Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 24 April 2007 - Strasbourg

12. Commission Question Time

  President. The next item is Question Time (B6-0017/2007).

The following questions have been submitted to the Commission.

Part One

  President. Question No 42 by Alain Hutchinson (H-0212/07)

Subject: Blackmail of VW Forest workers - reverse relocations

By making continued activity at VW Forest conditional on greater flexibility and an increase in hours of work without an increase in pay, WW Forest management has blackmailed the workforce over employment. The workers only had the choice of accepting or seeing the factory close. In its resolution of 14 March 2006 on relocation in the context of regional development, the European Parliament called for measures to be contemplated against this type of employment blackmail, which might be termed ‘reverse’ relocation as it results in poorer working conditions without relocation of the company's activities.

Can the Commission say what measures it will propose to prevent reverse relocations that lead to a deterioration in working conditions without relocation of the company's activities?

  Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. (CS) Mr President, honourable Members, according to current Community legislation the Commission expresses its opinion on decisions taken by countries and intervenes between the social partners only when Community law may have been infringed.

The EU can nevertheless contribute to changes and restructuring, and to ensuring that these are conducted responsibly, through the structural funds and in particular the European social fund. The Commission has also held political dialogue in the context of the restructuring forum, with the aim of enhancing the exchange of experiences and tried and tested approaches between the main actors, and in particular between governments, social partners and the regions.

The Union moreover has a legal framework for informing and consulting employees. I mention this because there are a number of measures that apply to the authorisation and management of restructuring, in particular the directives on collective redundancies, company relocations and European works councils, as well as the directive setting out the general framework for informing and consulting employees.

It is essential to ensure compliance with Community legislation when it comes to informing and consulting employees. I would emphasise, though, that the task of ensuring that Community legislation is upheld falls primarily to the Member States.

Furthermore, the Commission fully respects the principle of autonomy for the social partners and emphasises the key role of social dialogue in resolving issues relating to organised labour and industrial relations. In this regard, the European works councils have an important role to play in supporting social dialogue at national and Community levels.

In 2003, the social partners adopted European-level reference principles for managing change and the social impact of change. The Commission supports the social partners in promoting and introducing these principles throughout the EU.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your attention.

  Alain Hutchinson (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, I am grateful to the Commissioner for his response. I would simply remind you that I asked this question with a specific context in mind, namely the events at Volkswagen, but that what has happened at Volkswagen is repeated everyday within the EU. Relocations have become a common occurrence these days: we only talk about the largest ones, but they happen all the time. In my own country of Belgium, Opel recently decided to sack thousands of workers. That is the result of a very, very aggressive economic policy.

I am sure, Commissioner, that you remember that we voted, by a very large majority, in favour of a resolution on relocations that aimed not to prevent them, because that would not be possible, but in any event to ensure that public money did not encourage them. When I say 'public money', I am referring mainly to the Structural Funds.

I would like to ask you whether it is possible to get a list of businesses that have relocated, along with any sanctions that may have been imposed on them.

  Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. (CS) I have made a note of your question, Mr Hutchinson. At present I do not of course have the necessary information to hand but I shall ask my office to obtain that information within a reasonable amount of time. Thank you.

  Jörg Leichtfried (PSE). – (DE) Commissioner, let me put the question in somewhat more general terms. You said before, in an initial answer, that you, as a Commissioner, are a guardian of the laws and treaties of the Union. I am well aware that this role imposes certain obligations, but of course you are also an initiator of legislation. I would therefore be interested to learn whether you do not believe it would be beneficial if the Commission finally abandoned the path of making laws for large companies, for economic operators and for all who derive huge profits from business activity and began to make laws for employees too, in order to ensure that this sort of thing becomes a rather less common occurrence in future.

  Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. (CS) The Commission can of course initiate legislation within the framework of its powers and it does so in all cases.

I could mention the debate on optical radiation, which has now been successfully concluded, because it is a typical example of health and safety protection for workers in the workplace. There are other such directives that are either currently under negotiation or have already been finalised. In any event, I feel that it is important to make active use of the field that has been opened up by the possibility for social legislation.

  Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – (LT) The closure of factories is often treated as a product of globalisation. This is normal. It was explained to us, the new EU Member Countries, that we were ignorant of the correct thing to do: we had to outsource our textile factories to third countries, and then we would not have any problems.

My point is: what about the broader context? The world is a sphere, and if we transfer everything somewhere else, would something not have to come back to us? What are our thought processes? Should we not have a common manufacturing policy? Should we not invest in branches of manufacturing that we will not need to eventually outsource?

  Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. (CS) Mrs Budreikaitė, in my view the debate you have opened up belongs more under the heading of restructuring than mere corporate relocations.

I would like to mention some important research, which demonstrates that relocations, in the traditional sense of the term, account for less than 2% of annual changes in employment in the EU. In other words, it is not a large amount compared to the overall movement of workers. On the other hand, that 2% applies to the EU as a whole, which means that it involves tens of thousands of people, and that is a considerable amount.

Your question concerns restructuring. This world is constantly changing and a great many businesses are restructuring. In this case, the Commission is taking a proactive approach. The matter is also being tackled by the restructuring forum, which resolves issues such as how best to respond to restructuring from a social and economic perspective, and this includes the search for perspectives.

I would point out that some things are not as they may first appear. Although the textiles industry, for example, has undergone major restructuring, a number of firms, particularly in Sweden but also in other parts of the world, have found their place in the textile sector, especially with the production of fabrics that are, from a technical standpoint, very demanding to work with.

At the same time, a great many openings have arisen in the area of environmental goods, machinery and so forth. In any event, I cannot at this moment offer any specific suggestions and ideas. I can only point out that, on the one hand, there are companies and branches of industry that are in decline and on the other hand, there are sectors in these branches that are developing rapidly and even new areas appearing, such as that of environmental technology.

  President.

Question No 43 by Ignasi Guardans Cambó (H-0244/07)

Subject: Potential arbitrary and contradictory application of the new air security measures

On 6 November 2006, Regulation (EC) No 1546/2006⁽¹⁾ amending Regulation (EC) No 622/2003⁽²⁾ on aviation security entered into force. Given the confidential nature of the annex laying down the new security measures and the absence of clear instructions on how the measures are to be implemented, has the Commission given thought to the danger that this secrecy could result in differing interpretations as to the application of these measures, with discrepancies not only between Member States but between airports within one Member State?

Has the Commission carried out a study on the implementation of these measures in airports across the EU?

What will the Commission do to prevent inconsistencies in the application of these measures in European airports, which could result in the infringement of passenger rights?

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. Firstly, I should like to thank the honourable Member for raising this question on this most interesting subject: we are all air travellers ourselves, so we very often come across these regulations.

While studying the records of the European Parliament, I noticed that there have been several oral questions on the topic of EU restrictions on the liquids which passengers may carry onto aircraft. The Commission answered Parliament in detail at its sitting of 12 February.

As you will know, I am not the Commissioner with primary expertise in this field and, therefore, I would humbly suggest that the answers already given by my more knowledgeable colleagues on this matter are sufficient. Nevertheless, to summarise the answers to previous questions, it must be said that, in spite of the legislation being classified as EU-restricted as required by Article 8(1) of framework Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002, the rules on liquids are being applied by the Member States in a proper and equal manner throughout the Community. The responsibility for applying the rules lies with the Member States and the Commission monitors this via its regular inspections.

If, however, the honourable Member wishes to have additional information on this question, I would propose that he raises his questions during the debate on aviation security. Coincidentally, this debate takes place tonight and my colleague Mr Barrot, the Vice-President with responsibilities for transport, will be present.

  Ignasi Guardans Cambó (ALDE). – Mr President, the Commissioner’s colleague is avoiding this question and will answer neither tonight nor at any other time.

The Commission to which you and the other Commissioners belong approved a secret regulation which imposes restrictions on citizens and creates an arbitrary situation. When citizens go to the airport, they are like schoolchildren before an authoritarian master whom they need to obey. We are faced with the application of a secret regulation and have no chance to complain. The consequence is that there are different interpretations of the regulation throughout Europe. What is forbidden in one airport is allowed in another. Therefore, you did not get the result intended by the Commission to which you and the other Commissioners belong. You may trust your fellow Commissioners of course but you are equally responsible.

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. As I said in my original answer, I am an air traveller myself, so I often have mixed feelings, but it does not change the whole picture. First of all: why is it necessary to have secret regulations? The rules on aviation security, including those adopted in Regulation (EC) No 1546/2006, are not placed in the public domain because potential terrorists could use the information for their purposes.

The European Commission aviation security legislation is classified as ‘EU restricted’ in line with Commission Decision 2001/844/EC, ECSC, Euratom. How are our airports and airlines supposed to apply regulations – which are directly applicable rules – that are secret? The regulations on aviation security are addressed to the appropriate authority of each Member State. They have an obligation under Article 8(1) of framework Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 to communicate the information to interested parties on a need-to-know basis in accordance with applicable national rules for the dissemination of sensitive information. Thus airport security staff will get clear instructions on their obligations, not from the Official Journal of the European Union, but from the appropriate national authority.

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Commissioner, you have already indicated that your colleague, Commissioner Barrot, will provide us with answers in due course. I must, however, spell out once again that six months have now elapsed since the new rules were introduced. Not once in the course of those six months has there been any report of these measures having successfully prevented or obstructed an act of terrorism. Day after day, on the other hand, we have had hundreds of reports of European citizens feeling aggrieved. Something is surely wrong there. Can you hold out the prospect of a review and withdrawal of these measures or convey this request in due form to Commissioner Barrot?

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. Yes, I do think that the fact that there has been no reported terrorist attempt is a success in itself, because, if you cannot take more liquid than 100 ml – which, according to the experts, is not sufficient to create explosive materials – then terrorists are possibly not trying to violate this regulation. So that could explain why no terrorist attempt has been reported.

As far as complaints are concerned, I can confirm this because many times at the airport I have listened to debates and quarrels between security officials and passengers, but I have the feeling and the experience that the situation has become more relaxed and now goes more smoothly than it did at the very beginning of the new regulations.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – (LT) All of us are experts on the situation at European airports. At certain European Union airports, standard safety procedures are performed politely, promptly and conveniently, while at other airports there are long queues, with every traveller being regarded as a potential terrorist.

Perhaps the European Commission could prepare guidelines and recommendations, using examples of best practice, on how travellers should be attended to politely and safely.

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. I have had similar experiences of uncivilised behaviour by security officials outside the European Union. However, I do not think that the European Union, the Commission or any other Union institution can have any impact on the behaviour of countries outside the European Union.

  President.

Question No 44 by Jacek Protasiewicz (H-0265/07)

Subject: Application of state aid rules to support for the employment of disabled persons

In view of the experience gained to date with implementation by Member States of measures in support of the employment of disabled persons in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002⁽³⁾, and with reference to the Commission's planned changes to state-aid legislation (State Aid Action Plan), does the Commission intend in the future to change the rules on monitoring support for the employment of such workers, together with the requirements for programmes exempted from compulsory notification under group exemptions, and to introduce, in keeping with common market principles, measures under which the additional costs involved in employing disabled persons are established on a flat-rate basis?

Does the Commission believe that support currently provided to employers of disabled persons should in future be treated as state aid?

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. The experience gained from the application of Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 is currently being used by the Commission in order to establish revised rules applying to aid for employment of disabled workers in the context of the preparation of a new Commission regulation, which will revise, consolidate, simplify and harmonise the existing block exemption regulations.

This new regulation, which forms part of the implementation of the state aid action plan, will replace existing instruments, including Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002. The Commission adopted a first draft of the regulation just today. This will allow the Commission to consult Member States and listen to the views of other interested stakeholders, including the European Parliament, in the coming months, in line with the procedure established by Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to certain categories of horizontal state aid.

Block exemption regulations only apply to measures which constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 87 of the EC Treaty. The fact that Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 includes provisions on employment aid in favour of disabled workers does not mean that all state measures in favour of disabled workers are to be considered as state aid. As made clear in recital 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002, some state measures in favour of disabled workers do not qualify as state aid, for instance because they are general in nature. Such measures will continue not to be considered as state aid in the future.

The purpose of the block exemption is to ensure that Member States are not obliged to notify the Commission of those state measures which do indeed constitute state aid under Article 88 of the EC Treaty, as long as the aid measure concerned fulfils a number of conditions as specified in the regulations.

  Jacek Protasiewicz, (PPE-DE) . – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, thank you. The problem is the lack of legal certainty in some Member States, including my country, which means that since Poland’s accession to the European Union the number of companies and enterprises interested in employing disabled persons has dropped dramatically because of doubts about exceeding allowable levels of public aid.

For that reason I would like once again to ask about this. I am in favour of working so that the employment of disabled people, regardless of where they live or what industry they work in will not be treated by the Commission as public aid, but simply as another means of help for people who would otherwise remain on the fringes of becoming socially active.

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. State support measures in favour of disabled workers will, like any other support measure, only be considered as state aid if the measure fulfils all the conditions of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. This implies, amongst other things, that if the aid is granted to disabled individuals and not to companies, the measure is not state aid. Similarly, any measure in favour of disabled workers which does not affect trade between Member States, for instance because it is considered as ‘de minimis’, does not fall foul of the Treaty rules.

Part Two

  President. Question no 45 by Martin Dimitrov (H-0219/07)

Subject: Amendment of Directive 92/84/EEC with a view to increasing the minimum rates of excise duty on alcoholic beverages

The European Commission proposes (COM(2006)0486 – C6-0319/2006 – 2006/0165(CNS)) to amend Directive 92/84/EEC⁽⁴⁾ with a view to increasing the minimum rates of excise duty on alcoholic beverages. This proposal was backed by the argument that since 1992 the minimum rates of excise duty had not been adjusted to take inflation into account, which is 31%.

It is important to note that throughout the last 15 years the existence of minimum excise duties has not led to convergence of the rates of excise duty within the EU. The high excise duty on alcoholic beverages is the main reason and incentive for the increase of smuggling, in Eastern Europe in particular. For instance, taxation of home production of rakia was introduced in Bulgaria, and this caused considerable public discontent.

Does the Commission consider that, in view of the considerable differences in income within the EU, especially after the last two enlargements, there should still be minimum rates of excise duty on alcoholic products?

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. I would inform the honourable Member that I consider that the minimum rates of excise duty on alcoholic products should continue. As I said in my press statement when the proposal was presented on 8 September 2006, the minimum rates are the cornerstone of the EU excise duty system, which was agreed in 1992 as the minimum necessary for the functioning of the internal market. Revalorising them is a necessary step to restore the position to that which was agreed in 1992.

I agree that greater convergence of the rates of excise duty in the different Member States is needed so as to reduce distortions of competition and fraud. However, as the honourable Member will be aware, without the agreement of all the Member States nothing can change. But to simply conclude, as the honourable Member suggests, that this is a reason for abolishing the minimum rate does not seem to be the appropriate solution in view of the need for some harmonisation within the common market, and is therefore not a viable proposal.

I would like to provide some more information on the issue. At the Council meeting, we found strong resistance from many new Member States, which claimed that they had nothing to do with the point of departure in 1993 when they were not part of the European Union. Together with the Presidency, we therefore presented a compromise proposal. In the compromise proposal, the point of departure was changed to 1 May 2004, the date of accession of the 10 new Member States. That immediately resulted in a much lower rate of inflation: instead of 31%, the new proposed rate is only 4.5%. That was the new proposal, but it was also vetoed by one Member State: the Czech Republic.

  Proinsias De Rossa (PSE). – Mr President, it is not a point of order, but I was wondering whether Question 46 will be replied to in the House today, because, if not, I should like to ask a supplementary question to this particular question.

  President. – Question 46 has been withdrawn

  Мартин Димитров (PPE-DE). – Господин Ковач, уважаеми г-н Председател, не съм доволен от Вашия отговор. Оставам с впечатлението, че Вие сте решили да увеличите всички нива на акцизите. Вече има Ваши предложения за по-високи акцизи върху алкохолните продукти и върху дизела. Нивата на доходи в страни като България и Румъния са повече от десет пъти по-ниски в сравнение със „старите“ страни-членки на Европейския съюз. Това създава непропорционално по-висока данъчна тежест и сериозни стимули за неплащане на данъци и „сива“ икономика. Така че тези идеи за увеличение на акцизното облагане ще доведат до още по-сериозни протести, протести които вече са факт в България. Имаше митинги, имаше подписки срещу увеличението на акцизното облагане. Предложенията, които Вие сте внесли, не са обосновани. Не виждам икономическата логика зад тях. Те ще доведат единствено до още по-високи стимули за неплащане на данъци. Например, вземете предвид, че за 15 години акцизните ставки върху алкохолните продукти не са довели до сближаване на нивата. За 15 години. Така че това, което правите няма да има ефект.

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. My understanding is that the Commission is aware of the problems in the new Member States. Before joining the European Union, they had to accept the acquis communautaire and had to apply minimum rates, although they received some derogations. It is now quite difficult for the new Member States, including Bulgaria, to raise the minimum excise duty on alcoholic beverages.

We therefore presented a proposal to the Council, which was made in general terms without any specific figures. Following a decision by the Council, we agreed that any Member States – without specifying whether they were new or old Member States – that find it difficult to increase the excise duty, may apply for a derogation. Bulgaria and Romania were not members of the European Union at that time but this certainly applies to those two countries. Therefore, if Bulgaria has any difficulty in complying with the regulation which was adopted at that time, it may request a derogation which I am certain the Commission will support.

  President. Following my exchange of views with Mr De Rossa, I shall this time accept three additional questions.

  John Purvis (PPE-DE). – Commissioner, you and I have sparred on this issue several times in the past, but you will accept that the huge divergence around Europe in excise rates on alcoholic beverages and other excisable products is one of the major stumbling blocks to providing for a proper single market in Europe.

Would you agree that increasing minimum rates by any percentage on excise duties that are zero in some countries ends up in a zero increase, so the divergence gets even bigger? Are you not aiming at an impossible target, and would not the best thing be to eliminate minimum rates altogether and allow the free market to operate freely in commercial and personal-use products?

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. If I understood you correctly, your proposal or idea would refer not only to alcoholic beverages but to all excise duty. But even if you did not mean that, if we did decide to abolish the minimum rate on alcoholic beverages, that would have an impact on the excise duty on energy and tobacco products.

I do not think it could be a solution, because if there were no minimum rate that would inspire some Member States to opt for very low or no excise duty at all. That in turn would generate more smuggling and more cross-border shopping, which would certainly result in further distortion in the internal market. I understand the logic of your thinking, but I do not think that it would solve the problem. On the contrary, it would create further distortions in the internal market.

  Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – (LT) I do not believe that a low excise duty or the absence of an excise duty would increase the volume of contraband. It is precisely the presence of high excise duty rates that makes it possible for contraband to flow in from Eastern countries, where there are no such excise duties and where alcohol is cheap.

If we are talking in a broad sense about excise duties for motor fuel and other products, then a reduction in excise rates would help the economy to grow and to be more competitive.

The issue I raise is broader; namely, I would ask whether, while we are discussing excise rates for alcohol, we should not give some thought to how the public might be educated to use less of this product? Because at present, there is heavy alcohol use, especially among young people.

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. Mr President, there are different considerations with regard to the excise duties on alcoholic beverages and tobacco products, for instance health considerations. Many Member States do not want a low rate of excise duty because of health factors, and I understand their point of view.

As far as energy is concerned, if we do not increase the rate of excise duty on certain energy products like fuels, this would result in more fuel consumption, which would lead to more pollution as well as adding to the additional danger of climate change. Therefore, excise duty plays an important role in not only improving the internal market but also in other areas such as health, climate change and environmental factors. If we have an excise duty in place, then it is quite logical to set a minimum rate below which no Member State can go.

  Proinsias De Rossa (PSE). – Mr President, I wanted to raise a question with regard to question 46 and I would ask Commissioner Kovács: in relation to tax issues, what plans or powers does the Commission have to be able to force a country like Ireland, for instance, to increase its corporate tax base? I take it your answer will be that you have none. However, I would really appreciate it if you would put on record the powers and plans the Commission has to force an increase in corporate tax rates on Ireland.

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. The question has nothing to do with the issue we are discussing, but I am pleased to hear your questions and to have the possibility of answering them.

First, I want to clarify that the Commission is not even dreaming of increasing or harmonising the corporate tax rate – that is very far from our intention. What we have in mind, and what we have already tabled as a general proposal – not even a legislative proposal – is the harmonisation of the tax base only, i.e. the calculation of the tax base, which is now different in each and every Member State. We have 27 different ways of calculating the tax base, which results in enormous compliance costs and administrative burdens for companies. The lack of consolidation and of transparency makes it very difficult, or senseless, to compare the corporate tax rate of Ireland, which is 12.5 %, with the corporate tax rate of France, which is over 30 %, because we cannot compare the two tax bases.

We have no intention of harmonising the tax rates, only the method of calculation of the tax base, and certainly we have no power to force things. If the present legislative proposal, according to our time schedule, receives unanimity in early 2008, then of course Ireland, and all the other Member States, should comply. If there is no consensus – and I think that at least at the beginning there will be no consensus – then what we can do is to present a new proposal, not for all the 27 Member States but only for those who want to join. That is what we call enhanced cooperation. Enhanced cooperation is optional. Only those Member States that agree with the purpose of the exercise would participate, and Ireland, according to the best of my knowledge, will not be among the countries that will champion participation.

However, I believe that after a while, when the positive experiences are well known, then even those Member States that are reluctant for the time being and that will not join at the beginning of the enhanced cooperation can join later, because one of the conditions of enhanced cooperation is to leave the door open for other Member States who may wish to join in at a later stage.

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE). – (SV) I asked to take the floor regarding Question 45, that is to say before Mr De Rossa was given the floor. I was not, however, given the opportunity to put my question to Mr Kovács. This concerned the question that we in actual fact debated in this House, namely Question 45 on the rates of excise duty on alcohol.

  President. As you will be aware, the Bureau only accepts two additional questions. I accepted three this time because Mr De Rossa was ready to speak on another question, which had since been withdrawn. Mr De Rossa’s question was answered out of kindness on Mr Kovács’ part.

  President.

Question no 47 by Gianluca Susta (H-0216/07)

Subject: European Schools - enrolment

The enrolment procedure for the Brussels European Schools is currently under way, under the supervision of the Central Enrolment Authority.

That authority is, in practice, an empty shell, because it lacks the necessary staff and resources. In particular, it is not collecting the data required for effective monitoring of current and future enrolments (for example, there are no figures on the number of siblings to be enrolled over coming years). Furthermore, not enough information is being provided; among other things, families are not sent any acknowledgement of enrolment.

Would the Commission not agree that, once again, a lack of professionalism on the part of the schools secretariat together with negligence on the part of the relevant DG Admin departments are likely to mean that the Board of Governors' efforts to ensure a transparent, impartial enrolment procedure will come to nothing and, above all, that enrolment policy will not improve in the future?

What steps does the Commission intend to take to prevent the Berkendael enrolment process from ending in failure?

How does it intend to ensure that appeals against enrolment decisions may be lodged with the Complaints Boards, where there are suitable legal grounds for doing so, as from the current enrolment procedure?

  Siim Kallas, Vice-President of the Commission. The subject of the European schools is one of the most complicated issues in my portfolio.

The Board of Governors of the European Schools created a Central Enrolment Authority in order to deal with the very difficult situation caused by the host country concerning the offer of a site for the fourth school in Brussels. The Commission has constantly worked in favour of a clear and objective enrolment policy with the necessary degree of flexibility and with the possibility for parents to appeal.

The Commission has also kept parents and their representatives regularly informed during the school year. Therefore, the Commission does not share the opinion of the honourable Member that it has neglected its responsibilities.

As clearly stipulated by the Board of Governors in its communication adopted in January 2007, the enrolment policy for 2007-2008 will apply for this school year only. The enrolment policy for next year will be based on an in-depth analysis and the close monitoring of the situation during and after the first year of functioning of the Berkendael European School. The policy will also take into account all the pertinent elements and the progress of the pupils of the different European schools in Brussels during the 2007-2008 school year.

The Secretary-General of the European Schools prepared clear procedures for individual appeals and submitted a proposal to the Board of Governors to be approved at its April meeting, in order to give parents the possibility to make appeals during the current enrolment campaign. A proposal to modify the general rules of the European Schools in order to extend the powers of the Complaints Board to decisions related to enrolment was discussed by the Mixed Pedagogical Committee in March 2007, the Administrative and Financial Committee on 19 to 21 March 2007 and the Central Enrolment Authority on 28 March before being submitted to the Board of Governors on 17 April.

Prior to the submission of the proposal to the Board of Governors, the Commission requested that the necessary measures should be taken to ensure that deadlines for replying to the appeals are compatible with the calendar of the beginning of the next school year. The Commission is pleased that an interim ruling was adopted by the Board of Governors on 17 and 18 April and that shorter deadlines for the potential lodging of appeals by parents have been set. During that meeting, the Commission nevertheless insisted that an evaluation of the changes to procedures and to the necessary means of the Complaints Board is carried out as soon as possible in order to meet the requirements associated with the extension of its powers.

  Lapo Pistelli (ALDE) , deputising for the author. – (IT) Mr President, I would like to thank Commissioner Kallas.

I wanted to ask the Commissioner if, in the event that the majority of the parents of pupils who currently are supposed to go to Berkendael do not consent to their children being enrolled at this temporary site, does the Commission intend to continue at any cost with the policy of filling the Berkendael site? Are any alternatives planned? Is it, for instance, possible, as the parents’ associations have asked, to accept requests for limited access to the old schools in Brussels? If so, what methods could be used to choose them?

  Siim Kallas, Vice-President of the Commission. First of all, I must say that the issue of schools in Brussels is very complicated due to the large increase in pupils in recent years. All the main schools are overcrowded, so, as you probably know, the Belgian authorities have designated an additional site for the next school in Laeken. Berkendael is a temporary site. So far, I have no information that parents have refused to accept the Berkendael site. I know that there have been discussions but, as you know, the European schools are an autonomous entity managed by a Board of Governors, in which all Member States are represented. All alternative sites and any proposals concerning the infrastructure of schools depend on the Belgian authorities, for whom the issue of the social infrastructure for the European institutions has become increasingly difficult.

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Commissioner, are you aware that it is becoming increasingly difficult for parents who do not work for the European institutions to have their children enrolled in the European Schools? This creates a kind of ghetto mentality and in particular increases opposition to these schools among the citizens of Brussels.

Secondly, given the very poor provision of public transport, I should like to ask you how anyone could have hit on the idea of locating the fourth school in Laeken. The school buses that will be laid on will have to transport pupils across the entire city, which will waste a great deal of the children's time. Why could a better location not have been found with the Belgian authorities?

  Siim Kallas, Vice-President of the Commission. We have tried to work with the Belgian authorities to explore all possible sites. There are not too many sites in Brussels which meet all the necessary requirements of this complicated task. So far this has been in the hands of the Belgian authorities: they make proposals for annex sites and temporary sites and we cannot change a lot. We have tried to find other solutions together with the Board of Governors but so far that is fixed by the Belgian authorities.

With regard to category 3 and a possible ‘ghetto’ for European officials in category 3 schools – I am using a particular type of language that is very familiar to me – these are students who are not the children of staff in the European institutions. The children of staff in other international institutions are in what is known as category 2. Category 3 involves free places which are allocated to children of other parents, based on availability. As I said, it is increasingly complicated to provide parents working in our institutions with the necessary places in our childcare facilities and schools. Of course, under this framework of rules and conditions, we must give preference to our own staff - the children of those working in the European institutions. However, I fully agree with you that there is a problem and we must think of ways of developing the European school system. There are some additional ideas on how to make this system more flexible and to develop other types of schools, among which the most promising is the type 3 school, which is actually a type of European school. Under certain conditions, these schools may provide the European baccalaureate certificate. This is the most promising part of this project and we cannot do without it. The system is in a very serious impasse, but this proposal was adopted by the Member States at a Council meeting involving representatives of ministers of education, in which I also participated.

The basic idea is there, therefore, and we may have many more European schools providing the European baccalaureate as a particular type of education certificate, which would be a much more open system.

  Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, based on a question posed today by a colleague I would like to ask whether children with various learning difficulties can register for school, taking their difficulties into consideration, as well as whether those already studying at schools of rarely spoken languages, like Greek can register. Why are learning difficulties not taken into consideration, like in the legislation of their countries of origin?

  Siim Kallas, Vice-President of the Commission. Basically, yes: a system exists on how to deal with children with learning difficulties, but I do not know specifically. We have dealt with some specific cases where there have been big difficulties in adapting the system to the needs of children with certain problems, but a system exists and the board of governors, the secretariat-general and the administration of the European Schools try to adapt the schools to the needs of children who have specific problems.

  President.

Question no 48 by Proinsias De Rossa (H-0247/07)

Subject: Restructuring of Eurydice

Is the Commission aware of the implications for European policy of the loss of the accumulated research skills and expertise in relation to European educational policies and programmes which will follow from the decision to replace the existing professional staff of the Eurydice Unit by personnel recruited through a general competition that is neither intended or designed to valorise the experience of the present Eurydice European Unit staff, or of personnel with directly comparable experience and skill in this domain? Can the Commission state what, if any, steps it proposes to take to avoid the reckless loss of such a valuable resource that must inevitably follow from that initiative?

  Siim Kallas, Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, last February the Commission modified the Decision setting up the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency. This modification extended the Agency’s mandate to 2015 and mandated the Agency to run the information network on education in Europe – Eurydice – from 2008. The decision was taken having heard the positive opinion from the European Parliament and the Council’s regulatory Executive Agency Committee.

A private body currently runs this programme on the basis of a contract with the Commission, which expires at the end of this year. The Commission has no particular difficulty in recruiting existing staff, but staff policy in executive agencies must ensure, in particular, that selection procedures for contract agents are transparent and give equal treatment to all interested candidates. To this end, the Agency has drawn to the attention of the staff working on the Eurydice activity that the selection process for contract agents was recently launched by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO). If they take part in this selection process and are successful, the Agency will be able to offer them a contract as a contract agent.

In addition, the EPSO selection process covers a range of profiles. Provided they pass the EPSO selection process, the specific experience of staff currently working on the Eurydice activity would be taken into consideration upon recruitment. Moreover, the Agency has already committed itself to waiting for the results of the EPSO selection before recruiting the contract agents it will need for the Eurydice activity.

  Proinsias De Rossa (PSE). – Mr President, the Commissioner will understand the concerns of those employed currently by the Eurydice unit, who fear that they are going to lose their jobs as a result of the recruitment procedure which is being put in place. EPSO was in fact intended to be a more general recruitment procedure, and not one for a specific agency, and here we have staff who are well experienced, who have a lot of expertise and who may be lost to the unit as a result of the procedure that has been put in place because, obviously, those who would achieve a place on the panel as a result of the EPSO process would be competing with those who are already in situ and have the expertise and the experience.

  Siim Kallas, Vice-President of the Commission. Members have said that these people are losing their jobs due to a selection process. This is not the case. The contract between the European institution and the private body will end and the functions will be taken over by a European agency, so this is a different process and it is really impossible to transfer people from a private body to the staff of the European Union without normal procedures. You must understand that you have in the European institutions people who are working full- or part-time – up to 40 000 people – and the rules to recruit people are very strict and very seriously followed and watched by staff unions, so the Commission is committed to following these rules very clearly. The rules are that everybody must be treated equally, and to recruit people from outside, the procedure must be under very clear staff regulations and rules, so that is the basis.

We had these problems when, under the administrative reforms, we transferred people from different types of contracts to the contract agent model, which was adopted as part of the administrative reform. It worked quite smoothly, so I think that those people have every possibility to continue their work, but they must pass the necessary procedures, and this is the selection procedure of EPSO.

  President.

Question No 49 by Leopold Józef Rutowicz (H-0251/07)

Subject: Management of EU funds

The funds earmarked for the running of Parliament's buildings in Strasbourg – the IPE-0, IPE-1 and IPE-2 (otherwise known as the WIC and SDM Buildings) – could be put to uses that are of greater benefit to society, such as scientific research. The existence of overpayments amounting, according to the estimates made by Parliament's Administration, to at least € 32 million over the 25-year lease period, has given rise to much controversy. (A6-0280/2006, Ferber report)

What plans are there for EU funds to be managed in such a way as to restrict spending on building leases and make better use of the buildings themselves, thus reducing administrative costs?

  Siim Kallas, Vice-President of the Commission. The question concerned the funding of building policy. Of course, the Commission is solely responsible for its buildings and is not in a position to comment on the other institutions’ plans. As far as the Commission is concerned, every effort is made to ensure that the funding of accommodation for Commission staff is judiciously managed to minimise administrative costs in this area.

The Commission closely follows the property market in Brussels and Luxembourg and has proven to be a successful negotiator of the financial conditions for its buildings. The Commission analyses the cost-effectiveness of the various options – purchase or leasehold. The Commission has established a policy of decentralisation by locating some of its offices and DGs outside the European quarters of Brussels and Luxembourg. In so doing, not only are the prices of these decentralised buildings lower than those of the equivalent buildings in the European quarter, but there is also less pressure on property prices in the European quarter. And, very importantly, the Commission pays special attention to building efficiency by ensuring the flexibility of the fittings and by using the maximum available surface. Waste of space is reduced to a minimum. The Eco-Management and Audit Scheme was launched in 2002 to improve energy performance, consumption of resources and emissions checks in buildings.

The Commission is currently developing a new life-cycle cost methodology to assess the technical quality of buildings, including energy efficiency. This is expected to be applied as of September 2008. All the less efficient buildings are progressively being replaced by better designed buildings at lower cost.

Thank you very much for explaining Parliament’s buildings policy, but, as I said, this is the Commission and we do not comment on other institutions’ building plans.

  Leopold Józef Rutowicz (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, the important thing for us is that these savings are made not only in the Commission, but everywhere, because there are huge shortfalls in funding for various science or research programmes which will bring good returns in the future.

Meanwhile the cash being wasted in various unused buildings is a loss to us all – to the Commission, the Council and to Parliament. Is the view of the Commissioner that we should simply analyse the overall situation of the properties owned by the European Union and implement some strategic action plan for the more effective use of these buildings and eventually to gain something from it?

  Siim Kallas, Vice-President of the Commission. I have only to say that we also have a good exchange of information and cooperation between the relevant services in the Commission which concern building policy and the relevant services within Parliament. We try, at least from the Commission side, to have the intention of discussing issues, such as how we locate all our services together with Parliament in Brussels. Of course the starting point must be efficiency and the most rational use of budgetary resources.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Commissioner, we adopted a Directive on the certification of buildings for energy efficiency. Do you know of any building belonging to the European Union that already has a sign at its entrance indicating its energy-efficiency level?

  Siim Kallas, Vice-President of the Commission. I probably did not catch all the nuances of your question, but it must be said that, from the point of view of the Commission, six of our buildings have received good marks from different certification agencies as regards their environmental requirements and energy efficiency. Of course, we have more than 60 buildings at our disposal in Brussels and some of them are very old and should be replaced, but six buildings have been commended for their energy efficiency. We also compare reductions in CO2 in the buildings, which show that the new buildings are very good.

  President. As the author is not present, Question No 50 lapses.

  President.

Question No 51 by Claude Moraes (H-0180/07)

Subject: European Regional Development Funds

Can the Commission explain how the Operational Programmes submitted for the European Regional Development Funds will take into account the needs of disadvantage groups? Will the Commission ensure that the particular issues facing poorer communities are prioritised in the assessment of these Operational Programmes?

  Danuta Hübner, Member of the Commission. Mr President, on this first question: in our Community strategic guidelines for cohesion policy for 2007-2013, there is in fact an article which ensures equality between men and women, and non-discrimination in general. This provision clearly states that Member States should take appropriate steps to prevent any discrimination at any stage of the management or the preparation of the European structural funds.

In the course of the negotiations and of the monitoring of the programme and projects, the Commission pays particular attention to ensuring that this cross-cutting principle of non-discrimination is fully respected. The Commission implementing rules also contain the obligation for Member States and regions to report on the implementation of the operational programmes, also with regard to the respect and promotion of equal opportunities principles in the context of the annual and final implementation reforms.

With regard to the part of the question which refers to the less-favoured areas, countries and regions, cohesion policy takes a very strongly proactive approach towards the problem of poverty, which is certainly higher within those less-favoured countries and regions. Through the allocation method, this policy provides those less-favoured regions and countries with relatively higher financial resources. Also in the course of the programming and implementation of programmes, we also emphasise growth and job creation, supporting investment.

Within the European Social Fund in particular, we pursue very specific actions which are targeted to reinforcing the social inclusion of disadvantaged people with a view to their sustainable integration and employment. For the period 2007-2013 we have also done the categorisation of investment, which we use to monitor the programming. Then we will also monitor the implementation. In this categorisation of expenditures there are also several categories related to discrimination. For example, in the operational programmes we already have measures that are already visible at this stage to improve access to employment and increase the sustainable participation and progress of women at the level of EUR 2.7 billion to be invested across Europe. With regard to the specific actions to increase migrants’ participation in employment, this is EUR 1.9 billion.

There is also a category for improving the social inclusion of less-favoured people, especially the re-entry into employment of disadvantaged people. We already see today that across the Member States there will be nearly EUR 8 billion invested in the years to come in this category, addressing the concerns that you have expressed in your question.

  Claude Moraes (PSE). – I particularly welcome the Commissioner’s answer to the question of more disadvantaged areas. I should specifically like to ask her about European Regional Development Fund payments to my own constituency, which is London, and some of its disadvantaged areas. I wrote to the Commissioner recently about this, and I wonder if she could please explain how any decision to suspend payments to projects in London could perhaps be reversed, and provide assurances that if the Commission auditors are satisfied, this could happen quickly. I do not want to put her at any disadvantage if she does not recall the letter, but I did write to her recently and I would appreciate a reply either now or in the near future.

  Danuta Hübner, Member of the Commission. I would like to say briefly that, with regard to London, we hope to reach a solution with the authorities very soon. I hope that the suspension will soon be lifted, once all the changes we are awaiting from the authorities are made. I take on board your concerns about the disadvantaged areas of London. Two years ago, I visited one of the special programmes devoted to disadvantaged people and migrants in London. I hope that we will be able to address your concern soon.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Commissioner, one of the main problems facing disadvantaged groups is a lack of proper sanitation. How do you see the likely impact on disadvantaged areas of developments in the realms of water policy and sewage-treatment strategy?

  Danuta Hübner, Member of the Commission. I cannot tell you today exactly how much will go towards water treatment in disadvantaged areas, but certainly one of the priorities under the first objective of the European policy – the accessibility of the regions – is also addressing environmental issues. Among the environmental issues there is also the issue of access to water and water problems in all their diversity. If you are interested, I am sure that probably in a couple of weeks I can provide the more specific information on how much of the funds will go towards this kind of investment, but it is very high on our list of priorities. At this stage I can only say this.

  President.

Question No 52 by Deputada Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (H-0182/07)

Subject: Regional policy in respect of island regions

The designation of 2007 as the 'European Year of Equal Opportunities for All' affects the regional policy of the EU. In order to have equal opportunities, island, mountainous, sub-mountainous, and sparsely populated areas, such as the Greek islands, need more flexible criteria for eligibility and some individual places with special problems (e.g. difficulty of access, climate, particular economic activity) require special treatment in the context of regional policy.

What is the Commission's view of the Union's treatment hitherto of such regions? How does it explain their continuing disadvantaged position compared with the spectacular progress of other mainland and densely populated areas?

  Danuta Hübner, Member of the Commission. As far as I understand, the question concerns equal opportunities and the island regions.

As you know, the policy’s priority is to reduce socio-economic disparities between the regions and we do so through the allocation of available financial resources to the regions on the basis of their relative prosperity. However, we also examine the kinds of investment needed. We support growth-enhancing investment in the case of the less-advantaged regions, such as islands, in order to address their concerns. For the period 2007-2013 we have recognised the special situation of certain territories – not only islands but also sparsely populated and mountainous areas. We have proposed specific provisions, one of which is a higher cofinancing rate, but there are also additional financial allocations for many of those disadvantaged areas.

We have also included a specific chapter in our strategic guidelines to focus Member States’ attention on the territorial dimension of cohesion policy, in which we have underlined and emphasised the importance of those territorial units suffering from different kinds of handicaps. At this stage of the negotiations with the Member States, we are also ensuring that specific constraints which exist in those areas and islands are duly taken into account by the Member States, especially in the preparation of the operational programmes and adoption of measures for the following ten years.

We have already carried out a preliminary assessment of the programmes presented to the Commission for the negotiations to see to what extent islands will be beneficiaries in the future. So far, the Commission has earmarked EUR 3.6 billion for islands. There is also a specific allocation for the outermost regions, which are also islands, and this will be EUR 3.8 billion. We have also agreed with our colleagues responsible for ESPON in Luxembourg to work on better indicators for those disadvantaged areas, in order to have more up-to-date information on those specific territories.

In other portfolios too, especially that of Commissioner Kroes, who is responsible for state aid, we have asked for special treatment for small islands as regards aid to help business start-ups. A 5% bonus is offered to those islands.

The second part of your question states that those areas remain in a disadvantaged position compared to other territories. I must say that the performance of those territories so far has not been uniform and negative. We have a range of studies that clearly demonstrate that many of those areas, in particular islands, suffer rather from their size and demography than from their specific geographical location. Many areas have experienced a significant improvement. Madeira, the Canary Islands and also areas of Greece, such as Notio Aigaio, have clearly caught up well.

I wanted to make a lengthy reply, because many people come to us with the same concerns about those disadvantaged territories. They are very close to our heart. We really care about the situation in those regions and we can also see some results. That said, I know that there is still a long way to go and we need your cooperation in this area.

  Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for her reply; I would like, however, to insist on the fact that in order to achieve uniform development in Europe there should be special care with regards to the planning of programmes that will bring areas in a disadvantageous position one step closer to development. Besides Madeira that you previously mentioned, there are other islands that do not possess any kind of maritime accessibility to a central area. Also, are there special provisions and better incentives in your programme in order for these areas to be chosen?

  Danuta Hübner, Member of the Commission. We negotiate with Greece also now the national as well as the operational programmes. What we see there is that the authorities now propose also a special priority which is accessibility, especially for islands, so I hope that, within the operational programme that is addressing the Greek island territory, priority will also be given to helping with the accessibility of the islands. We clearly know the problems also with the accessibility of islands. We are sensitive to this and when there is this proposal, we are very responsive in a positive way also to do this, to work on this with you as well.

I do not know if you have any more specific requests for information related to a specific territory. We would in that case be very happy later on to receive the information on the specific concerns you are referring to.

  Georgios Papastamkos (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, global tourist destinations cannot be used as a reliable comparison. We are talking about island complexes in Europe, islands in Greece cut off from the mainland, cut off from the central European backbone. Commissioner, consider the cost that is incurred to transport a product from a small Aegean island to the central European market. Regional and cohesion policies for island areas are not enough; we need a separate territorial agenda for islands in Europe: this is my suggestion.

  Danuta Hübner, Member of the Commission. If you come up with such a proposal I just take it as a message, but let me also say that a substantial area of the Greek islands is still under the Convergence objective as far as I remember. In terms of the eligibility of the funding, everything is possible, so we should not have problems with this.

Let me also say that, for the islands, as I said at the beginning, we have also agreed on higher co-financing rates, so there are some additional facilities or measures which can also help the islands, but I am open to any discussion about the islands. We can continue the debate later on.

  President.

Question No 53 by Deputada Glenis Willmott (H-0185/07)

Subject: Promoting EU funding in the regions

In the UK, as I am sure is the case in other European countries, there is little awareness and recognition of the various ways EU money has been used to regenerate less prosperous regions. EU-funded projects in the regions are among the most visible benefits of EU membership and as such European citizens should be made more aware of the contributions the EU makes to improve their daily lives.

What measures does the Commission take to ensure that those receiving structural funds promote and publicise the source of their funding? With a view to bringing the EU closer to the people, does the Commission have any intention to set up a central database, which would hold information on EU funding, classified region by region, allowing citizens to see clearly the money being invested in their region?

  Danuta Hübner, Member of the Commission. This is a question which I think is very important for the future. We have introduced some changes also to our regulations, to our approach, to have this better visibility. This policy is based on the principle of shared management, and within this shared responsibility with Member States it is for the Member States in fact to ensure appropriate information and publicity on the structural funds intervention.

We have also put into the regulation for the period 2007-2013 the requirement which is in a way consolidating and strengthening the requirements that we have today in our regulation. It says clearly that for every operational programme there should be an operational officer; for every operational programme there should be a communication plan. We also put into the regulation the minimum requirements for this kind of operational plan for communication. The information obligation also concerns final beneficiaries who must inform the public by putting up a billboard during the implementation of big projects which are also linked with physical investment and the purchase of physical material. There is also the requirement to have a permanent explanatory plaque should inform the public of European participation in the project. This is also true for training projects, where the participants must be informed by the beneficiary that EU funding is involved.

We have also introduced a brand new element to this through a Commission regulation. We will also have a publication giving the list of beneficiaries, as well as the amounts of public funding that they receive. So there will be national databases which will have to be publicly accessible, then the Commission will also establish a website and include on that the links to those databases. All that should be in place early next year.

There will also be databases created by both DG REGIO and DG EMPL containing the information at programme level – not at project level, which concerns Member States, but at programme level. It will be classified by country and by region. This will also contain the description of the operational programmes. So there will certainly be access to information: that is absolutely clear.

We started the exchange of experience between all the communication officers involved in November or December last year, but we will continue, reaching full speed at the end of this year. So at the end of this year we will be having the first big meeting with the communication officers of all the operational programmes just to share best practice and to exchange information about the communication activities which will have been developed by that time. I hope that through those efforts and new regulations we will be able to make this policy even more visible to the citizens. We also hope that this increased transparency will also have a positive impact on the quality of the policy and on the management of the policy.

  Glenis Willmott (PSE). – In order for the EU to forge stronger links with its citizens, it is not enough for citizens to be aware of EU funding being poured into their regions. EU citizens also need to be more involved in the EU funding process and the way EU money is being spent to fulfil public policy objectives. Transparency and accountability are essential requirements for ensuring that EU citizens are involved in European policy-making. What measures are in place to ensure that not only the Member States, but also the Commission, operate as transparently as possible when it comes to distributing EU money via structural funds? Citizens should be able to process information on who receives EU funding, how much, and for what purpose. Is this information available?

  Danuta Hübner, Member of the Commission. That is exactly what I was trying to say. We now have these new transparency initiatives so there will be national websites where the Member States and the regions are obliged to present and to publicise the information on the final beneficiaries and the amount of funds allocated to them. The Commission – all the DGs responsible for the structural funds – will have to provide a direct link from our website to those national websites with the information. We will also independently be producing information on the operational programmes, which will also be put on the web. There will be more activities through those information officers on the ground in the regions within the Member States.

I hope that in this way we will reach more citizens with the information, but also that we increase transparency and the quality of the programme and the projects.

  President.

Question No 54 by Lambert van Nistelrooij (H-0195/07)

Subject: Status of Netherlands Antilles and the Structural Funds

Article 299 of the EU Treaty lists the EU's outermost regions. The islands of St. Martin and Curaçao, which currently form part of the Netherlands Antilles, announced in 2005 that from 1 July 2007 they are to have separate status within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in the same way as Aruba. The other three islands, Saba, St. Eustatius and Bonaire, are to have a status similar to that of a Netherlands municipality, including the right to vote in European Parliament elections.

The authorities concerned are apparently now exploring the possibility of obtaining for these islands the status of outermost regions. That would make the islands concerned fully part of the EU.

Does the Commission know which of the Netherlands Antilles islands meet the conditions for being recognised as an outermost region? In the Commission's view, what are the implications for the granting of EU Structural Fund money?

  Danuta Hübner, Member of the Commission. My services and I have been cooperating with the Netherlands Government for quite some months on this issue, in particular with the Foreign Minister. As far as I know there is a procedure about which I am sure Mr van Nistelrooij knows, but as far as we know today, there is still an internal discussion within the Dutch Government and no proposal has yet been made to the Council to modify the Treaty, because this process would require the modification of the Treaty and only at that stage would the Commission be asked to present its opinion.

But in the meantime, before the Council has asked us, or before the whole process is started, we have been working with the Netherlands Foreign Ministry, providing them with the information, what this would mean, what kind of pros and cons should be taken into account, what the consequences would be for those territories if they become new outermost regions, and I hope that this information that the Commission has provided so far can help the Dutch Government to make the decision.

Nevertheless, the whole process can only take place when the Council gets the application from the Dutch Government and, as I said, only then can the Commission formally make an assessment of the consequences.

What I can say today is that the three islands that we are talking about have a very small population – just 30 000. So in terms of adding to the challenges that the funds are facing, it is not much. However, we all know that the budgetary framework has been decided for the years up to 2013, so any additional funds would have to be negotiated and decided on by the Council in particular. This would most likely be part of the whole process of change of the budget, but we are still far from this stage at the moment.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner Hübner, we are, of course, talking here about something that the Dutch Antilles themselves have asked for, something that could lead to a constitutional change, and could offer scope for these islands in terms of employment, training, and so on.

My question to you is whether you would be prepared to carry out this follow-up study together with the Dutch Government. Assessment data are available from regions such as Guadeloupe and Martinique. Would you be prepared to collaborate, so that the decision taken in due course is the most favourable?

  Danuta Hübner, Member of the Commission. As I said, we were approached by the governments so we provided all the information that was needed. We can do the same for the islands if we are asked to do so by anybody who requires this information. We can certainly do that, but if the islands were to change their status and the amendment of the Treaty were to take place, then EU law would be applicable and would be implemented in these territories, including all the regulations which are related to European regional policy. In the meantime, as I said, we can provide all the information which is needed.

  President. The questions that have not been taken due to lack of time will be answered in writing (see Annex).

That concludes questions to the Commission.

(1) OJ L 286, 17.10.2006, p. 6.

(2) OJ L 89, 5.4.2003, p. 9.

(3) OJ L 337, 13.12.2002, p. 3.

(4) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 29.