WRITTEN QUESTION E-1742/00 by Mary Honeyball (PSE) to the Commission. Closure of the Ford plant at Dagenham.
Date: 2000-05-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Social Fund, United Kingdom, cessation of trading, fund (EU), job cuts

C 81 E/84

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.3.2001

In France, however, aid for re-engining of existing working vessels has been suspended for the present on
the basis of an interpretation of Article 6(1), with no account being taken of paragraph 2. How could one
possibly reduce the power of a trawler of over 12 metres by 30 % without jeopardising safety on the vessel
and without bringing about an impairment in working conditions? Furthermore, maintaining power does
not entail an increase in the exploitation rate, but simply maintains it at the same level. There is no
question of new capacity being created.

Re-engining with no increase in capacity, which is a necessary component in vessel safety, seems to me to
fall within the definition of modernisation eligible for Community aid. I should like the Commission to
clarify this point, since the way the Regulation is currently interpreted in France heavily penalises small-
scale fishing activities along the French Atlantic coast, imperilling the economic balance of our fishing
ports, which have already been seriously affected by previous reductions in the fleet and are directly
affected at present by the Erika oil slick.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999, p. 10.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules
and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (1) allows the granting
of public aid for the renewal and modernisation of vessels belonging to segments of the fleet that have not
respected the objectives of the multi-annual guidance programmes (MAGP) provided that the the global
objectives of the MAGP have been respected and that during the years 2000 (cid:129) 2001 any capacity entered
with public aid must be compensated by the withdrawal without public aid of a capacity at least 30 %
greater than that introduced in the segment concerned, taken in aggregate and in terms of both tonnage
and power.

These provisions require that the entry of new capacity with public aid be compensated by the withdrawal
of capacity without public aid at the level of the segment, not at the level of individual vessels. The
replacement of an engine with public aid does not therefore require a reduction in the power of the
individual vessel concerned, but rather a reduction in the power of the segment as a whole before the end
of 2001.

In this respect there need not be a deterioration in safety or working conditions aboard the vessels
benefiting from public aid. It is also pointed out that the replacement of an engine with one of equal
power can be considered a normal operational cost, which if met in full by the vessel owner rather than
benefiting from public aid would not require the withdrawal of a 30 % greater capacity from the segment.

Where the segment objectives have been met, public aid can be granted for engine replacements without
the requirement to withdraw a greater capacity in compensation. The Honourable Member is reminded
that access to public aid for fleet renewal and modernisation where the segment objectives have not been
met is a temporary provision of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 that is subject to the strict conditions
agreed by the Council.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

(2001/C 81 E/102)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1742/00

by Mary Honeyball (PSE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Closure of the Ford plant at Dagenham

What European funding will be available to minimise job losses at Ford(cid:146)s Dagenham, London, plant?

13.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/85

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

As regards the issue of minimising job losses among employees at the Ford Dagenham plant in London,
no special or additional funding is made available in the light of the recent announcements. However, it is
important to point out that a considerable amount of European social fund (ESF) support will be available
to London through objective 3 which can be used to address, amongst other issues, the potential
unemployment problems resulting from announced job losses at the Ford Dagenham plant. The London
Region will receive a considerable share-out of the United Kingdom objective 3 programme worth € 4 500
million.

The objective 3 plan is structured according to the five policy fields contained in the ESF Regulation. In
relation to the Ford case, two policy fields are particularly relevant. Under policy field a), active labour
market policies, one of the strategic objectives is precisely to reduce the flows into (long-term) unemploy-
ment through the use of active labour market measures targeted at those recently unemployed or
threatened by unemployment. Possible types of intervention vary from advice and guidance to providing
support through integrated approaches including the provision of vocational and social skills. Under policy
field d), adaptability, one of the strategic objectives is to improve the skills base and adaptability of the
employed work force.

In addition, further structural funds of € 259,9 million will be available under the objective 2 programme
for London for the programming period 2000-2006 to counterbalance job losses in the area. The draft
proposal to be negotiated this summer aims at tackling barriers to economic opportunity in key areas
suffering industrial decline. Priorities proposed include community and neighbourhood economic develop-
ment, business development and competitiveness, innovation and technology as well as skills and access
to jobs.

(2001/C 81 E/103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1743/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Recycling

Would the Commission provide the following information concerning the recycling policies of EU Member
States:

1. What facilities have Member States put in place for the recycling of plastic?

2. Do Member States have a market for their recycled goods? If not, what does each Member State do

with its recycled goods?

RØponse donnØe par Mme Wallstr(cid:246)m au nom de la Commission

(14 July 2000)

The Commission does not yet have exhaustive information concerning facilities in the Community for the
recycling of plastics nor a complete picture of the market for the recycled plastics material. The main
reasons for this are the large variety of plastic materials and the fact that recycling plastics is a very recent
industrial activity compared to the recycling of other more traditional materials.

However, this information should be made available by December 2000 after completion of a study (1)
with special emphasis on the description of the different recycling processes for plastics. The study will
consider as far as possible the different plastic materials namely PE (polyethylene), LDPE (low density
polyethylene), HDPE (high density polyethylene), LLDPE (linear low density polyethylene), PET (polyethy-
lene terephthalate), PP (polypropylene), PS (polystyrene), and PVC (polyvinylchloride).