David Martin's EU Tribune

Dumping on the ‘EU’

 ‘Dumping on the EU’ is the latest fad in international trade.  So being on the European Parliament’s International Trade Committee I have to be well versed on this latest fashion.

 The outright champion at this game is China and for the Chinese ‘dumping’, which in international trade language means selling something at less than the cost of producing it, seems to come naturally.

The European Union is China’s biggest supplier and China is second only to the United States as the source of EU imports. But the Europeans and Chinese almost always have something to argue about. This is despite the trade agreement they have had since 1985.

There is a long record of the European Commission proposing anti-dumping import duties on China and the European Council agreeing. The most celebrated case was very revealing if not uplifting. It was the ‘bra war’ of 2005. China was using its cheep material cost to swamp the EU with cheap products.

This time the problem is murkier and generating more heat than light: it is to do with solar panels.

 The Chinese can see that there is a flourishing market, especially in the Southern European countries with their hours of sunshine. There are solar farms all over Spain which are even spreading to Britain. The EU maintains that the Chinese are dumping solar panels.

 France, the major wine exporter in the EU, might under tactically directed pressure start to object to the anti-dumping duties. The Chinese are also interested in boosting their own growing wine production. In addition, they know that France has been a reluctant participant in the EU embargo on military supplies to China.

 The problem with international trade is that it is difficult to keep tabs on it. The EU Commission tries to steer an even path, wanting to expand its Member States’ exports to China and open up a huge market. But in response to protectionist demands from its own producers, it is bound to continue with anti-dumping investigations and actions. As a result China will retaliate. But whatever happened to bras and solar panels, there will continue to be more squables.

Keeping Money and Jobs Local!

There are many advantages in being part of the European Union (EU) is being part of the largest consumer market in the world, one is the level and value of public procurement i.e. the amount of money government and local government have to spend. 

As the laws concerning public procurement are set in the EU I thought it would be relevant to outline the current law and what we MEPs hope to achieve by reforming it.

Under the current European procurement laws, companies from all the Member States are given equal opportunity to bid for a contract with the only real criteria being the price.  This means that public procurement contacts are given to the lowest bidder.

However, we in the European Parliamentary Labour Party (EPLP) and our wider group the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, are not happy with money being the sole criteria.  Public procurement can, and should, be a vehicle for change: be it economic, or environmental.

With this in mind, my colleagues on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee voted through committee a report on Public Procurement which suggested a number of reforms.

The main reform would be the criteria against which the best bid is considered.  Instead of a contract going to the lowest bidder, public authorities (such as the local Council) would award the contract to the “most economically advantageous tender” (MEAT).  This means that the criteria would include environmental considerations such as sustainability and social objectives such as buying from firms with a particular social profile.

We also want to make it easier for smaller firms to bid for public contracts.  The average small to medium sized business has neither the time nor manpower to fill out form after form.  The report proposes the establishment of a “procurement passport” to show that a firm meets the criteria without sending in the same documentation every time they bid.

The report also simplified proposed rules enabling public authorities to subdivide contracts into lots, so as to enable small firms to bid for them.  This means that your local plumber, electrician or building firm stands a greater chance of winning work.

The purpose of these procurement reforms is to give Councils a greater freedom to grant contracts in a simpler framework.  This means local firms will stand a better chance to win local contracts.  This means that local firms can stay in business, local people can stay in work and their children can look forward to a future in the area they grew up in.

According to the Oxford Dictionary a blacklist is ‘…a list of people or groups regarded as unacceptable or untrustworthy and often marked down for punishment or exclusion.’ And on  Wikipedia: ‘…a blacklist (or black list) is a list or register of entities who, for one reason or another, are being denied a particular privilege, service, mobility, access or recognition.’  As a verb to blacklist can mean to deny someone work in a particular field, or to ostracize from a certain social circle – as a concept it runs totally counter to the ethos of the European Union (EU).

 Thanks to the Treaty of Rome (1957) being members of the European Union (EU) allows, nay gives us the right, to access the four freedoms of movement: of goods, capital, services and workers and citizens.  In essence we, as EU citizens and workers, can live, travel and work anywhere in the European Union’s 27 Member States.  As far as the EU Treaties are concerned we are all equal in these rights.

 Blacklisting is total anathema to civilised society – or the principles on which the EU was founded on.  That is why I am very pleased that the fight to totally outlaw this practice has been taken up in Brussels and Strasbourg.

According to recently released figures from the General Municipal and Boilermakers Union (GMB), the union for construction workers, 528 workers in Scotland are now known to have been blackilsted: and MEP’s and the GMB Union now know exactly where in Scotland this blacklisting has taken place.

People have been deprived of an honest living through these illegal tactics which have blighted their families’ lives  -  and not a single company has yet been punished nor have any of them paid compensation!

The blacklist first came to light when, in 2009, the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) seized a Consulting Association database of 3,213 construction workers which was used by 44 companies to vet new recruits and keep out of employment trade union and health and safety activists. The ICO never contacted anyone on the list to let them know they were blacklisted.

This is against natural justice, if not an infringement of human rights. I know this from my work on the Human Rights sub-Committeee in Brussels. The right to work is one of our basic human rights.  I dedicated myself to supporting measures at the European level to try and outlaw this petty and mean employment practice.

Last year I and my colleagues in Brussels gave a cautious welcome to a confirmation from the European Commission that, as part of its upcoming review of health & safety legislation, it would ensure that EU law is being followed and that workers’ health and safety reps are not being put at a disadvantage by employers.

 Labour MEPs demanded a clearer commitment on the issue of blacklisting of workers and called for a positive statement that the European Commission that would specifically address the issue of blacklisting.

 Unfortunately it has come to light at the European level that this practice, where workers are refused employment by employers across a whole sector of industry, still exists in Scotland, the United Kingdom and the European Union.  However, if we can get legislation enforced at the EU level it will apply at all other levels and throughout the 27 Member States – not a mean achievement!

  The EU Commissioner for Employment, László Andor, admitted the Commission is aware that some employers continue to blacklist workers. But thanks to our pressure – by 2015 – the European Commission must carry out a review of the implementation of EU health and safety legislation across Member States. The Commission has been asked to confirm that this review will look at blacklisting of workers’ health and safety reps – a practice which is illegal under EU law. The Commissioner confirmed that if the review does find that blacklisting remains a problem, then it will ensure that national governments apply ‘dissuasive, effective and proportionate penalties’ to infringers.

 There remains considerable concern that more work remains to be done to gain a cast iron  commitment from the European Commission that they will do all in their power to outlaw  entirely – and throughout the EU – the blacklisting of workers whose only crime has been to defend the safety of their colleagues in the workplace.

With attention being drawn to the prospect of the Coalition government choosing to “opt-out” of EU cross-border police and justice policies, tracking down and bringing to justice the perpetrators of what is primarily a trans-national crime – the trafficking in human beings – may become even harder. This throws an even greater focus on EU efforts for the prevention and combating of what has been called ‘the slavery of our times’.

Last month I welcomed the entry into force of the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive calling for more ambitious legislation and measures to be developed and implemented to fight trafficking. If fully transposed, the Directive has the potential to have a real and concrete impact on the lives of the victims and to prevent others from falling victim. The new rules cover actions in different areas such as criminal law provisions, prosecution of offenders, victims’ support and victims’ rights in criminal proceedings, prevention and monitoring of the implementation.

Victims of trafficking are often recruited, transported or harboured by force in abusive conditions. Most are trafficked for sexual exploitation but they can also be used for the purposes of forced labour, domestic servitude, forced begging, marriages and even more horrifically, the removal of organs and selling of children. The victims are often deprived of their passports, locked behind closed doors and barred from contacting their families. They live in fear of retaliation from their traffickers as well as the national authorities.

An estimated 880,000 people are believed to be in forced labour in the European Union. Women are by far the largest group of victims, fuelled by a booming sex industry and the consequent demand for sexual services, but trafficking also affects men, girls and boys. It is rooted in poverty, violence against women, conflict, discrimination and lack of employment and education. In short – desperation.

With the Directive, the Commission will publish new statistics on the number of people trafficked in and to the EU and user-friendly information about the rights to legal assistance, medical help, labour rights and temporary residence, as well as possibilities of claiming compensation. Having a clear overview of such rights, granted under EU legislation, should be of assistance both to victims and supportive organisations  working in the field. These rights are based on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, EU Directives, Framework Decisions and European Court of Human Rights case law.

As new patterns and trends of victim profiles are identified and the methods of traffickers become more evident the sharing of information and EU-wide co-operation become more and more important.  The criminal law provisions of the new Directive include a common definition of the crime, as well as aggravating circumstances, higher penalties and the principle of non-punishment of the victims for unlawful activities – such the use of false documents – in which they have been involved when subjected to traffickers.

A victim should be treated as such as soon as there is an indication that trafficking in involved, and provided with assistance before, during and after criminal proceedings. While taking a human rights based approach and centering on the victims (and where applicable the best interests children than may be involved)  it also establishes the possibility to prosecute EU nationals for crimes committed in other countries and to use investigative tools typical for fighting organised crime such as phone tapping and tracing proceeds of crime.  While the Directive’s aims are commendable, the focus will now be on its implementation. Certainly the UK’s “opting-out” of EU cross-border police and justice policies will not be making that any easier.

After their weekend discussions at Angela Merkel’s Schloss Meseberg residence, she and David Cameron identified “faster progress” on EU-world-wide trade agreements as one of their chief priorities.

This is not surprising. The EU remains the world’s largest exporter, importer, foreign direct investor, recipient of foreign direct investment and the largest recipient of international investment projects. In the current economic climate, trade is one of the most important means of achieving growth and creating jobs.

Cameron and Merkel no doubt had the impending EU-US trade deal in their sights. This, along with the on-going Japan-EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) would give the EU by far the most ambitious trade agenda in the world today. So why aren’t these agreements progressing faster?

As a Member of the European Parliament’s International Trade Committee (INTA) I am all too aware of the many challenges, including differing regulations and trade barriers such as tariffs and quotas that can be stumbling blocks in trade agreement negotiations.  The EU is right to use access to its market as leverage to ensure a good deal, economically, for its members. Equally important however, I believe, are the fundamental values that democratically, we have fought hard to inform our trading decisions, and that have taken the EU beyond being just a free trade area to that of a force to make change, a force to demand respect. I am talking of workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protection, equality and social inclusion. And on these we should not compromise. I am talking about the welfare requirements of animals and, as enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty, their status as sentient beings. And I am talking about sustainability, a consideration that the EU integrates into its trade policy by negotiating commitments on the environment into its bilateral trade agreements.

Although commercial whaling is prohibited under the international Whaling Commission (IWC) Japan has continued to hunt whales under an exception for scientific research. It also has a reservation under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) which allows it to trade in whale products, an otherwise prohibited activity. Negotiations for an EU-Japan trade agreement were officially launched in March this year with the first round of negotiations due to begin this month. Prior to this, in December last year I was I delighted that the European Parliament voted to endorse my amendments to this planned agreement, amendments that noted the serious divergences between the EU and Japan on issues relating to the management of fisheries and whaling, notably Japan’s so called ‘scientific research’ a practice that is known widely to be simply whaling under the guise of science.

The EU, collectively, has long supported the global moratorium on commercial whaling and a ban on international commercial trade in whale products. Commercial whaling or trade in whale products is prohibited in the European Union and the issue of Japan’s so-called ‘scientific whaling’ is one that will certainly be at the forefront of any discussions on a potential EU-Japan Free Trade Agreement.

A stumbling block perhaps, but since 1987 Japan has killed more than 13,000 whales and my amendments demonstrate a continued commitment in the EU for animal welfare and sustainability in relation to trade. The INTA Committee has emphasised the need for “a robust and ambitious sustainable development chapter” that will “also include the establishment of a civil society forum that monitors and comments on,” among other things, “the effective implementation of multilateral agreements on the environment, animal welfare and the conservation of biological diversity.”

Europeans and EU legislation are clear. There is no need, desire or justification for the cruelty of whaling. Japan must understand that their insistence on whaling can only harm EU-Japanese relations and could seriously hamper their efforts to negotiate a free trade deal.

Animal Welfare before Trade Supremacy

There was much jubilation when in September 2009 a vote in the European Parliament and Council adopted a regulation banning the marketing and importing of seal products. It had been a hard-fought campaign.

What was not so well publicized was that almost immediately Canada and Norway filed requests for World Trade Organisation (WTO) consultations and when these failed they then requested that the WTO establish a panel to adjudicate their challenge that the seal ban violated WTO law. Their complicated claims concerned alleged violations to the Traditional General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), violations of the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreements (TBT) and violations to the Agreement on Agriculture. The first hearing with the parties took place in February. The report will come out later this year and if in Canada and Norway’s favour the EU can appeal the decision with an expected final judgment in spring 2014.

This WTO appeal has raised the question as to whether banning the import and export of seal products for moral reasons violates WTO law, i.e. can moral, ethical, and philosophical reasons be considered adequate to justify trade-restrictive measures. And what if the WTO cannot recognize these types of justifications? Does this mean that it cannot respect pluralism? Cannot allow countries to justify their trade-related actions through non-instrumental reasoning?

A positive ruling from the dispute settlement procedure will confirm that countries are entitled to introduce trade restrictions and trade bans on the basis of “public morality” and “animal welfare” only if these comply with WTO rules.

I believe that if one group of veterinarians in a country comes to the conclusion that the killing of seals by a particular method is humane then this cannot prevent another country, people or union of member states from interpreting differently, according to their own moral commitments and attitudes. Legitimate, well-founded, almost universally respected moral justifications such as respect for animal welfare and repugnance at complicity with cruelty to animals should not be dismissed as legitimate grounds for regulation.

I and many of my colleagues are urging the EU to stand strong in defence of the EU seal regulation. Scientific evidence has concluded that it is inherently impossible to kill seals in a humane manner. Only a trade ban can ensure that this concern is addressed properly. Meanwhile Canada and Norway continue to dismiss the concern and outrage of millions of Europeans as well as their right to reject products which are the result of animal suffering.

We Must Support Tibet

In June of this year the Parliament passed a resolution concerning Tibet. It included criticism of human rights abuses occurring in the region and demanded that China reveals the whereabouts of victims of self-immolation. The resolution also called on Cathy Ashton, the Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, to appoint a special EU coordinator for Tibet. Furthermore, China was urged to grant meaningful autonomy to Tibet and the Parliament rejected the Chinese government’s argument that the engagement of governments with the Dalai Lama constitutes a breach of the ‘One China Policy’. I was pleased that Parliament supported the call that China should refrain from settlement policies in favour of the Han people and from forcing Tibetan nomads to abandon their traditional lifestyle.

More recently, the Parliament approved a report last week on EU-China relations by the Foreign Affairs committee. This report acknowledged that there remains distinct interpretations of human rights between the EU and China; China views human rights in terms of socio-economic rights such as access to food and employment, whereas the EU takes a broader approach. I was pleased to see that the report explicitly states that the Parliament ‘admires and supports the courage and activism of those Chinese citizens acting in socially responsible ways to promote and defend universally recognised social and human rights’.

With regards to Tibet specifically, the report noted the impact of the Chinese Government’s economic development policies on nomad communities and traditional livelihoods. It urged the Chinese government to act in a politically responsible way by meaningfully engaging the Tibetan people in governance issues. I agree with the report’s claim that the Chinese Government will not achieve lasting stability in Tibet through forced assimilation, cultural destruction or repressive police and security methods. The situation will only improve if the Chinese Government puts an end to the ban on independent observers visiting the region, which the report also supports.

At the beginning of March I also attended a meeting in the Human Rights (DROI) committee, of which I am a member, that hosted an exchange of views with Tibetan Lama, Kirti Rinpoche (Kirti Monastery). This was a very interesting and useful meeting in which the Lama discussed the threat of extinction to the Tibetan language and the displacement and forced relocation of nomads, amongst other issues. He reminded the parliament that the situation is despearate due to the ongoing crisis. The Lama thanked the Parliament for all we have done so far, but urged us to continue to monitor the situation. I assure you that we will continue to not only view the overall situation, but also follow the cases of individuals.

In addition to this, Cathy Ashton, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, has repeatedly stated that the EU calls upon the Chinese authorities to respect the rights of Tibetans to peaceful assembly and expression, to act with restraint, and to release all individuals detained for taking part in peaceful demonstrations.

The EU has also provided some practical assistance to the people of Tibet. Just one example is the almost three quarters of a million Euros to support the establishment of a comprehensive rehabilitation scheme in rural and urban areas for people with disabilities. Projects funded by this money support people with disabilities in Lhasa and Shigatse prefectures in gaining autonomy and participating in social life, as well children to be integrated into mainstream education.

Stop the Cruel Testing of Cosmetics on Animals

 Mahatma Ghandi once said, and I paraphrase: ‘You can gauge the civilisation of any society by the way it treats the animals in its trust’.

 We in the European Parliament vote through a number of pieces of legislation during our plenary sessions.  However they do not take instant effect.   Member States are given a deadline in which to enact this legislation.

 One example of this is the EU Cosmetics Directive which came into full effect this March.

 The full enforcement of the Cosmetic Directive means there is a now a complete ban in the European Union (EU) for the selling of cosmetic products and ingredients that have been newly tested on animals, no matter where in the world the testing is done.  We have had a long journey to get to this point.

 Animal testing of finished cosmetic products has been prohibited, within the EU, since 2004 and the use of cosmetic ingredients since March 2009.  The most complex tests were exempted from this ban until March.  This meant that animal testing could be carried on outside the Union and the results used for the safety assessment in the EU. 

European consumers were indirectly benefiting from animal testing.  The full ban means no such products can now be sold within the Union.  This sends a powerful message to the global cosmetics industry, especially as Europe is one of their biggest markets.

 However, we are not hurting the cosmetic companies.  The ban is not retrospective so old animal-tested products will not been banned.  Virtually all ingredients have been animal tested at some point (even water).  A retrospective ban would in effect have to ban all existing products.  On top of that, a retrospective ban would be of no benefit to those animals already tested on.

 There is no to deny that testing is important.  We need to make sure the products we use on our bodies are safe.  However, it should not be at the expense of animal welfare.  Animal testing is cruel and unnatural.  The animals are treated barbarically and at end of testing, the animals are killed, usually without any form of pain relief.  Testing on animals also has its scientific limits as different species can respond differently when exposed to the same chemicals.

 Results from animal tests may not be relevant to humans.  In addition results from animal tests can be quite variable and difficult to interpret.  Unreliable and non-predicative animal tests means consumer safety cannot be guaranteed.  With that in mind, the European Commission has been working with and funding the search for alternative testing method.  By finding alternative testing methods, we are making products safer and there will be no lapse in EU safety assessment.

 I am personally delighted that the legislation is now fully enforced.  Animal welfare has always been an issue close to my heart.  Before entering politics, I worked for the charities The St Andrews Animal Fund and Advocates for Animals (now known as OneKind) and am currently the Vice-President of the European Parliament’s Intergroup on the Welfare and Conversation of Animals.  Decent animal welfare is something I have been working for, for over 30 years.

I hope that this ban will be an incentive for companies world-wide to stop animal testing and encourage other countries to change their laws and regulations.

 And I am proud to have played some small part in moving the European Union closer to a society of which the great Indian prophet would call ‘civilised’!

 I Welcome Europe-Wide Ban on Sale of Animal-Tested Cosmetics

 This is something I have been working for since the day I left Advocates for Animals to take up my role as an elected representative of the people of Edinburgh and the Lothians in Strasbourg – hurrah!

 I welcome that this Monday, 11 March, marked the date from which there is a complete ban in the European Union for the selling of cosmetic products and ingredients that have been newly tested on animals.

I am delighted that there is now no place for any animal tested cosmetic product in the Europe Union. This is a goal we in the Eurogroup for Animals, along with many other animal welfare campaigning groups, most notably the Human Society International, have long been striving for.

We have had a long journey to get to this point. Animal testing of finished cosmetic products in the EU has been prohibited since 2004 and of cosmetic ingredients since March 2009, but loopholes have remained in place after intensive lobbying by the cosmetics industry.

The ban is not retrospective so old animal-tested products will not be banned – the most complex tests were exempted from the ban until this Monday. This has meant that animal testing could be carried on outside the Union with the results used for the safety assessment in the Union and that the cruel and widely-condemned practice was still being used on products available to EU consumers. Between 2007 and 2011 the Commission made about 238 million euros available for research into alternative methods. Although full replacement of animal testing by alternative methods is not yet possible the search for alternative methods, incentivised by Monday’s decision, will continue.

 This date marks a ‘line in the sand’ and bans, in the EU, the sale of cosmetic products containing ingredients that have been newly animal-tested after this date, no matter where in the world that testing may have taken place.

 Many of my constituents, along with animal welfare groups have been extremely concerned that the Commission might extend the deadline. I have been questioning the Commission on a regular basis to make sure this was not going to be the case and I am very happy that it was not.

 I hope this will be an incentive for companies world-wide to stop testing their cosmetic products on animals and to encourage other countries to also change their laws and regulations.”

 While it is important that cosmetic products are safe for human use, it should not be at the expense of animal welfare.

Blacklisting is Victimisation

Blacklisting is wrong!

Along with my colleagues in the European Parliamentary Labour Party I am demanding a clearer commitment from Euro bosses on the issue of blacklisting of workers.

We are pleased at the confirmation from the European Commission that, as part of its upcoming review of health and safety legislation, it will ensure that European Union (EU) law is being followed and that workers’ health and safety reps are not being put at a disadvantage by employers.

However, we have called for a much more positive statement that the European Commission which will specifically address the issue of blacklisting. The practice of ‘blacklisting’ – where workers may be refused employment by employers across the whole sector – still exists.  The EU Commissioner for Employment, László Andor, admitted in an earlier Parliamentary answer  that the Commission is aware that some employers continue to blacklist workers.

By 2015, the European Commission must carry out a review of the implementation of EU health and safety legislation across member states. In a parliamentary question, we  asked the Commission to confirm whether this review would look at blacklisting of workers’ health and safety reps, a practice which is illegal under EU law.

Commissioner Andor confirmed that the review will address the issue of protection for trade unionists and workforce representatives who deal with health and safety on behalf of their colleagues.  He also confirmed that if the review does find that blacklisting remains a problem, then the Commission will ensure that national governments apply ‘dissuasive, effective and proportionate penalties’ to infringers.

However, the Commissioner still leaves himself room to backtrack on whether the review will look specifically at the extent of blacklisting in EU countries. Given the abuses we have seen recently, I want an absolute commitment from the Commission that they will do all in their power to outlaw entirely the blacklisting of workers whose only crime has been to defend the safety of their colleagues in the workplace.

The Labour MEPs originally took up the issue of blacklisting on behalf of a constituent and member of the building trades union UCATT and has made some headway. The first hopeful signs emerged when Labour MEP joined a delegation from the grassroots Blacklist Support Group in a “very positive” 30 June 2011 meeting with EU Employment Commissioner László Andor.

At the end of 2011, the European Parliament demanded an end to the blacklisting of employees through tougher sanctions on offending employers.  It is now 2013 and we want action. 

No more blacklisting!