The European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade (INTA) held a hearing on Tuesday 25 October on the future instrument banning forced labour products from the EU market. The experts present and the various political groups expressed doubts about several aspects of the European Commission’s proposal (see EUROPE 13021/17).
The course of the investigations
Several groups and experts do not agree with the approach proposed by the Commission that the competent authorities in the Member States should be responsible for investigating before banning a product from the European market. This is the case for the S&D and Green/EFA groups, but also for the NGO Anti Slavery International and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC). For them, the burden of proof should be reversed, i.e. companies should be responsible for proving that their products are not made with forced labour.
This also raises the issue of the temporary detention of goods by customs in the EU. “We need to see a staged approach where goods are seized during the investigation, before being destroyed after investigation. It is morally reprehensible that products under investigation will be allowed to circulate in the EU”, said Chloe Cranston of the NGO Anti Slavery International.
However, not everyone agrees with this view. The head of the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Global Business Network against Forced Labour, Douglas Opio, has expressed concern about a reverse burden of proof. “It’s not fair on the company to block a product down the line, if there’s actually nothing wrong” he said.
Competence for investigations
The role of the competent authorities in the Member States and of the Commission in the implementation of the future regulation is also questioned. MEPs are wary of fragmentation in implementation. Several of them questioned the Commission on the possibilities for it to have an increased role in the investigation and implementation of decisions.
The Commission has put forward its ‘Union network against forced labour products’ which should facilitate coordination between the competent authorities.
Most elected representatives, as well as experts, also advocate that information should be as accessible as possible. This concerns, on the one hand, the database on the risks of forced labour and, on the other hand, information on ongoing or concluded investigations by the competent authorities.
Lack of reparations for victims
Many MEPs and experts are critical of the absence of a redress mechanism for victims of forced labour in the Commission’s proposal. This is a “major loophole”, according to Claes-Mikael Ståhl, deputy general secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation. This does not encourage workers to denounce the conditions, he says.
This regulation is not intended to solve all the problems, according to Madelaine Tunninga of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Trade. National legislation can help on this issue and, at European level, the anti-trafficking directive can also serve as a basis, she said.
The European Parliament’s Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) is in charge of the dossier and will have to try to get its position adopted before the end of this electoral mandate. (Original version in French by Léa Marchal)