David Martin, MEP

European Report June 2011

JUNE 2011

EP stands firm on animal welfare in EU/Canada trade agreement
Socialists and Democrats this month welcomed the negotiation of an EU trade agreement with Canada but with a warning to the Commission against the opening the EU market to GMOs or giving up key demands such as legally-binding social and environmental standards. And importantly, with the European Parliament’s new powers given by the Lisbon Treaty, it has supported my demand that Canada withdraw the case they launched at the WTO (World Trade Organisation) on the EU's ban on seal products. It is hugely encouraging to see that the Parliament is prepared to  use its new powers in the name of humanity and democracy and has stepped up to the mark, toe-to-toe with the Canadian government and the European Commission. We did not blink but stood firm for the democratically expressed will of European citizens that we should not import cruelty in the form of cruelly-produced seal products.  We want no more blood on the ice – or on our consciences.

Robin Hood Tax opposed by greedy ‘Sheriff’ Osborne
It was reported in this week’s press that George Osborne, the UK Chancellor, is to fight to stop the Robin Hood tax:  ‘Chancellor George Osborne will this week reiterate Britain's opposition to Brussels' plans to introduce a Robin Hood or Tobin tax on every financial transaction carried out in the City, in the belief it will prompt firms to move to Asia’.  The British Government and the International Monetary Fund are known to be against the introduction of a Financial Transaction Tax whereas it has the support of US President Obama and most tax payers.  The European Parliament is keen to introduce a continent-wide tax of 0.05 per cent on every financial transaction that goes through a European institution as a means of boosting Brussels' budget by £172 billion to fund increased spending from 2014 onwards. This would create jobs, boost the economy, be hugely popular and only cost the Bankers a small amount.  It’s the least they could do following the mess they have made of the economy.  In March the Brussels parliament voted 529 to 127 in favour of introducing the tax.  For it to become law it would have to be approved by all the European Union’s member states.

EU-India trade agreement fails to address workers’ rights provisions
In May the Parliament voted on the EU's proposed free trade agreement with India. Conservatives and Liberal Democrats voted against provisions relating to fundamental rights and equal treatment, including the undercutting of pay and human rights conditions. In particular, they successfully voted against an amendment demanding that the trade agreement: "must not hamper or prejudice the fundamental principle of equal treatment for workers, and must guarantee the full implementation of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value."  I feel we cannot support a free trade agreement between the EU and India if it does not guarantee legally binding clauses on human rights as well as social and environmental standards in the agreement. The EU cannot forget its principles when it comes to trade policy, indeed the Lisbon Treaty states that commercial policy must contribute to sustainable development, the eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights. Without the provisions the agreement will not only be negative for Indian workers but also very dangerous for workers in Europe. We cannot accept the opening-up of services and social dumping through lower salaries for immigrant workers based in Europe.  We will keep a close eye on developments to make sure that the EU-India trade agreement respects the principle of equal pay for equal work. Equally important was the call on the Commission to safeguard public health in India and people's access to generic medicines by ending its insistence on data exclusivity in intellectual property rights.

Greater Consumer Rights
An EU-wide right for consumers to change their minds about purchase decisions within two weeks and clearer pricing rules for Internet sales were among changes made to the draft legislation of the EU’s Consumer Rights Directive in the June Strasbourg Plenary.

Should sellers fail to inform consumers of their withdrawal rights, then the period of withdrawal extends to one year. The price paid for the product must be refunded to the consumer within 14 days of withdrawal. Moreover, all goods ordered at a distance must be delivered to the buyer within 30 days: otherwise the consumer will have the right to cancel the purchase. Digital goods are however exempt from the withdrawal rules. The trader is responsible for any damage or loss of the good during delivery, negotiators agreed, while the identity and address of the seller must always be clear.  MEPs had wanted traders to pay the return costs of any goods priced above €40, but the Council, which represents EU governments, refused to accept this. MEPs hope this will allow consumers to make informed choices when deciding where to buy and also boost competition between companies. 

Animal welfare - we should seek to raise, not lower standards
Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes throughout the EU (agreed in October 2010, with implementation by  January 2013) means the scientific use of animals is now subject to legal control, and all research establishments and projects within the EU will now be subject to basic licensing regimes. However, I was extremely disappointed that important restrictions on primate use did not make their way into the Directive, that there is too little emphasis on replacing animal tests with humane alternatives and that approved methods of killing animals fall far short of UK standards.

For many European states, the new Directive represents a step forward in protecting animals in laboratories. Not in the UK however, and whilst the Directive specifically allows member states to retain pre-existing higher standards, if, when the UK Government implements the new law, it simply “copies out” the Directive, it will immediately allow a lowering of the standards that have applied here for so long. Animal welfare groups in the UK are campaigning to ensure that the UK Government take a progressive approach when transposing the Directive into UK law as well as reducing the use of primates in UK Laboratories, ending the use of wild-caught primates and increasing transparency for public accountability and wider scientific scrutiny.

Legislation to end the suffering of animals in experimentation should not be seen as an inhibition to the progress of medical science, but as a potent impetus for the research and development of effective non-animal methods of testing.

EU countries divided over nuclear stress tests
With Germany’s decision to cease all its nuclear reactors by 2022, Switzerland’s vote to scrap plans to build new nuclear reactors and Italy’s referendum on re-launching nuclear power, it is clear that the issue of nuclear power in Europe remains a divisive one. This has been particularly evident in recent debates in the Parliament on a proposal for the EU’s 143 nuclear reactors to undergo ‘stress tests’.  Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament have called on the Commission to make the tests obligatory and run under EU authority, and for plants that fail to be shut down. The fear is that the Commission could give in to Member States pushing for more lenient tests and that while the risks linked to natural disasters and human error will be considered, they would not include the risk of terrorist attacks or plane crashes. Despite the high population of Europe and the borderless impact of a nuclear disaster like that in Fukushima, only Member States have the power to unplug their nuclear plants. France and Britain, the two EU countries with the largest nuclear industries, have, since the beginning, strongly opposed stringent stress tests.

Stop the long, inhumane transportation of animals
In Europe around six million farmed animals, including calves, cattle, sheep, pigs, goats and horses, are crammed into overcrowded vehicles and forced to travel hundreds of miles under a law currently allowing these  journeys to last for several days. Many animals are trampled to death or die as a result of exhaustion and dehydration due to extreme temperatures, insufficient food, water or rest. Moving live animals long distances to markets and slaughterhouses can also spread infectious diseases such as foot and mouth and bluetongue.

While I have always advocated animal transportation to be ‘on the hook’, not ‘on the hoof’, animals should at least never be transported for more than eight hours to their final destination.  I believe it would be a great testament to the common humanity of the citizens of the European Union if we achieved an 8-hour limit on travel of farmed animals to slaughter. Visit my website at www.martinmep.com for link’s to this campaign and to my blog in support on OneKind’s website.

For up-to-date news on these and other European matters, as well as links to my blog and twitter, visit www.martinmep.com

DAVID MARTIN MEP, Midlothian Innovation Centre, Pentlandfield, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9RE
T: 0131 440 9040   E:   david@martinmep.com