WRITTEN QUESTION E-2534/03 by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission. Problem of cross-border pupils.
Date: 2003-07-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, Netherlands, distribution of schools, education budget, educational institution, frontier migration, frontier region, geographical distribution, schooling

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/269

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 August 2003)

The Commission is aware of the health concerns that may be associated with tattooing and body piercing.

Recently, a number of Member States, including the United Kingdom, have introduced national measures
on the safety and hygiene of tattooing and body piercing practices. As the Honourable Member notes,
there are no Community harmonised measures or standards in place.

In order to ensure a consistent and uniform high level of consumer health protection, the Commission has
initiated the collection and assessment of all necessary information related to the safety of tattoos and body
piercing. The activity is being conducted in the context of the recently established European Information
System on the Exposure of Consumers to chemicals from products/articles project (EIS-CHEMRISKS) and
consists of a series of thematic meetings and workshops among scientists and technical experts in the field.
The types of chemicals and the safety information to support their use in tattoos, national regulations on
tattoos/piercing in the Union and elsewhere, reported adverse health effects associated with tattoos/
piercing, hygiene practices and requirements, and professional training requirements, are the main topics
where information is being gathered.

The Commission recently published three working documents from this activity: a review of published
reports of adverse health effects associated with tattoos/body piercing; a regulatory review on tattoos/body
piercing in the Union and elsewhere; and proceedings from a dedicated scientific workshop that took place
on 5-6 May 2003 in Ispra, Italy (1).

It is expected that the technical experts participating in the activity will be in a position to finalise these
documents in the near future. The Commission intends to submit these for review to the Commission’s
Scientific Committees before considering the need for further steps.

In addition,
the Commission has commissioned a separate study to investigate the specific purity
requirements of the metal alloys used in piercing post assemblies and in particular in relation to their
nickel content and their potential to induce skin allergies (allergic contact dermatitis). This has been
submitted for evaluation to the Commission’s Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the
Environment (SCTEE). The Commission will consider any appropriate action on the basis of the SCTEE
opinion.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/cons_safe/news/eis_tattoo_proc_052003_en.pdf
http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/cons_safe/news/eis_tattoo_risk_052003_en.pdf
http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/cons_safe/news/eis_tattoo_reg_052003_en.pdf

.

(2004/C 33 E/280)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2534/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Problem of ‘cross-border pupils’

For some time Netherlands municipalities in areas on the border with Germany have had to deal with the
problem of children from Dutch families who live over the border in Germany and undergo primary
education in the Netherlands and vice versa. At the De Biezenkamp primary school in Beek (Ubbergen), for
example, the number of pupils involved is 33 out of a total of 800. In the municipality of Losser the figure
is 35 pupils and in Groesbeek 19. The municipality of Maastricht has 200 pupils from Belgium.

The municipality receives no state funding for these ‘cross-border pupils’ because the resources for primary
school infrastructure are allocated on the basis of the number of children aged 0 (cid:1) 19 resident in the
municipality.

C 33 E/270

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

Very recently, on 2 June 2003, the findings of a study concerning Netherlands nationals who move to live
in Germany were published (cid:1) that study had been commissioned by, amongst others, the provinces of
Gelderland and Overijssel and Euregio. At present, some 18 500 Netherlands citizens live in areas close to
the border in Germany. Over the period from 2003 to 2007, that figure is expected to increase by
between 20 000 and 40 000.

Should that increase find a direct correlation in the pupils attending, for example, De Biezenkamp primary
school, then the number of ‘cross-border pupils’ is set to increase by between 30 and 60 over the period to
2007 (cid:1) one more reason to resolve the problem of the related infrastructure costs.

To my mind, border regions are test cases for the new Europe. It is in precisely these regions that the
benefits of European integration can be enjoyed by means of cooperation in the education sphere.

Does the Commission feel that measures should be taken to compensate municipalities for the extra costs?

Does the Commission see ways of encouraging the Member States to take such measures and, more
generally, to facilitate longer-term cooperation in border regions?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 August 2003)

The Commission acknowledges the concern expressed by the Honourable Member about infrastructure
costs related to pupils resident in the border region of one country attending school in a neighbouring
country. The promotion of pupil and student mobility is at the heart of Community policy in the field of
education.

The organisation and financing of national education systems is, however, not an area of Community
‘The Community shall contribute to the
competence. Article 149 of the EC Treaty clearly states that:
development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States […] while fully
respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of
education systems’. The Commission is therefore not competent to address the issue of costs arising from
such ‘cross-border pupils’.

(2004/C 33 E/281)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2560/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(4 August 2003)

Subject: Funding for artistic handicrafts

Italy is the country with the highest number of craft industries and
According to a recent survey,
craftsmen in the EU. With around one and a half million firms and more than 3 million employees, the
sector is one of the mainstays of the Italian economy, accounting for approximately 15 % of GDP.
However, although the craft industries are of decisive importance in all EU countries, there is no unified
legislation on the subject (cid:1) for example laws in France and Italy are very different from those in Germany
and Austria.

The trend towards harmonising the various sectors of the economy merely results in enhancing and
regulating SMEs in general, thereby neglecting the craft industries and failing to draw up ad hoc policies
for this sector, which constitutes the production base for the majority of businesses in the EU.
Furthermore, until now no comprehensive study has been made of the handicraft firms in the EU nor is
there a definition of ‘European craft industry’.

Handicrafts are the expression of the various cultures in the EU and should therefore be protected and
encouraged in all their forms.