17 Withdrawal of tariff preferences from
Belarus
| (28087)
—
—
| Draft Council Regulation temporarily withdrawing access to the generalised tariff preferences from the Republic of Belarus
|
| Legal base | Article 133EC; QMV
|
| Department | Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 30 November 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | 5 December 2006
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
17.1 The Community's generalised system of preferences ("GSP")
allows for the partial or total removal of the preferential arrangements
for products originating in a beneficiary country under certain
circumstances, including for serious and systematic violations
of the principles laid down in the "core human and labour
rights" conventions of the United Nations and the International
Labour Organization (ILO). Belarus is one of the GSP beneficiary
countries, but, at the end of 2003, at the instigation of international
trade unions, the Commission published its decision to initiate
an investigation into alleged violations of the freedom of association
and the right to collective bargaining in Belarus.
The current proposal
17.2 In its introduction to this proposal, the Commission says
that it investigated the institutional framework, the key institutions,
the structure of social partnership and the relevant Belarussian
legislation, compared them with international standards, and made
use of the conclusions and recommendations of the ILO's Committee
on Freedom of Association and its Committee of Experts,[34]
as well as of UN reports. In addition, testimonies were provided
by the primary national stakeholders, and their partner organisations
at the international level, supplemented by interviews with representatives
of government and employers' organisations, as well as all relevant
international agencies, non-governmental organisations and European
Commission staff.
17.3 The Commission says that this investigation found that Belarus
is impeding the right to establish trade union organisations freely,
the right to organise, the right to choose among trade union organisations,
and the right of such organisations to legal recognition and to
external funding. Belarus is thus promoting anti-union discrimination
and the dissolution or suspension of trade unions. It also notes
that the ILO set up a parallel "Commission of Inquiry"
which, in its report of July 2004, formulated 12 recommendations
with which the Belarus Government needed to comply before June
2005, in order to remedy the unsatisfactory application of the
relevant ILO's Conventions.[35]
17.4 In accordance with the procedure laid down in the Council
Regulation[36] applying
the GSP, the Commission decided to open a six-month period for
monitoring and evaluating the situation, and, in so doing, granted
Belarus further time in which to make the commitment to take the
measures needed to conform with the Fundamental Principles and
Rights at Work, as expressed in the 12 recommendations by the
ILO Commission of Inquiry in July 2004. However, it reports that
Belarus had not made the requisite commitment within this six-month
period of monitoring and evaluation (ending in March 2006), and
that this still remained the position in October 2006.
17.5 It has therefore concluded that the grounds for a temporary
withdrawal of the preferential arrangement for products originating
in Belarus therefore persist, and that, given the continued violation
of the rights specified above, these continue to be more and more
urgent every day. It has therefore proposed that the Council should
adopt such a measure within one month, and that the Regulation
should enter into force after six months, unless the situation
changes before then. The Commission also says that the situation
should be kept under review, to enable the re-establishment of
the preferential arrangement for products originating in Belarus
if the violations of the freedom of association and of the right
of collective bargaining there no longer exist.
The Government's view
17.6 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 30 November 2006, the Minister
for Trade, Investment and Foreign Affairs at the Department of
Trade and Industry (Mr Ian McCartney) says that the UK supports
the proposal, which is in accordance with Council Regulation 980/2005.
He adds that there is unlikely to be any significant impact for
the UK (or other Member States), the main effects being more likely
to be political, with the Belarussian Ambassador having explained
to UK-based officials that the Community would be undermined in
the eyes of the people of Belarus, who would see this measure
as the fault of the Community, not that of their own government.
However, the Minister suggests that those associated with the
independent trade unions and democratic forces generally in the
country are aware of the issues, and would, on the contrary, feel
let down if the Community were not to pursue the issue. He also
says that the Community has just produced a "non-paper"
addressed to the people of Belarus, designed to show what "their
government is foregoing in their name by rejecting democracy",
but he adds that the situation will be kept under review to ensure
that preferential access can be speedily re-instated once the
necessary conditions have been met.
Conclusion
17.7 Although the action proposed here appears in itself to
be uncontentious, we think it right to draw to the attention of
the House the circumstances which have given rise to the need
for a measure of this sort.
34 According to the Commission, the recommendations
of these two Committees are the main reference on interpretation
of international labour law and rules of correlation between national
and international standards. Back
35
Convention No 87 concerning Freedom of Association and Protection
of the Right to Organise, and Convention No 98 concerning the
Application of the Principles of the Right to Organise and to
Bargain Collectively. Back
36
Council Regulation (EC) No. 980/2005. OJ No. L 169, 30.6.05, p.1. Back
|
