WRITTEN QUESTION P-0636/02 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council. Transparency.
Date: 2002-03-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU institution, administrative transparency, interest group

C 229 E/112

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

This has many implications. The human aspect is certainly the most important, although social and
economic ones are significant too, on account of the highly detrimental effect which they have on the
inhabitants of coastal regions (who are called upon to display additional solidarity (cid:26) which they do
willingly) and on local economies, which are required to make an extraordinary effort on Europe’s behalf.

Coastal regions in southern Italy and southern Europe are quite unable to escape the role assigned to them
by geography as the EU’s first outpost.

In view of these facts, does the Commission not think that it should declare Apulia, Calabria, Sicily and the
other affected regions of Europe to be ‘frontier regions’ and grant them the benefits associated with such a
status which will help relieve those regions’ current difficulties, since their voluntary workers, economies,
welfare services and reception centres are at the moment under an impossible burden?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2002)

The fight against illegal immigration is one of the key elements of the Union’s comprehensive common
policy on asylum and immigration.

As the Honourable Member has stated, there are some border regions in Europe that are particularly
affected by illegal immigration because of their geographical location. The differing impact on the regions
is yet a further argument for the adoption, in a spirit of cooperation between all the Member States, of a
genuine common policy to combat
this phenomenon, but without undermining compliance with
international obligations or respect for human rights.

To that end, the Commission Communication to the Council and Parliament on a common policy on
illegal immigration (1) proposed a raft of measures based on mutual trust between the Member States. The
Commission welcomes the quick adoption by the Council of an action plan in this area on the basis of the
communication.

The Commission intends to follow this up as soon as possible with appropriate initiatives on visa policy
and repatriation policy in the form of a Green Paper, on which there will be wide-ranging consultations, as
well as checks at external borders for which it will propose a common strategy in a forthcoming
communication. The aim of all these measures is to significantly reduce illegal immigration in Europe.

Measures are planned under the Interreg III cross-border cooperation programmes involving Italy’s external
illegal
in particular the Italy/Albania and Italy/Slovenia programmes to regulate and control
borders,
migratory flows and to enhance the structures where immigrants are first received as well as the social
integration schemes for workers and women who wish to get out of
illegal networks or escape
exploitation. The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that it is for the Italian regional
authorities, which are responsible for managing and monitoring the programmes cofinanced by the
European Regional Development Fund, both to select and implement the projects to be cofinanced.

(1) COM(2001) 672 final.

(2002/C 229 E/128)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0636/02

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council

(4 March 2002)

Subject: Transparency

Will the Council please comment on the proposal concerning transparency and openness in the EU
institutions entitled: ‘Transparency and openness in the EU institutions’, as proposed by SEAP, the Society
of European Affairs Professionals?

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/113

Reply

(25 June 2002)

The Council considers that it is not for it to give an opinion on the positions of private bodies such as that
referred to by the Honourable Member.

(2002/C 229 E/129)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0644/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 February 2002)

Subject: The Commission’s views on the United States’ international port security policy

The international port security measures which have been put forward by US Senator Hollings in the form
of a security proposal could have far-reaching consequences. The first ominous reports suggesting that a
mere ten ports would have the exclusive right
to supply goods to the USA and concerning the
exhaustiveness with which containers would have to be scanned at the external ports prove to have been
based mainly on rumours. Nonetheless, the US’s security measures will have a considerable impact on
European ports.

What will the Commission do to secure agreement among the Member States when this problem is
debated at the next meeting of the International Maritime Organisation? How will the Commission raise
the issue of potential unilateral, protectionist regulations in the light of the international trade agreements
concluded under the auspices of the WTO? What view does the Commission take of the possibility of an
increase in container scanning, and can it provide a comparative calculation of the time and expense
which will be involved in scanning each container?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2002)

The US security measures would only be acceptable within the international framework of rules established
by the IMO (International Maritime Organisation) and the ILO (International Labour Organisation),
particularly as regards measures with extraterritorial
impact. International rules forbid the adoption of
unilateral measures that would affect trade

Working parties have been set up in international fora to study the issue of checks on containers and
persons and consider future regulatory action. The Member States and the Commission are currently
working with industry to reach a European consensus on these issues, as witness the recent session of a
special IMO working group.

(2002/C 229 E/130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0649/02

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 March 2002)

Subject: Radioactive discharges

The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII) has said in its latest annual report, published in
January this year, that measured radioactive technetium-99 in seaweed from the Sellafield radioactive waste
and plutonium processing plant in England is 150 times worse in the north-east of Ireland than that found
in seaweed on the south and west coasts. RPII also reaffirmed that the discharge of radioactive waste from
Sellafield is still ‘the dominant source of contamination in the Irish marine environment.’ The report also
said the levels of technetium-99 are still considerably above pre-1994 levels and remain ‘a significant cause
of concern’.