5 Labour standards in the fishing sector
| (29724)
10176/08
COM(08) 320
| Draft Council Decision authorising Member States to ratify, in the interests of the European Community, the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007, of the International Labour Organisation (Convention 188)
|
| Legal base | Article 42 EC; consultation; unanimity
|
| Department | Transport |
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 14 May 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 16-xxvii (2007-08), chapter 6 (16 July 2008)
|
| To be discussed in Council | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
5.1 In June 2007 a new convention on labour standards for the
fishing sector was adopted at the International Labour Organisation
(ILO). The new convention, the Working in Fishing Convention,
revises and updates four existing fishing sector conventions.
Its adoption follows on from the consolidated Maritime Labour
Convention (MLC) of 2006,[17]
which excludes the fishing sector from its scope of application.
5.2 The Working in Fishing Convention applies to
all fishers and all fishing vessels engaged in commercial fishing
operations (with some scope for exemptions and exception). It
updates and consolidates the existing conventions on hours of
work, minimum age, medical examinations, work agreements and crew
accommodation into a single document, and adds new issues such
as health and safety, food and potable water, manning, repatriation,
recruitment and placement and social security, as well as making
provisions for compliance and enforcement.
5.3 This draft Council Decision would authorise Member
States to ratify the Work in Fishing Convention, for those parts
falling under Community competence, preferably before 31 December
2012. The Commission has actively supported the development of
the new convention, although it had only observer status at the
ILO negotiations.
5.4 When we considered the document, in July 2008,
amongst the comments we heard from the Government were that:
- the draft Decision would increase
the pressure on the UK to ratify and implement the convention
by 31 December 2012;
- many of the convention's requirements are not
within Community competence and Government policy is to ratify
a convention only when it is satisfied that the UK's national
law and practice is fully in line with all of the requirements
of that convention — even though in many cases the UK might
be providing a similar or higher level of protection than required
under the convention;
- decisions on whether or not legislative
changes are desirable and should be introduced in order to
comply with a particular convention would depend on a number of
factors, including their impact on other Government policies,
the commitment of resources and whether ratification would lead
to an improvement in the level of protection for the workers
concerned;
- against this background, the Government fully
supported the aim of the new convention, was in principle committed
to working towards ratification and accepted that in this case
— the updating of four existing fishing sector conventions
— UK law and practice should be changed in order to achieve
this;
- the UK fishing industry had a number of significant
reservations about the new Convention, for example the requirement
for those working on fishing vessels to hold a medical fitness
certificate;
- consultation would continue on the most appropriate
way of implementing the changes and as proposals for implementation
were considered and developed;
- moreover, given the broad range of subjects covered
in the convention, a significant number of UK legislative changes
would be required to implement it. More work was needed to identify
exactly what those changes should be, following which a timetable
for ratification would be prepared; and
- it was not yet clear whether the Government would
be able to meet the timetable proposed in the draft Decision.
5.5 We said that clearly the convention was important
for the UK fishing industry. But we noted the Government's commendably
careful approach to the ratification of such conventions. Given
that, and the timetable pressure implied in the draft Decision,
we were not clear whether the Government intended to support that
Commission proposal, as opposed to the convention itself, in the
form it was drafted. And we asked for clarification of this point.
We asked also whether it was the Government's intention to challenge
what seems to us as the inappropriate citation of "the first
sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the first
subparagraph of Article 300 (3)" of the EC Treaty in the
draft Decision. It seemed to us that a simple reference to Article
300 or a reference to the second sentence of the first subparagraph
of Article 300(2) would be more apt. Meanwhile the document remained
uncleared.[18]
The Minister's letter
5.6 In response to our question as to whether the
Government intends to support the Commission's draft Decision
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport
(Jim Fitzpatrick) says that:
- the Government fully supports
the aim of the convention and is committed to ratification, including
any consequential changes to UK law and practice necessary in
order to achieve this;
- more work is needed to identify exactly what
those changes should be, but it is estimated that approximately
19 sets of existing merchant shipping regulations would need to
be amended;
- the timetable for ratification can only be established
after the work on identification of these changes is complete;
- the Commission's position is that it will "enable
and encourage Member States to take all the steps necessary for
ratification without further delay";
- the Government interprets this as exhorting Member
States to ratify before 31 December 2012, as indicated in the
draft Decision, but not an explicit requirement to do so; and
- on this basis the Government feels that it can
accept the proposal, as it does not consider it to be in conflict
with the aims of the convention.
5.7 Turning to the Article 300 EC citation the Minister
says that:
- the Government agrees with
our view that the reference to the first sentence of the first
subparagraph of Article 300(2) in the draft Decision is incorrect;
- in its view, the correct reference would be enlarged
to "the first subparagraph of Article 300(2)";
- this is in preference, for the avoidance of doubt,
to our suggestion of "a simple reference to Article 300 or
a reference to the second sentence of the first sub-paragraph
of Article 300(2)";
- the Government sought clarification from the
Commission on this point in the first substantive Council Working
Group discussion of the proposal, on 11 March 2009 and the Commission
undertook to consider the matter further before the next meeting;
and
- the Government is reasonably confident that its
view on the citation will prevail.
5.8 The Minister also tells us that:
- at the same Working Group meeting
another Member State questioned the assertion that there are aspects
of the convention within the exclusive competence of the Community
and this will also be discussed at the next meeting of the Working
Group;
- he had hoped to be able to tell us the outcome
of further Working Group discussion, which was provisionally scheduled
for April 2009 — however, this did not take place and a
date for the meeting was not yet set; and
- there have been indications that the Czech Presidency
would like to move the draft Decision forward for adoption at
the Employment and Social Affairs Council on 8-9 June 2009, but
this was not yet confirmed.
Conclusion
5.9 We are grateful to the Minister for this explanation
of the Government's view of the draft Decision and his account
of developments on it. We understand that in the event there was
not sufficient progress on the matter to encourage the Presidency
to take it to the June 2009 Employment and Social Affairs Council.
5.10 We should like to hear in due course about
further developments, in particular in relation to the Article
300 EC citation and to the question raised about exclusive Community
competence. Meanwhile the document remains under scrutiny.
17 (27630) 10901/06 (27623) 10900/06: see HC 34-xxxvi
(2005-06), chapter 10 (19 July 2006) and HC 41-iii (2006-07),
chapter 16 (6 December 2006). Back
18
See headnote. Back
|
