Mr President, in August Turkey experienced an earthquake which caused much destruction and suffering. In fact, we could describe it as a seismic storm, which is still affecting Turkey. It has been a time of insecurity there since August. The European Parliament has debated the issue of Turkey a good deal. At the Helsinki summit in December, Turkey will apparently become a candidate for membership, and it is expected to meet the EU membership criteria laid down at Copenhagen. We have often criticised Turkey here. We all know the problem regarding democracy in Turkey, which is the Kurdish problem. There are millions of people in the country who do not enjoy full political rights, and one of their leaders is awaiting execution in prison. There are other problems too, such as Cyprus. While discussing this report we have to set aside all the political problems. It is a question of humanitarian assistance to Turkey to repair the destruction caused by a mighty natural disaster. We should only be talking about how Turkey can be helped, and help is urgently needed. That is why the European Parliament must decide on the issue tomorrow. The Commission is proposing, at the request of the Council, that a decision be made to grant a loan to Turkey of EUR 600 million out of EIB funds, in accordance with the bank’s normal lending criteria. The bank has looked into Turkey’s ability to accept the loan and use the money to repair the damage caused by the earthquake. Turkey has the facilities for doing so. They are prepared to spend the money specifically on repairing the damage caused by the earthquake. The European Parliament is being asked to draft a report on the matter fast, as the EIB is ready to lend EUR 180 million this year already. For the purpose of the loan we have to activate the sum of EUR 16.4 million from the common guarantee reserves and transfer it into the guarantee fund for external action. The Committee on Budgets, for its part, has prepared the ground for a swift transfer of funds from the guarantee reserves to the guarantee fund headings in the budget according to normal procedure. In this connection there is a problem with regard to the competence of the various EU bodies, which has nothing to do with earthquake aid for Turkey. We are all unanimous on the need for humanitarian assistance, and we consider the Council’s decision to designate for that purpose EUR 600 million out of EIB funds to be the right one. The emerging problem concerns the narrow framework imposed by the interinstitutional agreement on guarantees from the guarantee fund. The annual maximum amount the guarantee fund can cover is EUR 200 million. At present, the general figure of 70% is granted to the EIB; in the Council they have already agreed to lowering it to 65%, and Parliament, in connection with Mrs Rühle’s report, may approve its further reduction to 60%, as proposed by the Commission. For these reasons, I have recommended three amendments to the Commission’s proposal, the first of which concerns the general ceiling for the guarantee fund, and the two others the reconciliation of the guarantee percentage rate with Mrs Rühle’s report. Over the years to come, we will have a problem if the especially large credit being granted to Turkey that we are discussing accounts for so large a proportion of the guarantee fund that it eats into the fund for loans granted for other comparable unexpected emergencies. As a result, we should reach an agreement with the Commission so that it would propose raising the guarantee fund ceiling in case there are new, unexpected aid requirements in respect of humanitarian disasters such as the one now being discussed. I have communicated this by way of a report to the Commission, and I hope they will give their replies today to the questions contained in it. The Commission is being asked to explain how the guarantee fund is generally used, and give a more detailed prognosis of the future use of marginals in reserves. Depending on their replies, the Committee and Parliament may deem it necessary to propose an amendment, in which the Commission will be reminded that it may revise the excessiveness threshold in the financial perspectives. This amendment may be adopted should the Commission's reply prove unsatisfactory. In my opinion, it is now time for the Commission to respond to the views expressed in the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL