Hoping for a ban on seal products

On Wednesday, Parliament welcomed a very special guest to speak to the Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals. Sheryl Fink, speaking on behalf of the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), had travelled all the way from her native Canada to drum up support for an EU-wide ban on the import of all seal products into Europe.

New regulations implemented by the Canadian authorities, supposedly to make the Canadian seal hunts more "humane", have done little to increase the welfare of the seals. Most hunters are ignoring the regulations and the authorities seem unwilling to take action. Indeed, the group was shown a highly distressing video filmed by IFAW proving that seals were not killed quickly or humanely.

The Eurosceptic Tory MEP Roger Helmer, who was in the audience, attempted to pass Sheryl Fink's presentation off merely as a "slick" gimmick from the animal welfare lobby. Helmer asked what effect a ban on the seal hunt would have on those who relied on the trade to make a living, and what effect would a ban have on Canada’s fish stocks. If Helmer hadn't left immediately after asking his questions, he might have heard the answers!

Canada's seal hunt is not economically viable. The C$11million industry would not survive without the subsidies paid by the Canadian government. In fact, no hunter relies on the trade for a living - the hunt only makes each hunter around £1000 extra income per year. It is merely an extra bit of pocket money for them. Add to that the fact there is no evidence that seals have any significant adverse effect on fish stocks, and there appears very little justification in continuing the inhumane seal hunt, and hopefully, an EU ban on seal products will finally see an end to it.

Commission set to propose ban on seal products

Following a lengthy campaign from animal welfare lobbyists, the European Commission has revealed it is planning to propose a ban on seal products within the EU.

EU Observer has reported that Environment Commissioner, Stavros Dimas, plans to propose a ban on fur if a country cannot prove it has been obtained in a humane way.

The proposal should fly through the parliament if the Written Directive calling for a ban on the import, export and sale of seal products is anything to go by. Back in September 2006 it was signed by a record number of MEPs and as such became the position of the parliament.

The article suggests that Dimas has no plans to call for an outright ban but wants to ensure that any seals culled are done so quickly and cleanly. His main intention, it would appear, is to help stop the practice of skinning seals while they are still alive.

Some will be disappointed that the plans do not go further but it is a start and, should it be approved, will help drive up standards and eliminate the very worst aspects of the cull.

It is also an example of how EU citizens can play a part in influencing legislation. The campaign for a ban on seal products came from animal welfare charities and lobbyists and was driven by the sheer weight of mail many MEPs received on the issue. With the European Parliament’s support the case for a ban was strengthened and the European Commission has now responded with these early proposals, which will hopefully improve the welfare of thousands of seals.

Meetings in Malta

Am in Malta for a meeting of European Socialist parties. This month, Malta adopted the euro as its national currency, which most seem pleased about, apart from the currency exchange kiosks who will have far fewer opportunities to rip people off with extortionate exchange rates. (Good pub quiz quetion: which two Commonwealth countries joined the euro this year?)

Also interesting to see The Sunday Times of Malta, the entire front page of which is devoted to EU issues, not least the question of what action the EU might take to require Malta to cease the practice of indiscriminate and massive shooting of migrating birds as they fly over Malta from Europe to/from Africa. There is not much point in agreeing a Europe-wide system of protecting migratory birds (as we have in the EU birds directive) if one crucially-located member state does not respect it.

Also interesting was an article about Malta's MEPs being more well known and more popular than its MPs, and the European Parliament enjoying higher trust levels in opinion polls than the national parliament. I must remember to tell some of my Westminster colleagues!

Rhubarb and chickens

After Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and Jamie Oliver’s investigations into chicken farming, there is much controversey about the goings on in some farm sheds but there has been no such concerns for the rhubarb growers in Yorkshire.

Grown in dark sheds, the first crop of Yorkshire forced rhubarb is currently being harvested and some of it will no doubt be in a crumble by this Sunday.

This time next year, Yorkshire rhubarb could well be afforded the same status as Parma ham and champagne if the European Commission decides to award it Protected Designation of Origin status.

As I have previously mentioned, Swaledale cheese currently has Yorkshire’s only PDO, something which will hopefully change during this year or the next, with Wensleydale cheese also seeking such status. In the meantime, best wishes to the farmers and hopefully this year’s rhubarb will be a better crop than last year’s, which suffered because of unusually warm temperatures.

Returning to the subject of chickens, the EU has now confirmed that it will be asking all member states to stick to their agreement to end the battery farming of chickens by 2012, despite calls from the industry for a delay.

The directive which will ban the use of caged chickens was formally adopted in 1999, giving the industry 12 years of preparation, so they cannot claim they have not been warned. As Channel Four’s series of programmes highlighted, for many people there are still serious ethical questions about the farming of some chickens but by 2012, the EU will have at least eradicated the very cruellest method, battery farming.

Following on from my Parliamentary Question on the subject of the illegal hunting of wild birds in Malta, it gives me great pleasure to inform you that the Commission has announced that it is sending its final warning to the Maltese authorities to order them to stop the illegal hunting of wild birds in spring in contravention of the EU Wild Birds Directive. Lax protection in Malta can undermine the efforts of the rest of Europe to protect migratory birds - a good example of where European legislation can do more than piecemeal national legislation.

Malta is located on an important bird migration route in the Mediterranean. The European Union’s Wild Birds Directive specifically protects birds during their perilous spring migration from Africa to their breeding grounds further north in Europe, including the UK.

Currently, laws in Malta allow the hunting of the birds during spring, but in issuing this warning, the Commission is asking Malta to bring its laws in line with the EU’s Wild Birds Directive. Commenting on the Commission’s action, Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said: "By taking these measures the Commission is seeking to ensure that rules for the convention of bird species are followed throughout the EU to help prevent biodiversity loss."

The RSPB has urged the Maltese authorities to issue a declaration confirming the end of spring hunting. This would allow the European Commission to apply directly to the European Court of Justice for an immediate order blocking spring hunting for 2008 and beyond. Should Malta fail to respond to the Commission’s warning, the RSPB expects the Commission to take the Maltese authorities to the European Court immediately.

Hopefully this will be the end to the devastating spring hunts in Malta that threaten birdlife across Europe.

While much of the talk around the parliament is about this week’s summit, which kicks off in Brussels tomorrow, we are still in the midst of a normal parliament session in Strasbourg.

This week has seen the parliament again demonstrate that it deserves its reputation as a world leader on animal welfare welfare by voting to ban the import of dog and cat fur in the EU.

There are some ghastly statistics about the use of dog and cat fur, with a single coat costing the lives of 24 cats, while millions of dogs and cats are slaughtered each year because of the trade.

Labour MEPs actually started campaigning for a ban over eight years ago, and with some tremendous support from EU citizens the issue was recognised by Parliament and the Council.

Meanwhile, the intensely fought battle over vodka in the parliament, ( a political one rather than some form of drinking competition in the Swan Bar) that really took off during Finland’s presidency looks like it has finally been resolved.

Poland, Sweden, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia all joined Finland in demanding that only vodka made from grain and potatoes could be described as vodka, a situation other countries who made vodka from fruit or sugar (like Britain) were deeply unhappy with.

Long meetings had failed to break the deadlock while angry emails have flown across cyberspace with the war of words at one point desending into wild accusations about some vodkas not made from potatoes or grain, containing cow slurry!

However, finally the parliament have adopted a compromise which means vodka may indeed be produced from things other than potatoes and grain, but must say so prominently on the label.

Importantly for Britain, the new rules also state that whisky cannot contain flavourings or sweetners, a measure which will protect Britain’s huge whisky industry from inferior imitators.

Seals are in the news this week in more ways than one.

Last week in Strasbourg, Written Declaration 38, calling for a ban on seal products, stormed to adoption with well over half of all MEPs signing it.

The director of the Humane Society, Mark Glover, who was in the Parliament as a guest of myself, and the rest of his team, deserve plenty of praise for some intensive and very effective lobbying.

It now means that the European Parliament is officially calling for a ban on the import, export and sale of all harp and hooded seal products. As Europe is one of the biggest importers of seal products, such a ban would put severe pressure on the trade.

All this neatly ties in with Roger Helmer being returned the Tory whip in the European Parliament. With Cameron having already signalled his intention to alienate the Conservatives from the rest of Europe’s centre -right parties, it was no great surprise to see such an extreme Eurosceptic welcomed back to the fold.

However, with all the timing and subtlety of Kevin Pietersen with a sledgehammer, just a day after his return to the Conservatives, Helmer found himself in the papers for his less than caring, sharing, environmentally-friendly, Cameron-esque attitude to seals.

Responding to a letter from a 17-year-old asking him to sign Written Declaration 38, Helmer’s tart response was a rather pompous letter (which even alluded to the lack of moral competence of seals) telling her he would not be signing the declaration, as beating seals over the head “is humane” and her attitude was “mawkish, sentimental and unhelpful”.

There is also an allegation that Helmer encouraged her to stop caring for “dumb animals”. Advice apparently taken, the student went straight to the media and ensured he took a beating of his very own in the local and national media.

A less than glorious return for the Conservatives’ prodigal son!

Let's talk about chickens. Earlier this year, we debated and amended proposals designed to improve the welfare of chickens bred for meat in the EU. Animal welfare issues are very important in the minds of my constituents, and I know from my postbag that these EU-wide reforms are popular in Yorkshire.

Now let's talk about UKIP, who rejected these new measures and voted against amendments tabled to strengthen them. Specifically, UKIP voted against amendments designed to:

• control imports of chickens from third countries where farms don't stick to the same rules; and


• reduce the 'stocking density', i.e. how many chickens can be placed in a single area.

Now, I don't know whether they're eager for chickens to suffer or whether they just vote blindly without reading the text. Either way, it's hardly satisfactory for British MEPs to vote against measures which are designed to improve the health and welfare of farm animals.

Just to drive the point home, here's the justification put forward for reducing stocking density:

"From a stocking density of 20kg/m2 onwards, animal welfare problems increase. Behaviour and leg disorder studies clearly show that high stocking density above 25 kg per square metre leads to serious welfare problems, as the restriction of movement causes foot pad dematitis, leg problems, breast blisters, restriction of normal behaviour, and ultimately high mortality rates."

Surely this is something that UK MEPs should be at the forefront of tackling?!

A measure of success this week in the ongoing campaign against the cruelty of bear-bile farming. Parliament adopted a written declaration – equivalent to an early-day motion in the Commons – calling on China to end the abhorrent practice of extracting bile from moon bears. And the Chinese government sat up and took notice, holding a press conference to discuss the issue.

The declaration was launched by Labour MEPs and co-signed by me. In the end, we secured the signatures of over half of all MEPs (377 members) to adopt the declaration as the official position of the European Parliament. Few written declarations make the grade – this shows the strength of feeling on this issue.
China must realise that there is international abhorrence of bear bile farming and ban it once and for all. My colleagues and I intend to keep up the international pressure. Hopefully, they’ll be forced to close these bile farms before the eyes of the world turn to them for the 2008 Olympics.

(For those readers who aren’t familiar with the unpleasant details: Asiatic black bears, or ‘moon bears’, are incarcerated in tiny wire cages with rusting metal catheters implanted in their abdomens through which bile is extracted for use in traditional medicines. Despite the availability of herbal and synthetic alternatives, this bile is still used in traditional Chinese medicines. It’s banned in the EU, but occasionally found by police in raids on Chinatown in London. More details and some rather gruesome photos are on the website of the World Society for the Protection of Animals.)

I note that the remaining restriction on the export of British beef (which affects cattle over 30 months old) is now also likely to be lifted. If approved by veterinary experts in January, this will mean that British been will once again be sold without any restriction whatsoever across Europe, 10 years on from being banned in the wake of the BSE crisis. All 25 EU countries will then accept all categories of British beef.

Readers will remember that France initially refused to accept British beef even for those categories that were declared safe some time ago (namely cattle up to 30 months old). We had to have recourse to the European Court of Justice for France to change its mind. All the other EU countries accepted British beef as soon as it was declared safe.

Outside the EU, there is little we could have done about the French ban - just as we have no mechanism for lifting the ban that remains on British beef across 80 other countries worldwide, including the USA. Inside the EU, all bar one country accepted our beef as soon as it was declared safe - and we had a legally binding procedure to deal with the one that didn't!

A constituent challenged MEPs from Bradford "to write to the Shipley Target and assure local voters that they are backing amendments to the proposals on chemical testing that will reduce the testing of such chemicals on animals". I am happy to write in and provide some assurance.

The whole point of having a common Europe-wide programme of testing the safety of chemicals (REACH), rather than 25 countries each duplicating each other with their own programmes, is to reduce the amount of testing necessary - saving costs and preventing unnecessary animal suffering.

We do need to find ways of testing chemicals. Recent medical evidence shows that each one of us has 300 more chemicals in our bodily tissues and blood than our grandparents did. We also know that there are increasing rates of asthma, cancer and other diseases which probably originate from chemicals.

Some in the chemical industry argue that such testing is costly. But anyone who recalls the asbestos tragedy will know that without money invested in the testing now can save thousands of lives and millions of pounds downstream. With the burden shared with our fellow countries in the European Union, this is well worth doing. And if it can be done while minimising animal testing, so much the better.