WRITTEN QUESTION E-0196/03 by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission. Child labour in the production of sports equipment.
Date: 2003-01-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: International Labour Organisation, child labour, child protection, labour standard, report, sports body, sports equipment

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/71

Spain has, for fisheries control under the responsibility of the central government, 74 shore based fisheries
inspectors at its disposal, of which 20 are working at the Spanish Ministry of agriculture and fisheries
(MAPA) headquarters in Madrid and 54 are based in the different regions. The Autonomous Regions have
a total number of 133 fisheries inspectors at their disposal. The number of officials carrying out, or being
mandated to carry out, inspections at sea has not been provided.

In France the total number of ‘Affaires Maritimes’ officials participating in fisheries control is 621, of
which 291 are doing so on a permanent basis and 330 occasionally. In the absence of information about
how much time, expressed in man-days, is actually spent on fisheries control, it is difficult to provide a
basis for comparison with other Member States concerning the number of ‘fishery officers’ effectively
deployed for fisheries control. In addition, officials from the French Navy and the Gendarmerie Maritime
are participating in fisheries control, but, again, in the absence of more detailed information about the time
actually spent on these tasks, a proper basis for comparison cannot be provided.

Ireland has three senior fisheries officers and 35 fisheries officers for land based fisheries control. Sea
inspections are carried out by the Irish Navy, and the number of officers empowered to carry out
inspections is not available.

United Kingdom has at its disposal 151 shore based inspectors. Also for the United Kingdom, the number
of officials carrying out or empowered to carry out sea inspections is not available.

2.
For statistics on serious infringements reference is made to Commission Communication on
behaviour which seriously infringed the rules of the Common fisheries policy (CFP) in 2001 (1). The
number of serious infringements and criminal and administrative procedures initiated as a result of serious
infringements of the CFP can be found in Annex 1 which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to
Parliament’s Secretariat.

Quotas for Accession Countries

3.
The quotas’ allocations within the enlarged Community are preserving the current fishing pattern.
For the Baltic Sea, the basis for the new allocations is the current allocation key used within the
International Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission (IBSFC), while for plaice, which is not regulated by the
IBSFC, landings during the reference period 1997-2001 have been used as a basis. Outside the Baltic Sea,
Poland has some allocations which are based on the current entitlements for Poland within the North-East
Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and in the cod fishery around Svalbard. The allocations discussed
for insertion in the Accession Treaty can be found in Annex 2 which is sent direct to the Honourable
Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

(1) COM(2002) 687 final.

(2004/C 11 E/073)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0196/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Child labour in the production of sports equipment

(31 January 2003)

On 13 June 2002, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on child labour in the production of
sports equipment.

In that resolution, the Commission was asked to report back to Parliament by the end of 2002 on the
steps and measures that it had taken on the basis of that resolution.

To date, Parliament has not received a report of that nature.

1. When may Parliament expect a Commission report on this topic?

2.

Has the Commission taken any steps or measures? If so, what has it done? If not, why not?

Is the Commission prepared, in conjunction with ICFTU, to take the initiative and organise a round-

3.
table debate with FIFA?

C 11 E/72

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2003)

The Commission shares the concerns expressed about the use of child labour in the production of sports
equipment. It condemns all forms of child exploitation as well as the worst forms of child labour. It
supports the calls on the International Federation of Football Associations (FIFA) and the sporting goods
companies to make sure that no children are employed in the production of FIFA-licensed sportswear and
footballs.

The Commission welcomes the recent alliance between FIFA and the International Labour Organisation
(ILO) to combat jointly child labour under the banner of the ILO’s existing Red Card to Child Labour.

The Community is committed to applying the ILO Core Labour Standards. The Commission has confirmed
this by the adoption on 18 July 2001 of a Communication on the promotion of core labour standards and
social governance in the framework of globalisation (1). The Parliament has supported the strategy
proposed in the Communication. Discussion of this Communication in the Council has not yet been
concluded.

The Commission has strengthened recently its co-operation with the ILO to cover the world-wide
promotion of core labour standards including the fight against child labour, the promotion of decent work
including poverty eradication and the promotion of the social dimension of globalisation. To that end the
ILO and the Commission signed an exchange of letters on 14 May 2001 (2). Annual high level meetings
between the Commission and ILO are organising the follow-up.

The Commission is also contributing to the work of the World Commission on the Social Dimension of
Globalisation, established by the ILO. The Commission organised a high level seminar with the World
Commission on 3 and 4 February 2003, with the involvement of all European stakeholders including
European social partners, other actors of civil society, the Parliament, Member States and Candidate
Countries.

The Community has also agreed to promote the application of core labour standards in the framework of
bilateral and multilateral agreements with developing countries. A good example is Article 50 of the
Cotonou Agreement; in this article, the Community and the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP)
have reaffirmed their commitments to the ILO Core Labour Standards including the fight against the worst
forms of child labour.

The Community Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) provides also an incentive mechanism for the
application of core labour standards.

In addition, the Commission supports Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
guidelines for multinational enterprises which make clear that ‘enterprises should, within the framework of
applicable law, regulations and prevailing labour relations and employment practices … contribute to the
effective abolition of child labour’.

The Commission is promoting the international dimension of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). The
Communication on CSR: a business contribution to sustainable development was adopted on 2 July 2002
and includes also the respect of core labour standards. Representatives of business, social partners, civil
society and other stakeholders are involved in the CSR stakeholder forum, which was established by the
Commission in 2002. The international dimension is also on the agenda of the forum. The issue of child
labour in the production of sport equipment is a relevant issue for discussion. The Commission has
co-funded (budget B3-4000) a project of the European textile retail sector which aims at promoting the
promotion of core labour standards.

The Commission is also ready to support non-governmental organisations (NGOs) which work with local
partners for the elimination of child labour. It has already financed several initiatives to combat child
labour, especially in Africa.

The Commission reported to Council and Parliament on the work done to combat child labour and
exploitation in its report on European Community Development Co-operation in 2001. It feels that a
specific report on child labour in the production of sports equipment would not be appropriate.

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/73

The Commission considers that assistance for and protection of vulnerable children should also be seen in
the wider context of poverty eradication, therefore, in the framework of the Community’s development co-
operation. Children are an important focal group of the Community’s external aid, in particular in sectoral
policies such as education and health.

The Community is increasing its support to universal and compulsory primary education in all developing
countries as part of its commitments to the education for all framework and the millennium development
goals on education and gender equality. It sees this as one of the most efficient means currently at its
disposal to draw children out of the vicious circle of exploitation.

(1) COM(2001) 416 final.
(2) OJ C 165, 8.6.2001.

(2004/C 11 E/074)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0197/03

by Manuel dos Santos (PSE)
and Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(31 January 2003)

Subject: Company closure and relocation

According to reports in the Portuguese press the footwear company C. & J. Clark has begun the process of
relocating a factory currently operating in Portugal
(in Castelo de Paiva) to India and to an eastern
European country. As an immediate consequence, approximately 600 workers will lose their jobs.

The company in question previously signed a contract with the Portuguese Government under which it is
required to remain in operation until 2007. In exchange it receives a significant level of incentives in the
form of Community support for the setting up of companies in the EU’s poorest countries.

In view of the serious losses which Portugal will suffer as a result of this state of affairs (with especial
regard to employment and social cohesion in a particularly depressed economic area, namely Castelo de
Paiva) and taking into account what has occurred in the case of previous such relocations, will the
Commission answer the following questions:

1. Was it notified regarding this relocation?

2. Will it agree to make inquiries into this state of affairs?

3. Can the financial incentives granted in order to encourage the company to locate to Portugal continue

to be paid now that the company has demonstrated a complete failure to honour its commitments?

4.

Is it actually possible for those incentives to be replaced by others of the same value and nature which
encourage relocation within Europe, thereby damaging the economy of a Member State?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2003)

The Commission has no specific information on the intention of the enterprise concerned to relocate from
Portugal to India or an eastern European country, but it wishes to draw the Honourable Member’s
attention to its answer to Written Question P-0089/03 from Ms Bastos (1), and in particular to the aspects
concerning the Community provisions applicable in this area.

(1) See page 67.