MEPs hope to adopt their position in October on the regulation banning products made using forced labour (see EUROPE 13021/17). In the meantime, the text’s two rapporteurs, Maria Manuel Leitão Marques (S&D, Portuguese) and Samira Rafaela (Renew Europe, Dutch), are trying to rally their colleagues around amendments that would make it easier to ban products considered to pose a high risk of forced labour (see EUROPE 13186/8). The Committee on Internal Market (IMCO) is due to debate the amendments on 17 or 18 July.
The Socialist co-rapporteur, Maria Manuel Leitão Marques, talks to EUROPE about the process and some of the key points in her report. (Interview by Léa Marchal)
EUROPE: You expect your report to be adopted in October. Do you feel that the Spanish Presidency of the Council of the EU will make any progress on this issue?
Maria Manuel Leitão Marques: We would like to complete the entire legislative process by February 2024. That would be wonderful, but I don’t know if it will be possible. As far as Parliament is concerned, it will be. But it will be more difficult for the EU Council, because it was impossible to make progress under the Swedish Presidency, and we don’t know what will happen under the Spanish Presidency, because it will depend on the results of the elections. I had high hopes with the current Socialist government, but with another government, I don’t know.
Why don’t you think the Swedish Presidency of the EU Council has taken up this issue?
I think that the right-wing and the Member States also believe that this will lead to new administrative burdens for businesses. They draw a parallel with the directive on corporate due diligence. But this case is not about the duties of companies. It’s a product survey. I don’t think they need to worry about the administrative burden on businesses. On the contrary, I think it’s a question of protecting European businesses, especially SMEs, against unfair competition from products imported from countries that use miserable working conditions or forced labour.
It must also be said that we are not the only ones in the world doing this, and that the European Union cannot remain the region of the world that imports products made with forced labour. These products are not allowed to enter the United States, Canada or Mexico, which also have legislation in this area. The same goes for Japan and Australia.
In your draft report (see EUROPE 13186/8), you propose reversing the burden of proof, thus placing it on companies when their products are considered to involve a high risk of forced labour. Do you think that such a solution could convince your colleagues, who are divided between those who want to reverse the burden of proof in all situations and those who are completely opposed to it?
Yes, these are high-risk products, but also areas where there is evidence of forced labour. These will be included in the database that we will be building with the help of external experts. The proposal we have made, which we will negotiate here in Parliament, is to reverse the burden of proof only in these cases. A bit like the United States has done, but a bit gentler.
I think our proposal is a balanced one. Let’s imagine that the regulation is adopted. The authorities will first investigate the most important cases with the greatest economic impact. They must also start where there is information and not on cases that are not documented.
Voting against this regulation is tantamount to saying that you are in favour of forced labour, wherever it exists. It’s hard to imagine that the right will vote in favour of forced labour. I hope not...
You talk about voting on the final report, but what happens if the amendment reversing the burden of proof fails?
I’m going to fight to get this reversal through. In any case, what I said as soon as I started working on this proposal was that the Commission’s proposal is not so bad. It can be improved. And that’s what we’re doing, with regard to reparation, the burden of proof and penalties. We proposed some amendments, but not many, because I think that, in any case, the Commission’s proposal is not bad at all.
As far as reparations are concerned, part of the European Parliament and the European Commission consider that there is no legal basis for including this in the regulation. You proposed making this a condition for lifting a product ban. How is this legally feasible?
We are not going to say in this text how reparation should be made. That’s a question that goes hand in hand with due diligence. We don’t have the legal basis to do this and we don’t want to do it. We can only say that, if it exists, it is important for unlocking products.
An important criterion or a condition for unlocking products?
A condition.
Since you don’t have the legal basis to say what reparation is, is it then up to the authorities to decide?
Yes, we have no legal basis to say exactly what the minimum or maximum reparation should be. The authorities will be the judge of that.