WRITTEN QUESTION P-1208/02 by Yves Butel (EDD) to the Commission. Industrial relocation.
Date: 2002-04-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: accession to the European Union, economic and social cohesion, economic growth, job cuts, restriction on competition, social dialogue, transfer of businesses

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/47

(cid:1) Concerning human rights, the Commission is using the existing mechanisms to follow the situation in
Mexico and in Europe. The political dialogue included in the agenda of the Joint Council and Joint
Committee offers an opportunity to share information on this issue.

At present, the Commission does not envisage any amendment to the Agreement. However, given the
importance that both parties attribute to the dialogue with the civil society, in the Joint Committee of
2 October 2001, the Commission agreed to organise a civil society forum at the end of 2002.

Moreover, the Decisions establishing a Free Trade Area (FTA) between the EC and Mexico include revision
clauses concerning specific products or sectors not included in the first Decision. At the moment of
revising the FTA Decisions, the Commission will take into consideration any new protocol, conventions or
guidelines agreed at multilateral level, which both parties are members of.

The Commission attaches high importance to all multilateral instruments and would like to reassure the
Honourable Member that no bilateral agreement or any interpretation of such will be inconsistent with the
Community multilateral obligations.

(2003/C 52 E/055)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1208/02

by Yves Butel (EDD) to the Commission

(22 April 2002)

Subject: Industrial relocation

In response to the problems encountered by the Member States regarding unemployment, the EU has
created a number of instruments for the achievement of full employment (e.g. the European employment
strategy and employment guidelines, the European Social Fund and the EQUAL initiative).

Complementarily to the impact of globalisation, leading to the relocation of production in the developing
countries and the least developed countries, and the need to conquer new markets, the Member States are
now faced with unfair industrial competition from the applicant countries. A current example is that of the
Whirlpool company, which is planning to transfer part of its activity from Amiens (France) to Poprad
(Slovakia). This transfer would mean 360 direct job losses; in addition, the introduction of subcontracting
would lead to the disappearance of a further 150 jobs.

European integration must be carried out in the interests of the well-being of our peoples, and one of our
priority objectives should be the creation, not the transfer, of wealth. Far from setting existing Member
States against applicant countries, the aim should be to ensure job preservation in the former and
economic development in the latter.

What action does the Commission intend to take to achieve this twofold goal of preserving existing
economic activity, and therefore employment, and creating new forms of economic activity? What action
will it take to place limits on the excessive mobility practised by enterprises in the Member States? Is the
Commission granting aid, especially financial aid, for enterprises from the Member States setting up
production in the applicant countries?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 June 2002)

The concept of free and open market economies lies at the very heart of the Union and features as one of
the criteria for membership of the Union outlined at the Copenhagen European Summit in December
1993.

The European Social Model is founded on the premise that economic growth and social cohesion are
mutually reinforcing and that the right balance needs to be struck in order to ensure the dynamic
interaction of economic, employment and social policy. Experience has proved that intensified economic
exchange and cooperation leads to positive results for all involved, contributing to economic prosperity
and the creation of new and more employment.

C 52 E/48

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

As regards relocation of enterprises in general, the Commission advocates the idea that, when taking
decisions, enterprises should always take into account the effects that those decisions could have on their
employees as well as on the social and regional context. This has recently been underlined in the
Commission Green Paper on Corporate Social Responsibility (1) (CSR). CSR means that an enterprise is
accountable for the impact it has on all relevant stakeholders. It concerns the continuing commitment by
business to behave fairly and responsibly and to contribute to economic development while improving the
quality of life of the work force and their families as well as of the local community and society at large.

It is evident that the social partners play a crucial part in this context. That is why the Commission aims to
develop the social dialogue within candidate countries by encouraging social partners to improve their
coverage and representativeness and to develop a genuine partnership approach as well as the institutions
and structures needed to implement
it. Equally governments must recognise social dialogue as an
important part of the acquis communautaire and therefore as something to be actively promoted, for
example by giving the social partners the necessary autonomy to engage in independent collective
bargaining, or by facilitating their participation in social dialogue at the European level.

Aid schemes managed by the Commission exclude support for relocation of industrial production from the
present Member states to candidate countries.

(1) COM(2001) 366 final.

(2003/C 52 E/056)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1213/02

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Subject: Security seals in the transportation of goods

With reference to EU Regulation 2787/2000 (1) (cid:1) Articles 357 and 386, Annex 46A pertaining to security
seals

1. How much consultation did the Commission have with seal manufacturers/users in the drafting of this

legislation? With whom did they consult?

2. Did the Commission review the existing testing regimes/practices of each Member State prior to the

implementation of this Regulation?

3. The system of acceptance and testing in the UK has made it possible to identify duplicate seals. Such
counterfeit seals have in the past been substituted for the original manufacturer’s product during a
journey, allowing cargo to be removed or added without being noticed. Bearing in mind that the
current reported world cargo loss is excess of USD 400 million a year excluding duty, what steps has
the Commission taken to ensure that the European market is not flooded with copy seals coming
from non-EU and non-regulated countries?

4.

If a security seal is accepted for use by one Member State, will this acceptance not only permit the use
in transit through other Member States, but also be acceptable by other Member States for supply in
all Member States? If not, does this mean that a seal must be tested by each individual Member State
before it is granted acceptance in each?

5. The UK minister with responsibility for this issue said in October 2001 in a letter to me, that ‘it is
suspected that most of the countries using the Community/common transit procedures do not have
suitable testing facilities and to introduce a stringent seal specification into Community legislation and
the Common Transit convention would for them be impossible to implement.’ Does the Commission