5 Working time: inland waterway transport
| Committee's assessment
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision | Not cleared from scrutiny; further information requested
|
| Document details | Draft Council Directive about a social partners agreement on working time in inland waterway transport
|
| Legal base | Article 155(2) TFEU; —; QMV
|
| Department | Transport
|
| Document number | (36216), 11688/14 + ADDs 1-3, COM(14) 452
|
Summary and Committee's conclusions
5.1 The Working Time Directive lays down common minimum
standards, but allows for more specific rules to be made for specific
sectors. Article 155 TFEU provides for the possibility of a European
Social Partners' Agreement (SPA) between management and labour
being implemented by Council decision on a proposal from the Commission.
5.2 The European Barge Union, the European Skippers
Organisation and the European Transport Workers Federation, the
sectoral social partners, have concluded an SPA on specific working
time rules for mobile workers in inland waterway transport. In
response to a request from these organisations the Commission
proposes this draft Directive to implement the SPA.
5.3 When we considered this proposal, in September,
we recognised the need for adequate working time rules for mobile
workers in inland waterway transport. But we shared the Government's
view of the inappropriateness of this proposal for the UK and
were concerned about a seemingly precipitate push to agree the
proposal. Therefore we asked the Government to press the Presidency
to allow sufficient time for the necessary consideration of the
issues, rather than dealing with the matter at a Council on 16
October. We said we would consider this matter again when we had
more information from the Government about its consultations and
impact assessment.
5.4 The Government now tells us of its impact assessment
and consultations and about developments in negotiations on the
draft Directive, which seem so far only marginally helpful.
5.5 We understand that, subsequent to the Government's
report to us, it has been agreed to delay consideration of the
proposal by the Council beyond 16 October to allow time for more
discussion. As this would enable the Government to continue working
with other Member States seeking greater clarity on the intended
application and scope of the proposal from the social partners,
we are keeping the document under scrutiny, pending a further
report from the Government on developments.
Full details of the documents:
Draft Council Directive implementing the European Agreement concluded
by the European Barge Union (EBU), the European Skippers Organisation
(ESO) and the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF) concerning
certain aspects of the organisation of working time in inland
waterway transport: (36216), 11688/14 + ADDs 1-3, COM(14) 452.
Background
5.6 Directive 2003/88/EC, the Working Time Directive,
lays down common minimum standards, including daily and weekly
work and rest limits, night work and annual leave, but allows
for more specific rules to be made for specific sectors. Article
155 TFEU provides for the possibility of a European Social Partners'
Agreement (SPA) between management and labour being implemented
by Council decision on a proposal from the Commission.
5.7 The European Barge Union, the European Skippers
Organisation and the European Transport Workers Federation, the
sectoral social partners, have concluded an SPA on specific working
time rules for mobile workers in inland waterway transport. In
response to a request from these organisations the Commission
proposes this draft Directive to implement the SPA.
5.8 When we considered this proposal, in September,
we heard that:
· the Government recognised the need for
adequate working time rules for mobile workers in inland waterway
transport;
· but it found the SPA, which can only be
accepted or rejected in its entirety, insufficiently flexible
to cater for the UK's significantly different inland waterway
transport operations to those on the EU's major waterways;
· moreover, one of the aims of the draft
Directive is to facilitate cross-border enforcement of these working
time rules, which has little relevance for the UK, given the one
waterway, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland,
which currently has one small Irish flag passenger ship operation;
· the Government would therefore seek support
from other Member States not linked to the main EU waterway network
to challenge the scope of the proposed Directive in order to limit
the application of the agreement to cross-border inland waterways
transport, and possibly to the major routes on the Trans-European
Transport Network, provided that national rules provide a similar
or equivalent level of protection, taking into account national
characteristics;
· but, if unsuccessful in limiting the application
of the Directive, the Government would seek clarification on the
application of the proposal to the types of operation in the UK,
with a view to minimising the numbers of UK operations that would
be bound by the standards; and
· it was possible that a political agreement
on the draft Directive might be sought at a Council meeting on
16 October, but that the Government would be seeking industry
views during negotiation of the draft Directive and that it would
only be able to make a full assessment of its potential impact
when it had clarification of a number of matters in the proposal.
5.9 We recognised the need for adequate working time
rules for mobile workers in inland waterway transport. But we
shared the Government's view that this proposal is inappropriate
for the UK's circumstances. Moreover, we were concerned that a
seemingly precipitate push to agree the proposal would not allow
the Government time to properly consult the industry or make an
adequate assessment of the potential impact. Therefore we asked
the Government to press the Presidency to allow sufficient time
for the necessary consideration of the issues. We said we would
consider this matter again when we had more information from the
Government about its consultations and impact assessment. Meanwhile
the document remained under scrutiny.
The Minister's letter of 9 October 2014
5.10 The Minister of State, Department for Transport
(Mr John Hayes) first reminds us that the proposal would apply
to mobile workers in inland waterways transport, implement maximum
daily work periods and minimum daily and weekly rest periods,
while providing flexibility on average weekly working hours, calculated
over a period of 12 months (this is intended to allow for seasonal
peaks and troughs in the workload), introduce free annual health
assessments for all mobile workers and specify record keeping
arrangements based around those required on sea-going ships. He
then discusses the impact assessment for the UK, the Government's
consultations and progress on the proposal.
Possible impact
5.11 The Minister, who attaches the Government's
"Impact Assessment Checklist", says that:
· the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA)
has records for passenger ships (carrying more than 12 passengers,
which it surveys annually) but very limited information about
smaller passenger-carrying craft or freight vessels, as these
are not subject to regular survey and are usually registered with
local navigation authorities;
· the assessment of the impact on each of
those groups has been drawn from discussions with the main trade
associations;
· there are currently around 295 companies
operating around 540 passenger ships on UK inland waterways —
data drawn from the MCA's certification database;
· Office of National Statistics data for
employment in inland waterways transport (the latest available
are provisional figures for 2012 and are shown only to the nearest
hundred) show 800 full-time and 300 part-time employees working
in passenger transport and 200 full-time and 100 part-time employees
in freight transport;
· the data does not show how many of those
workers work on the vessels when they are moving and are therefore
likely to be subject the proposed Directive, but it is expected
to be a high proportion;
· although for most of these companies,
the tightening of limits on working time would have little or
no impact, the new rules might inhibit freight operations on smaller
tidal rivers;
· all operators would however be subject
to new administrative burdens which the Government believes are
disproportionate for the majority of UK operators; and
· the overall cost to the UK economy would
be small, well under £1 million per year, but with disproportionate
impact for those affected, in particular reducing the scope for
modal shift of heavy loads onto the smaller tidal rivers.
Consultations:
5.12 The Minister tells us that:
· the proposals have been discussed with
the Commercial Boat Operators' Association (CBOA), which represents
UK inland waterways freight operations, and the Passenger Boat
Association, an affiliate of the British Marine Federation which
is the largest association representing passenger operations on
UK inland waterways;
· the Government has also had correspondence
with Nautilus International (the trans-national trade union),
which was represented in discussions on the SPA through the European
Transport Federation, and supports the proposed Directive;
· the Passenger Boat Association is chiefly
concerned about the administrative burden of health assessment
and record keeping;
· these burdens are also a concern to the
CBOA, but they have a specific concern about the practicality
of the proposals for operations such as those on the tidal Trent,
which are constrained by depth of water at low tide and the strength
of the flood tide; and
· Nautilus International supports the draft
Directive, on grounds of health and safety, but has indicated
a willingness to discuss the practical implications and to look
for solutions which do not compromise the safety benefits of the
proposal.
Progress
5.13 The Minister reports that:
· the proposal has been discussed at the
Social Questions Working Group on 18 September and 3 October;
· it was not yet clear whether there is
sufficient support for a political agreement to be reached at
the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
(EPSCO) on 16 October;
· discussions in Working Group have centred
around the scope of the agreement, which several Member States,
including the UK, feel is unclear;
· the Commission said that any attempt to
define the terms "inland waterways" or "mobile
workers" in the Directive would risk limiting the scope of
the SPA, which was deliberately broad;
· some Member States object to the proposal
on the grounds that they would be required to transpose a Directive
which has no practical effect because they have no waterways and
therefore no waterways transport;
· the Commission advised that the Directive
would be addressed to all Member States, and that only those which,
as a matter of geography, have no inland waterways could make
a case for not transposing it;
· subsequently, the Presidency produced
a compromise proposal for a new recital drawing attention to the
limitation of the application of the Directive as a result of
geography (that is, those countries with no inland waterways cannot
by definition have any inland waterways transport);
· this does not, however, apply to the UK
and in discussions to date the compromise proposal has not satisfied
the Member States which raised this issue;
· on the definition of mobile workers, the
Commission argues that it should apply to anyone who works on
a vessel when it is moving;
· this reinforces the Government's concern,
shared by some other Member States, about the impact of measures
suitable for large commercial freight operations on small passenger
vessels offering tourist trips;
· the UK is not the only Member State to
have concerns about the representativeness of the SPA in this
case;
· the Commission argues that the legal process
have been followed and all the relevant checks made to ensure
that the agreement is representative, legally valid and appropriate;
· the Government, however, remains unconvinced
that, where concerns were raised in consultation with Member States
which were not fully represented during negotiations, these have
been properly followed up by the Commission;
· there has been growing pressure on the
Commission to return to the social partners who negotiated the
SPA to clarify the intended scope and application;
· this step has not been agreed, but the
Commission has agreed to bilateral discussions with the UK to
consider the Government's concerns, particularly on the workability
of the minimum hours of rest on smaller tidal waterways;
· the Government proposes also to use this
opportunity to make the case for flexibility (within the constraints
of what is safe), perhaps along the lines of permitting "authorised
exceptions" agreed between the two sides of industry and
authorised by the competent authority, which exists under the
social partners' agreement on seafarers' hours of work (Council
Directive 1999/63/EC as amended);
· if these discussions were to persuade
the Commission to return to the social partners, the proposal
would be withdrawn from the 16 October EPSCO agenda;
· the Government would then seek clarification
on the scope of the SPA, and if necessary, provisions for flexibility
in applying the agreement in a practicable way to the UK's non-linked
waterways;
· without further change, the Government
intended to oppose the draft Directive at the EPSCO Council and
express its disappointment at the speed with which the Presidency
has taken this proposal forward, given Member States' concerns;
and
· the Government expects that there would
be a significant number of other Member States also opposing,
but it was not yet clear, due to ongoing discussions, whether
there would be a blocking vote.
Previous Committee Reports
Ninth Report, HC 219-ix (2014-15), chapter 11 (3
September 2014).
| 
