WRITTEN QUESTION E-2189/03 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. Joint immigration management.
Date: 2003-07-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, admission of aliens, cooperation policy, enhanced cooperation, external border of the EU, illegal migration, political refugee, residence permit, right of asylum, third country

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/141

contribute to combating climate change. Within this budget, EUR 810 million will be devoted to
‘Sustainable Energy Systems’ (SES). Hydrogen and Fuel Cells are two main priorities of SES but energy
efficiency,
fuels, carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and
sequestration are other important components of research related to climate change.

renewable energy sources, alternative motor

In Europe,
total public expenditure in the field of hydrogen and fuel cells is estimated at some
EUR 150 million per year (Union and Member States). The United States (US) federal budget is about
EUR 300 million per year over the next five years subject to Senate approval. A better co-ordination of the
European and national programmes in a European Research Area would result in a better cost-benefit
impact. The US programme on a Hydrogen Economy draws more on fossil fuels, while research and
demonstration activities in the Union emphasise Renewable Energy Sources.

The Commission intends to set up a Technology Platform involving major Union stakeholders in order to
maintain a shared long-term vision and to elaborate a Strategic Research Agenda and Deployment Strategy.
This mechanism is expected to provide a consistent strategic framework for public/private partnerships
and raise overall investments in Europe for both RTD funding and deployment initiatives. At the same
time, the US and the Union are discussing the creation of International Partnerships to co-operate in order
to accelerate the development of the hydrogen economy.

(2004/C 58 E/157)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2189/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject: Joint immigration management

The plans to set up a European border police force have to date not met with an adequate response. In the
mean time illegal immigration, which is increasingly assuming the proportions of a biblical exodus, is
continuing to take its tragic course, with the attendant toll of innocent victims and crimes. The hopes of
those who flee their countries are being exploited in an ignoble and intolerable way.

1.
Does the Commission believe that it should propose to the Council that provision be made for closer
cooperation among the Member States, enabling them to lay down common rules to deal with illegal
immigration?

2.
Does it think that it would be useful for agreements to be negotiated between the Union and the
countries from which populations are fleeing, the aim being to draw up economic and humanitarian
measures and combat the criminal activities of people smugglers, who almost invariably use means of
transport that cannot guarantee the passengers’ safety?

3. Will it call on the governments to accelerate the procedures for defining political refugee status and
adopting common standards?

4.
Can it supply figures on the immigrants whose status has already been or is in the process of being
put in order and specify the number of immigrants which each Member State intends to accept every year,
on a permanent or temporary basis, to meet the demand for labour?

5. What study opportunities are being offered to young people from the less developed countries,
bearing in mind not least Parliament’s proposals on aid to help them re-enter the world of work in their
countries of origin?

C 58 E/142

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2003)

illegal

1.
The Commission underlined in its first communication on a common policy on illegal immigration
including concrete
of November 2001 the importance of close cooperation between Member States,
operational measures in various fields. This line was followed in the two communications dealing with the
management of external borders and return of
residents that are essential elements of a
comprehensive policy approach towards the prevention and fight against illegal immigration. Following
these three communications, the Council adopted respective action plans that set out various legislative
and operational measures to be taken by the Council and the Commission. A new communication of June
2003 took stock of the implementation of these three action plans and put forward some ideas for
improving operational cooperation, complementing it with reinforced financial instruments and new IT
systems for ensuring the exchange of
the
Commission underlined the need to create a Community operational structure for enhancing operational
coordination and cooperation for the management of the external borders. The main tasks of this structure
would be the planning, support, organisation and monitoring of the operational cooperation, the training
of border guards, information gathering and processing, and risk analysis. Other tasks might be performed
in the field of return. Moreover,
in June 2002 the Council adopted a Community action programme
(ARGO) for administrative cooperation in the fields of external borders, visa, asylum and immigration.

information. Among the various measures proposed,

2.
The Commission is actively working for the most extensive cooperation possible with third countries
on migration, in particular in order to combat illegal immigration. As it stated in its communication of
December 2002 on ‘Integrating migration issues in the European Union’s relations with third countries’,
the approach has to be comprehensive, coherent and integrated;
it must address the root causes of
migration flows and tackle them through economic, social and humanitarian measures while at the same
time promote the development of specific cooperation with third countries in support of their efforts at
better management of migratory flows, and in particular to combat illegal immigration. In its December
2002 communication, the Commission highlights a series of measures in favour of third countries that are
directly related to the question of migration, are already programmed for 2000-2006 and are to be
financed under geographical cooperation and assistance programmes (MEDA, CARDS, TACIS, etc.). It also
proposes taking the opportunity offered by the mid-term review of national and regional aid programming
strategy documents to examine the need to attach greater priority to migration questions, in particular
illegal immigration. And it proposes that budget line B7-667, which has financed measures in preparation
for cooperation with third countries on migration, and in particular the fight against illegal immigration
since 2001, be substantially reinforced and converted into a financial and technical assistance programme
for third countries on migration and asylum. In June 2003 the Commission presented a proposal for a
Parliament and Council Regulation establishing the programme of assistance for third countries on
migration and asylum. It proposes that the programme be given EUR 250 million for a five-year period
(2004-2008) and converted into a specific complementary instrument that would, among other things,
develop cooperation with third countries in the fight against illegal immigration.

the proposal

The Commission deeply regrets that the deadline of June 2003, set at the Seville European Council in
3.
June 2002 for adoption of
for a Council Directive on minimum standards for the
qualification and status of third-country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons who
otherwise need international protection, has not been met. It has therefore noted with satisfaction that the
Thessaloniki European Council has reiterated, in Conclusion 24, its determination to establish a Common
European Asylum System, as called for at its October 1999 meeting in Tampere and clarified in June 2002
in Seville. In this context, the Thessaloniki European Council noted that ‘it is vital that the Council ensures
the adoption, before the end of 2003, of the outstanding basic legislation, that is the proposal for a
Council Directive on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals and
stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the proposal
for a Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and
withdrawing refugee status’. The Commission fully shares the urgency expressed by the Heads of State and
Government for the Union to adopt the outstanding legislation in the field of asylum. Specifically with a
view to the urgency of establishing the first phase of the Common European Asylum System, the

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/143

Commission has offered all its assistance to the Italian Presidency and the Council with a view to ensuring
that the negotiations on the two outstanding legislative proposals can be finished as soon as possible, but
in any case by the new deadline set by the European Council in Thessaloniki.

One response by a number of Member States to unauthorised migration is the regularisation of
4.
foreigners residing illegally on their territory. Different practices and procedures are used; some are carried
out on a regular basis without any time limitation and others are one-off procedures or programmes
which, however, may be repeated from time to time. While precise figures are not available, a study of
such practices in eight Member States (1) (Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Netherlands,
United Kingdom) carried out by researchers at the Université Libre de Bruxelles concluded that over the
period 1973 to 1999 some 1 845 000 persons in total were regularised. Further programmes have since
been carried out in Greece, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal. The Commission does not have precise
figures on the numbers of those regularised since 1999. Some Member States fix quotas for the admission
of labour migrants. In some cases these are overall annual totals, in others quotas may be fixed within
bilateral agreements with third countries, by sector or within the framework of ‘green card’ systems or
other arrangements. Other Member States do not fix quotas but issue work permits following procedures
related to demand in the national labour market. At present, the Commission does not have complete
information on quota numbers where they exist.

The extent

5.
to which access to programmes organised by educational establishments in the
Community are open to third-country nationals is a matter for the Member States and, in some cases,
for the establishments themselves. But on 7 October 2002 the Commission adopted a proposal under the
common immigration policy for a directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country
nationals for the purposes of studies, vocational training or voluntary service with the aim of promoting
the admission of the persons concerned by the authorities responsible for entry and residence of foreigners
once they are admitted by an educational establishment.

(1) De Bruycker, Ph. ‘Regularisation of Illegal Aliens in the European Union’, Brussels Bruylant, 2000.

(2004/C 58 E/158)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2190/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject: Fisheries (cid:1) Western waters (cid:1) Public anxiety about the imminent incursion of Spanish fisheries

into Portuguese coastal waters

Following on from my last question (E-2153/03 (1)), I wish to draw attention to another article from an
independent source on the matter at issue, published in the Portuguese quality press. To quote part of the
article: The fishing episode has recurred at intervals since the early days of Portugal’s membership of what
was then the EEC. There is no stopping our partners. I clearly remember that when our country was still
negotiating to join the European economic area (and receiving substantial ‘pre-accession’ financial aid), the
most perceptive folk in Brussels were already saying that fisheries was to be Portugal’s real quid pro quo
‘They don’t mind sending money to Portugal or helping with this or that,
for its Community partners.
because, thanks to fisheries (cid:1) in other words, future access to Portuguese waters (cid:1) they will be amply
rewarded for the support that they are giving now’, a Portuguese journalist working in Brussels told me in
the early 1980s. So much for national wealth. The money of exchange which our Community partners
will be demanding to the tune of half as much again. Because, of course, it is not all handouts, contrary to
what others would so often have us believe. There comes a time when people have to pay. They pay with
such assets as they might possess:
lot of sea. Spaniards,
Dutchmen, and Danes are queuing up for their admission tickets. And they have a mighty fishing armada
capable, with half the crew numbers, of catching twice or three times as much as the Portuguese. It is
fortunate that we are still lagging behind because that enables us to land a little fresh fish to eat and sell
and, at the same time, maintain reasonable stocks in the sea that can regenerate at their natural pace. That

in our case, that means the sea. An awful