businesses at risk.

Further to the second and third objectives, the Commission is currently developing, as part of the multiannual ‘Stigma of Failure and Early Warning Instruments’ project, an information kit and self-assessment tests enabling entrepreneurs to recognise at an early stage, when the prospects of getting help are still good, the risk factors by which their business is affected.

On 28 March 2006, the Commission staged a conference in Brussels on the subject of ‘Insolvency and a fresh start’, which looked at the methods for preventing insolvencies, the ways whereby the stigma of business failure might be counteracted, and the encouragement of fresh starts following non-fraudulent business insolvencies.

There are positive signs of these priorities being acted on at national level, with the national reform programmes for 2005 in connection with the Lisbon Strategy presented by approximately one-third of the Member States – and I might add that Greece is among them – including plans for the reform of the Member States' bankruptcy laws.

  Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Madam President, thank you very much for the full reply and for the details of the action being taken by the Commission and the Council.

I wanted to ask if the European Union's international obligations contribute towards the insolvency and sudden failure of businessmen.

  Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. (DE) As I have already said, we have, at European level, no power to deal with this matter, and so we cannot take action, whether through legislation or on the international stage. The only thing we can do is, as I have explained to you, to ensure, by way of cooperation, coordination and the sharing of experience in the Member States, that better legal framework conditions can be created. As I told you, there are some countries in which this has already happened, while others are still in the process of doing so, and in some of them the situation is still unsatisfactory.

What I can tell you today is that we will give particular attention to this issue during the preparation of the next annual report on the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy, with particular reference to those countries whose insolvency laws still amount to an obstacle to growth and employment.

  Alexander Stubb (PPE-DE). – I have to start by admiring the Commission's capacity to answer detailed and difficult questions on SMEs in Greece.

The best thing we can do as regards small and medium-sized enterprises is to liberalise markets and, in particular, to implement the four basic freedoms that already exist. My question is can you please guarantee to us today that you will resist the pressure that we are under from many, especially German, trade unions to further water down the Services Directive, which was the subject of such a nice compromise between the Council, the Commission and European Parliament?

  Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. (DE) Although I have to say that the connection between the honourable Member’s question and the problem of insolvency law, which we are discussing, is not one I find easy to perceive, I am nevertheless able to answer it. The Commission is quite firmly determined to do everything in its power to ensure that the services directive is adopted in the form on which a compromise has been reached with your House.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, when large firms go bankrupt, it is often the case that many small ones see their bills go unpaid. Could you envisage the possibility, in such an eventuality, of the European Investment Fund – for a certain period of time at least – being able to guarantee payment or make available an equity replacement loan?

  Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. (DE) I am sure you will understand that this question will have to be examined, for my answer to it would constitute a commitment on behalf of institutions for which I have no direct responsibility. What I will say, in rather more general terms, is that I do indeed believe that the instruments available to us for ameliorating the consequences of sudden structural change can be used in such cases as well, and so I could certainly envisage creative financial instruments in individual cases, but they really would have to be examined on a case—by-case basis.

Here too, the problem is that European legislation is not possible under the framework conditions existing at the present time.

  President. Question No 43 by Jan Andersson (H-0626/06)

Subject: Industrial policy

An integrated European industrial policy is to be welcomed. In its current form, however, there is far too much emphasis on increasing competitiveness. Competitiveness is indeed important if industry is to develop but it would have been welcomed if the employment policy aspects had been taken into account to a greater extent.

How will the Commission incorporate employment policy into the integrated industrial policy?

  Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. (DE) In a globalised world, the competitiveness of European industry is crucial to growth and employment. The proposals put forward by the Commission for a modern industrial policy are specifically intended not only to make the fullest possible use of European industry’s potential for employment, but also to extend it still further.

There is, then, a quite direct connection between employment policy and industrial policy. I am obliged to you for your question, since it gives me the opportunity to clarify that the industry policy to which I am committed – as also is the Commission – is not one that defends the interests of ‘shareholder value’; on the contrary, the object of this industry policy is to secure in the long term high-quality jobs in Europe.

The main goal of the policy I defend is to provide people with good-quality jobs, and enough of them. Contrary to one point of view that was formerly to be heard in Europe, we are, today, more than ever convinced that this goal will not be achieved without a strong industrial base in Europe, that is to say, industry that is strong, high-performing and competitive.

I would also like to bring to your attention certain aspects of our policy that have to do quite specifically with the connection between industrial policy and employment policy. One I would mention in particular is the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, which has now – at the Commission’s suggestion – been set up, the funds allocated to which are primarily intended to help workers affected by rapid structural changes to gain further qualifications or find new jobs.

I would point out to you that the Commission is currently working on a policy intended to remedy the skills shortages in Europe, improving the content of jobs and improving employment opportunities in numerous sectors, specifically in information and communications technology, machine-building, the textile and leather industry and various areas of raw materials production and manufacturing industry.

The European Union is also helping to improve the functioning of working relationships and is strongly supportive of corporate social responsibility. Your question also provides me with an opportunity to say to European businesses that the achievement of high profits can never be a business’ sole objective, for a European business always has a social function to fulfil; it has a responsibility to society, and that responsibility primarily has to do with the jobs it provides.

As you can see, considering our industrial policy in complete isolation from employment policy would be a quite artificial distinction to draw. It can, perhaps, be summed up in a single sentence. Modern industrial policy in Europe is a quite essential and indispensable contribution to the improvement of employment opportunities.

  Jan Andersson (PSE). – (SV) Many thanks for your response, which I thought was sound. I likewise do not see any incompatibility between competition policy and employment policy. I just think that perhaps we should put more emphasis on employment policy in future. It is important for us to have a strong industrial policy in Europe if we are to be able to retain employment opportunities. In the light of demographic development, it is also important, however, for the employment opportunities in this sector to be of high quality and for us to focus on areas like skills development so that young people are attracted to going into the industrial sector. With competition in mind, it must not become difficult to recruit new workers. It is a very important task to solve this problem, given the way the demographics are heading.

  Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. (DE) I can do no more than tell the honourable Member that he and I are in complete agreement; that is precisely what the Commission is trying to do, and his question makes it clear to me that there is a need for more information and better communication.

It seems to me that perhaps not everyone in Europe is as yet aware of what the essential substance of our strategy is, so I will repeat that the fundamental strategy that this Commission is pursuing is a strategy for growth and employment. That is what it is primarily about; that is what it is primarily intended to do. Alongside the many other means at our disposal, industrial policy is one of the instruments we use to achieve the goal of growth and employment.

  Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE). – I very much welcome the Commissioner's responses, but can I also ask whether he would agree that more flexibility, particularly within the review of the working time directive, would be good for employment as well as competitiveness, and would he give a personal lead in promoting this?

  Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. (DE) You will be aware that I have no leading role, and that I in no way wish to trespass on my fellow-Commissioners’ provinces, just as they do not interfere in matters within my remit, and so I will say, by way of reply, and with all due caution, that reference is made, in all the Commission documents on the subject of the need for reforms in Europe, to the fact that – in some sectors and in some Member States, at any rate – labour markets are too rigid, too lacking in flexibility, and that more flexibility in the labour markets – albeit always described very precisely in each instance – would indeed bear fruit in the shape of greater entrepreneurial initiative, more willingness to take risks, and, ultimately, to more jobs.

In principle, then, I can answer your question in the affirmative; more flexible labour markets are, in the twenty-first century, a necessary part of the response to the structural problems that we have.

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE). – (DE) If you look at the current employment statistics, it is quite clear that the first and second sectors – that is to say, agriculture and industry – are, together with the services sector, suffering massive reversals in all the developed industrial states.

I believe that the future lies in the services sector, and, if the Commission claims to be managing a strategy for employment and growth, would it not make more sense to focus its efforts there?

  Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. (DE) We could have an extremely interesting debate on this, but my answer is a clear ‘no’. You may be surprised that I am able to give such a clear answer. It is a fundamental error to think that it is possible to pursue a policy that favours the services sector over the manufacturing sector. In reality, the services sector cannot be developed at all without strong industry – a strong manufacturing industry – to purchase its services.

If we look at the economic reality in Member States with a particularly high proportion of service industries, we see that many of the activities of the services sector have been contracted out by industry, but are exactly the same in substance as before. Our argument, therefore, is that, without a strong, efficient industrial basis, it will not be possible to carry out the expansion of the services sector that would be necessary to solve the employment problem by this means alone. I think that we need to look at these two as being closely interlinked.

  President. Question No 44 by Seán Ó Neachtain (H-0638/06)

Subject: Cutting red tape for small businesses in Europe

Can a statement be given by the European Commission listing the different measures that it has introduced in the years 2005 and 2006 to date to cut the level of red tape faced by small businesses within the European Union?

  Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. (DE) I have to admit, Madam President, that my problem with this question is that the sheer volume of the Commission’s recent activities and initiatives on this issue is such that I would need a very long time to relate everything we are doing at present. I shall give a summary, therefore, which will also help the President save time.

Cutting red tape and reducing administrative costs for small and medium-sized enterprises, including by improving the quality of our legislation, is one of this Commission’s major political projects. That is what this Commission stands for.

We have brought about a real paradigm shift. We are currently undertaking a systematic screening of the whole body of European legislation – and by this I mean really law by law, provision by provision – to see whether it can be simplified, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, and whether it contains requirements that put obstacles in their way.

As the House knows, the Commission has put SME policy in its rightful place at the heart of our economic thinking, as it is they, rather than large enterprises, that are the decisive force in Europe, and what they need is to be given more freedom and more responsibility for their own affairs. They need an environment in which they can develop.

We firmly believe that the ‘Bureaucracy reduction and better lawmaking’ project is a cross-cutting task for the whole of the Commission, a task that involves all the Directorates-General, and will make a vital contribution to strengthening the role of SMEs and encouraging more people in Europe to start up their own business, to take a risk themselves, and thereby provide jobs for others.

Madam President, in the interests of time, I would perhaps suggest I provide the honourable Member with the full version of my answer, which details all these initiatives, and I am also willing to provide any further information required.

  Seán Ó Neachtain (UEN). – I want to thank the Commissioner for his reply, and even though he said it would take him longer to put all the measures together, I am still encouraged by his response.

Commissioner, is it not a fact that the objectives of the Lisbon Agenda are far from being attained, and that we are still lagging behind in measures necessary for the coordination and progress of SMEs under those objectives of the Lisbon Agenda that we initially laid down?

  Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. (DE) I would not now put it as strongly as that. Last year, I would have said just the same as the honourable Member. In the meanwhile, however, as he is aware, the Lisbon Strategy – the strategy for growth and jobs I have just spoken about – that was decided on last spring has been undergoing a complete revision. Without wanting to anticipate the report the Commission is due to present at the end of this year, I believe I can say one thing, which is that positive effects are indeed starting to emerge. They can be seen in the policies of Member States, and even in the European economy.

I do not know if the honourable Members had the same feeling as I did when reading the newspaper today, but for the first time in a long time we read that production growth in Europe and economic growth in general has overtaken that of Japan and the USA. We are now, once more, growing faster than our American and Japanese competitors. That means that the gap is beginning to close, and I hope that this trend will continue.

It is just an initial indicator, but it gives me hope and shows me that we are on the right track.

  James Hugh Allister (NI). – Commissioner, without seeking to be unkind, is it not fair to say that the Commission’s record on cutting red tape has been very high on promise, but very low on delivery? Indeed it is not without significance that though you promise us a recital in written form of some examples, you have not been able today in your substantive answer to give a single example of realistic cutting of red tape. The experience in my constituency is that businesses see no sign of it. They find themselves more and more burdened in circumstances where it is seriously impeding their competitiveness.

  Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. (DE) I regret that I have to contradict the honourable Member, as the exact opposite is true.

In the relatively short time since the launch of this initiative, we have achieved more than I had ever imagined. Firstly, as the honourable Member is aware, we have withdrawn one-third of all pending legislation without replacement as an initial step. Secondly, we have transformed legislative methods and introduced the compulsory complete impact assessment, which in itself brings a considerable improvement in the quality of ongoing legislation. Honourable Members will notice this here in Parliament when they discuss the proposals presented by the Commission.

Thirdly, the simplification programme is in full swing. I am sorry to say that the Commission has been making rather faster progress on this than the other institutions. I always welcome criticism, but this criticism would be easier to bear if the speed of the decision-making by the Council and Parliament on the simplification proposals the Commission has already presented to the other institutions matched the speed at which the Commission presented them.

  David Martin (PSE). – Would the Commissioner accept that his warm words on small and medium-sized enterprises would have more credibility if our own research funds did not discriminate against small companies? I know of a case of two companies – one large and one small – in the same programme, where the large company is audited at the end of the programme and receives its grants in advance, whereas the small company has to have an annual audit, at its own expense, and receives its money in arrears. Does the Commissioner not accept that this is a reversal of what the priorities should be?

  Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. (DE) I cannot answer this question without knowledge of the specific case. I would ask the honourable Member to give the relevant documentation either to me or to whichever of my fellow-Commissioners is responsible – of course, I do not know the field of competence in which this is supposed to have occurred – and then the case will be examined. At all events, there is no Commission policy of favouring large enterprises over smaller ones. The exact opposite is true.

The requirements to be met by small and medium-sized enterprises when bidding for contracts and projects are significantly less exacting than those for large enterprises. SMEs can also receive a higher percentage of support than large enterprises. I am surprised by the practical example the honourable Member has given. It cannot be the rule – it must be an isolated case – and I would be happy to look into it. I would ask him to provide us with the relevant information.

  President. Question 45 will be answered in writing.

Question No 46 by Paulo Casaca (H-0597/06)

Subject: Figures for spring hunt in Malta

Since Malta’s accession to the EU in 2004, thousands of European citizens have been outraged by the decision of the Maltese Government to allow hunting in spring. MEPs have since been pushing the Commission to ban spring hunting in Malta, the derogation being incompatible with the EU Birds Directive (79/409/CEE⁽¹⁾). In its answer to question E-1318/06 in June 2006 the Commission stated that it had severe doubts about the Maltese claim that the hunting opportunities in autumn were minimal and that therefore spring derogation was justifiable. However, the Commission urged the Maltese authorities to present additional statistics to justify their claim.

Could the Commission tell us if it has received any (satisfying) additional figures so far and, if not, when finally the Commission is expecting to make a decision on the compatibility of the spring hunting derogation in Malta in order to open and shut the case file?

  Stavros Dimas, Μember of the Commission. (EL) The Birds Directive generally bans spring hunting. It only allows it when certain preconditions apply, the main one of which is that there are no satisfactory alternatives.

Until now, certain Member States which requested this sort of derogation were unable to prove that there were no satisfactory alternatives to hunting, for example in the autumn period.

The reason why hunting is banned in the spring period is because wild birds are migrating to their reproduction sites. They are birds that have survived the winter and numerous other hardships and are going to the sites where they reproduce. Consequently, there is a basic reason not to allow hunting of wild birds during this period.

More importantly, as far as Malta is concerned, we asked for information on birds hunted during the 2004 period from the Maltese Government as far back as the autumn of 2004. The Maltese authorities have sent us the relevant data for the 2004 spring hunting period.

We concluded from these data, which the Commission evaluated carefully in order to investigate if the grounds for a derogation really stood up, in other words that there was no satisfactory alternative hunting during other periods, that such preconditions applied. As a result, given that during the autumn period there is a significant number of quail and turtle doves which is not very different from the number of birds hunted during the spring period and taking account of the judgments of the European Court of Justice, we concluded that there is a satisfactory alternative and that the derogation is not therefore permissible.

Having established this, the Commission started legal proceedings against Malta in July 2006 for infringement of the Birds Directive on the grounds that it had permitted spring hunting of these two species.

I must say that similar infringement proceedings have also been set in motion against other Member States on the basis of the desired derogation for which the necessary preconditions are not met and that judgments have been returned, for example against Spain and Finland recently, on precisely these grounds.

  Paulo Casaca (PSE). – (PT) Madam President, the question I would like to ask following the Commissioner’s answer is whether or not he considers it a crass error to take a decision of this nature solely on the basis of statistics gathered by the hunters. Would it not be better for the Commission to adopt a perspective that takes closer account of the reality of the situation, bearing in mind what the Maltese press and the birdwatching community have said?

  Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. I know that there is doubt about the data submitted to us by the Maltese authorities, but even with these data, we have concluded that there is no reason for a derogation from the ban on spring hunting and we have started infringement procedures against Malta. What more can we do? We want to show everybody that we are very serious about applying and enforcing the Birds Directive, which includes that provision. Otherwise, if we give different signals, many other countries would think that we have watered down the provisions of the Birds Directive and might also ask for a derogation. So we have started the infringement procedures and we shall see whether the Maltese authorities will comply and ban hunting during the spring period.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, we are now talking about 2004, but I read in the Maltese press that in the spring of 2005 and 2006, quite a few migratory birds were hunted, and a number of them shot down.

Can you inform me whether the Maltese authorities have already sent the Commission an exemption report on this 2005 spring hunting, and what their duties are in this respect? I think that this should have been done by June of this year. Has it been? If so, could you give us an idea of its content, and what the reasons are for this exemption? If not, when do you expect this report?

  Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. There will be a meeting between the Maltese authorities and representatives of DG Environment this month. The various issues will be discussed, including that of the Maltese continuing to allow hunting of turtle doves and quails during the spring period. Ways of ensuring compliance with the Birds Directive will be looked at.

As to the report and the figures for 2005, they are due by the end of this year.

  President. As the following questions deal with the same subject, they will be taken together.

Question No 47 by Caroline Lucas (H-0604/06)

Subject: Study into conservation basis of EU ban on import of wild birds

In October last year, the Commission initiated an EU ban on the import of wild caught birds. This decision was made on human health grounds.

This trade should also be banned on the grounds that it is largely unsustainable, causing crashes in the populations of many birds in the wild. The EU imports an estimated two million birds each year. The Commission should therefore be congratulated for helping to save over one million birds since October.

When questioned about the conservation impact of this trade, Commissioner Dimas assured environment ministers in December 2005 that the Commission would review the impact of this trade on conservation grounds.

The Commission appears not to have initiated such a study. Can the Commission explain why this has not been started, and when the Commission intends to honour its pledge?

Question No 48 by John Bowis (H-0674/06)

Subject: Ban on wild bird imports

Will the Commission conduct a thorough study on the effect of the temporary ban on wild bird imports, with data from all Member States? Illegal trade is difficult to measure, but it has been estimated that huge numbers of protected wild-caught birds are involved, and the argument that a total ban on the import of wild birds would drive the trade underground and cause an increase in illegally imported birds has been widely used by those who oppose a trade ban. However, preliminary analysis of data collected since October 2005 (when the temporary ban was established) published in a new RSPCA/Eurogroup for Animal Welfare report, shows that in fact the illegal trade has reduced, and that the fears are not justified.

  Stavros Dimas, Μember of the Commission. (EL) I shall try to answer the two related questions relating both to the study and to the ban on birds and the data provided by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. As far as veterinary and hygiene rules are concerned, the Commission took swift and effective preventive measures in October 2005 based on the existing framework of veterinary legislation.

We had granted an extension to the import ban for all birds up to 31 May 2006; we granted a new extension up to 31 December 2006 and, due to developments in the issue of the spread of bird 'flu, there will most probably be a new extension.

The Commission also asked the European Food Safety Authority for an expert opinion on questions of the health and survival conditions of the animals which concern the importation of birds other than poultry. This expert opinion is expected in October 2006.

As regards the protection of biodiversity and wild birds, the Commission, following the Council last December, commissioned a study in January 2006 to examine the efficacy of Community regulations on the trade in wild species of flora and fauna.

The basic framework for taking protective and trade measures is the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species or CITES, which has been transposed into the law of the European Union in the regulations on trading in species of wild flora and fauna. For the time being, these regulations permit imports, provided that they do not endanger the regime for protecting species.

The competent scientific committee of the European Union with which all the scientific authorities of the Member States of the European Union cooperate is responsible for examining imports of wild species of flora and fauna. That is where the necessary measures are taken relating to imports of species when a problem is identified; this does not only cover birds but relates to all species.

The study we have commissioned will cover from a broad perspective the issue of the efficacy of these regulations for the protection of species of wild flora and fauna, with the emphasis on wild birds. The results of the study in question are expected to be available by the middle of 2007.

Account will, of course, be taken during the preparation of this study of the conclusions of the report published by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the European Group for the Animal Survival Conventions.

  Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE). – Thank you for that reply, Commissioner. I am glad that the study has at least started, despite the fact that we are having to wait until mid-2007, when it was first requested in December 2005. That seems to be quite a long way away, but let us hope it is worth the wait.

Could you explain why the EU continues to import birds when countries such as the United States, for example, consider that those same birds are not sustainably harvested? Since 1992 the US has imposed a moratorium on all CITES-listed birds unless it can be scientifically proven that they are harvested in a sustainable way. Since 1992 not a single one has been proved to be sustainably harvested. Many developing countries also have bans on the export of those birds. So how is it that the United States has such a different assessment from the EU as to whether or not they are being sustainably harvested?

  Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. Firstly, I can tell you that the United States has not signed the Biodiversity Convention. It has different rules; it has a general ban but it also has exemptions. We have more or less the same result by having species considered separately. However, the results are more or less the same because the United States has a lot of illegal trade and we also have illegal trade. The Commission will look at what the United States is doing and what the results are. While the United States bans all imports, we have to look at it and see whether, firstly, this general ban will increase the illegal trade. We do not know. The study shows that perhaps we have less illegal trade, but we do not know what will happen in the future. If we introduce a permanent ban for birds we will have to consider how and why they are treated differently from all other species, like corals and reptiles, because we have a comprehensive policy. The United States has a different approach to this.

We would also like to consider whether an unlimited trade ban by the United States could be challenged by exporting countries, for example within the framework of the World Trade Organization. This might also challenge and undermine our existing sophisticated restrictive measures which make it possible for the European Union to take temporary measures on a consultation basis with the exporting countries. But still, we will look at a ban with derogations in our study.

  John Bowis (PPE-DE). – Whatever the United States may do by way of exemptions, we have a temporary ban which has been shown to work in terms of reducing the illegal trade, but we do not have a permanent ban, and it is we in Europe who are the major importers of wild birds, at 93% - going on for a million a year until 2003. Between 40 and 70% of those birds die before they are exported and many more die en route to Europe. Surely it is time that we made our ban permanent and then led the world and set an example for countries like the United States and Australia?

  Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. This study has shown that the recent confiscations have decreased after we had the ban for health reasons. It is difficult to measure exact numbers of illegally-traded animals, since these, by definition, are not known.

The amount of seized and confiscated birds in the European Union may have recently decreased because of the current temporary ban on all imports. No birds are offered for any import procedures since they would automatically and immediately be refused. Of particular concern is that birds are still being traded illegally and seized in Member States. They are imported and introduced without any veterinary controls. Again, we shall see what the study tells us and whether a ban with derogations would be a better solution than the current system, which is a case-by-case examination of species. We permit the importation of only those birds that are not in danger of extinction.

  John Purvis (PPE-DE). – The Commissioner mentioned that he was concerned about birds threatened with extinction. He will be aware, however, that I and one of my constituents have written to him several times about the case of a legitimate and legal importer of birds from the United States, legally taken in the United States, who is being put out of business because of this ban – which is a ban for health reasons, for chickens, and which is not relevant to these particular wild birds in the United States. They are legal, legitimate and do not pose health risks.

Why is the Commissioner imposing this draconian measure on small businesses in Europe?

  Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. That is a question for my colleague, Mr Kyprianou. However, the obvious answer is avian flu and the ban which we have implemented for health reasons. That ban is a temporary one. It has to be extended until the end of December, and will perhaps be extended into next year, depending on developments in avian flu.

In this particular case the United States is following a different policy, though the result is perhaps the same. They have a ban with derogations, while we may permit imports, but on a case-by-case basis.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – I wonder, Commissioner, whether you have ever considered the possibility of reversing the burden of proof. My question is that our current system for regulating the wild bird trade requires proof that it is harmful to wild populations before it can be suspended. Why can we not establish the sustainability of a wild bird or a species before trade begins? In fact, that should apply to all species, not just birds. Also, the EU prohibits trade in its own wild birds under the Birds and Habitats directives. At the same time, we continue to adopt a cavalier approach towards the biodiversity of less developed countries through this trade, even though there is a ban for the moment. Is that an acceptable way to continue?

  Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. World conservation of certain bird species is affected by international trade. Such species could be proposed for listing under the CITES Convention, depending on the appendices. Trade for commercial purposes is then prohibited or regulated by a permit and monitoring system. There is a certain way of deciding this under the CITES provisions.

Species are only listed if specific conservation and trade criteria are fulfilled. Where these criteria are fulfilled, the Commission would support such listing. Any such listing is subject to a vote in CITES and the necessary majority might not always be attainable. We should remember that we must act in compliance with the law and meet our obligations under the CITES Convention and we cannot do otherwise if a vote is taken. Exporting countries are also involved and if we do not act in accordance with the law for a certain species, we may encounter problems for other species, such as reptiles or corals or other animals.

  President. Question No 49 by Carlos Carnero González (H-0620/06)

Subject: Formal notice served on Madrid City Council and the Madrid Autonomous Community, infringement proceedings in respect of work on the M-30 motorway

Last April, the Commission served formal notice on Madrid City Council and the Madrid Autonomous Community as part of proceedings for failing to comply with Directive 85/337/EEC⁽²⁾ in respect of the work on the M-30 motorway, on the basis of the information requested by the Commission following my question P-0494/04⁽³⁾ of February 2004. Now that the City Council and the Autonomous Community have had the requisite two months to state their position to the Commission, can the latter confirm that they have done so? If not, what is the Commission going to do? If their position has indeed been stated, what are the details, and what is the Commission's response?

  Stavros Dimas, Μember of the Commission. (EL) I think that the answer is very straightforward. I could perhaps say in one sentence that the Commission has sent a warning letter as regards the presumed incorrect application by the Spanish authorities of the amended directive on the impact of public and private works on the environment in the case of the project to construct the M30 orbital road in Madrid.

This letter was sent by the Commission on 10 April 2006, in accordance with Article 226 of the Treaty, and Spain replied on 13 July 2006. We are currently evaluating the reply given by the Spanish authorities and will shortly be completing this evaluation.

  Carlos Carnero González (PSE). – (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, in view of the response issued by the competent Spanish authorities, I hope that the European Commission will make a quick decision.

I would like to say the following: the Commission’s letter of notice made it very clear that, in the Commission’s view, the content of Directive 85/337, which makes environmental impact studies for this type of public work essential, had not been respected. Since it had not been respected by those carrying out that public work, the legitimate rights and interests of the citizens of Madrid, that is to say, the European citizens of Madrid, were being harmed.

Nevertheless, the Ayuntamiento de Madrid is continuing with this work day and night despite the European Commission’s warning. In view of the letter of reply, it is therefore essential that that decision be immediate because, otherwise, rights will be violated almost irreversibly; that is what we must try to avoid.

  Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. I shall be as brief as possible. I would like to say that the Commission opened this investigation after you asked a question on the issue. The dimension and complexity of the project is such that it required several exchanges of information between the Commission and the Spanish authorities in order to gather all the factual and legal information needed for the Commission to properly and duly investigate the case. We will now perhaps need to obtain more information regarding the opening of the procedures.

We came to the conclusion that the M-30 ring road project was not subject to a proper impact assessment pursuant to Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, in particular with regard to some of the subprojects into which the M-30 ring road project is divided. There has also been a failure to produce an assessment of the cumulative effects of those projects. That is the main problem. The project was split into 19 subprojects. For some subprojects there are impact assessments, but not for all, and there is no overall impact assessment for the whole project. That is what we consider to be a breach of the directive.

  President. Questions Nos 50 and 51 will be answered in writing. Questions Nos 52 and 53 will not be taken, as the subjects concerned are already on the agenda of this part-session. Questions Nos 54 to 58 will be answered in writing.

  President. Question No 59 by Bernd Posselt (H-0609/06)

Subject: Christians in Turkey

What is the current situation as regards the legal status of non-Islamic religious communities, particularly Christians, in Turkey, especially with reference to religious freedom, the right to form entities that are empowered to act, building places of worship and parochial centres, and training a new generation of priests? Does the Commissioner take the view that in this respect Turkey is now fully meeting the Copenhagen criteria on democracy and the rule of law?

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. On 20 June 2006, I had an exchange of views with the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I shared with that committee the Commission’s concerns regarding the lack of momentum as regards political reforms in Turkey for the moment concerning, for instance, the issue raised by Mr Posselt. The Commission had hoped that the opening of accession negotiations would give a more tangible impetus to the reform process. As regards the difficulties faced by non-Muslim and Muslim religious minorities, there is clearly a lack of progress so far.

In practice, non-Muslim religious communities continue to encounter significant problems: they lack a legal personality, face restricted property rights and interference in the management of their foundations, and are not allowed to train clergy. The Commission would also mention that the Alevi community experiences difficulties in terms of recognition of places of worship, representation in relevant state bodies as well as in compulsory religious education.

Moreover, the draft law on Foundations, currently pending in the Turkish Parliament – and for too long – would only address some of these difficulties, namely the property regime for some of the communities, although not all of them. The Commission has repeatedly urged the Turkish authorities and the Turkish Grand National Assembly to amend the draft law on Foundations to bring it into line with relevant European standards.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) I am much obliged to the Commissioner for his good answer. I should just like to ask again, in specific terms, whether Turkey has given him an answer, and whether it has had anything to say about what time frame it has in mind for the adoption of appropriate legal provisions. Or have these been put on hold until after the Turkish elections, or even shelved completely?

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. We have discussed this matter, in terms of procedure. For instance, almost a year ago when I was in Turkey after the opening of the accession negotiations on 3 October 2005, we had an in-depth exchange of views on the matter with the relevant committee of the Turkish Grand National Assembly. Since then, we have raised this issue at various points, including in the context of the Association Council this spring. In our view, and according to the Turkish authorities, this should be part of the so-called ninth reform package which is still pending as a whole and which should be adopted without any undue delay by the Turkish Grand National Assembly and, in part, by the Turkish Government.

This is certainly a critical precondition for accession to the European Union and we have made it very clear that Turkey cannot join the European Union without respecting this very fundamental principle.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Does the Commissioner think it would be possible to use the European Monitoring Centre in Vienna as a base for undertaking regular monitoring of the situation of religious minorities and commissioning studies on the subject?

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. Mr Rübig has come up with a very interesting idea. We are using all the data and analysis provided by agencies such as the one he mentioned in Vienna. We are also using data from different human rights organisations. I will look into this matter but, as I understand it, we are already using analysis provided by that agency.

We use a lot of analysis and data provided by bodies such as the Council of Europe and the OSCE, as well as agencies and other think-tanks.

  Georgios Karatzaferis (IND/DEM). – (EL) Commissioner, we all know that the Halki Seminary was closed several years ago. Have you done anything in this direction for the Halki Seminary to reopen? There is a danger that the Patriarch's ecumenical seat will have no one available in future for the election of the next Patriarch.

Do you have anything in mind that you can tell us?

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. The freedom of religion and worship is another key issue and we have raised it a number of times with the Turkish Government. We expect to see not only reflection but also concrete action in order to open the Halki seminary, which is very important for this particular religious community.

  President. Question No 60 by Sajjad Karim (H-0624/06)

Subject: Isolation of northern Cyprus

In 2004 the EU pledged its obligation to sustain economic development and European integration in the north of Cyprus. Reducing the economic divide between the two sides would also reduce the costs of reunification for Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriot dependence on Turkey.

In order to ensure that Turkey's accession and the UN settlement process are complementary rather than competing, would the Commission explain what the EU is doing to: commit to proceeding on trade regulation under a specified time frame and unblock funds in aid regulation for northern Cyprus to disburse on: aquis harmonisation, the civil service reform, refurbishment of Famagusta port and financing of a census in the north; implement a new funding instrument for northern Cyprus and establish a branch office of the Commission delegation in the north to oversee the delivery of funds for technical assistance and acquis harmonisation; revise current proposals for direct trade to include incorporation of northern Cyprus into the EU Customs Union with Turkey, amend the Green Line regulation, and jointly manage the Famagusta port with the Turkish Cypriots and ensure that Turkish Cypriots are fairly represented within the EU institutions?

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. As regards the steps taken by the Commission with the aim of facilitating the reunification of the Island and thereby ending the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community, the following major activities can be reported.

First, the Commission has started to implement the Council regulation that establishes an instrument of financial assistance for encouraging the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community. That was adopted during the Austrian Presidency, on 27 February 2006. Our programme team responsible for the implementation of the regulation should be operational as of this month. It will use an EU programme support office in the northern part of Nicosia. The first projects envisaged for implementation encompass, inter alia, actions in the field of solid waste, energy, local infrastructure, business support and other very concrete measures.

Within this framework, the Commission is also implementing an institution-building programme through the Technical Assistance and Information Exchange Instrument (TAIEX), in order to help prepare the Turkish Cypriot community for the future application of the acquis communautaire in that part of the island.

The proposed Direct Trade Regulation submitted by the Commission to the Council in July 2004 – over two years ago – is still before the Council. The Commission supports efforts of the Finnish Presidency to secure a speedy adoption of this trade regulation in order to fulfil the EU’s commitment of April 2004. We have no intention of withdrawing the proposal and submitting a revised version. We have been and remain ready to accept and facilitate any accompanying measures that would support reunification and economic development and that are acceptable to both communities and all parties, in order to overcome the very unfortunate current stalemate.

It is a badly-kept secret that the accompanying measures have largely centred on the question of the Port of Famagusta. In reply to the question by Mr Matsis, the return of Varosha has been linked in the past to the UN-led talks on a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem. Therefore it is up to the parties involved to decide whether to keep this issue within the framework of the comprehensive settlement or to discuss it separately or to find a way to include it in both concepts. Where there is a will there is a way. We now expect both communities to approach the matter by focusing less on past injustice and more on future solutions. We expect a constructive spirit from all parties. It is high time to end the division and reunify Cyprus.

  Sajjad Karim (ALDE). – Last night Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs adopted a critical report which notably urges Turkey to ‘take concrete steps for the normalisation of bilateral relations with EU Member Cyprus’. The report warns that a lack of progress ‘will have serious implications for the negotiation process and could even bring it to a halt’. What is the Commissioner’s view of this report and the likelihood that a lack of progress could halt talks? Does the Commissioner agree that as far as the European Parliament is concerned there are still some harmful prejudices about Turkey with Turkophobes willing to seize upon any pretext to block the accession process?

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. I have been briefed on the results of the vote in the Foreign Affairs Committee on the Eurlings Report on Turkey. I will comment on that report in the context of the debate at the next plenary session. I will do so when I am fully prepared and have studied it line-by-line and paragraph-by-paragraph.

It is clear that a possible failure by Turkey to meet its obligations as regards the implementation of the additional protocol to the Ankara Agreement would have consequences for the overall negotiation process. That is almost word-by-word what the Council and Member States decided in September 2005, in the well-known EU declaration of the time prior to the opening of accession negotiations.

Our aim is to avoid a possible train crash because it is in no one’s interests for EU-Turkey relations to be seriously damaged. The best way of avoiding that is for Turkey to meet the obligations it entered into before we opened the accession negotiations.

  Ioannis Kasoulides (PPE-DE). – I should like to ask the Commissioner whether he is aware that since the opening of the passages from the North to the South in Cyprus, the per capita income of the Turkish Cypriot community has almost tripled due to the contacts with the South despite their purported isolation.

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. Thank you for providing us with those detailed observations concerning economic growth in the Turkish Cypriot community.

I am glad if the Green Line Regulation and the facilities it opens up for intra-island trade are improving the economic situation of the Turkish Cypriot community. We want to improve the working of the Green Line Regulation. At the same time we are working very hard to unblock the situation concerning direct trade and to get all parties committed to resuming negotiations on the comprehensive settlement to reunify Cyprus.

  Robert Evans (PSE). – Commissioner, you spoke a moment ago of the stalemate in this situation. I tend to agree and perhaps there are also certain parallels with the position between Transnistria and Moldova, which we touched on yesterday in Parliament.

I visited North Cyprus recently for the first time and found it enlightening to say the least. Notwithstanding all the other issues, but bearing in mind the fact that the people of the North of Cyprus voted for membership of the EU, could the EU not, at the very least, see its way forward to allowing direct flights to Northern Cyprus?

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. Thank you for your question, Mr Evans. Our view on how to end the economic isolation of the Turkish Cypriot communities is very clear: we want to execute the financial assistance programme now and we want to facilitate a solution for direct trade, possibly with accompanying measures. At the same time, we trust that this will create confidence so that at some point – hopefully soon – we can resume talks, under the UN umbrella, on a comprehensive settlement leading to the reunification of Cyprus.

  President. Questions which had not been answered for lack of time would receive written answers (see Annex).

That concludes Question Time.

(The sitting was suspended at 7.30 p.m. and resumed at 9 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR TRAKATELLIS
Vice-President

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(3) OJ C 84 E, 3.4.2004, p. 415.