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.

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.

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.

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.

 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’!

 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 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!

Like all people in Scotland I am worried about the state of our economy. People are worried about their jobs and our high streets are in crisis.

Our economy is stagnating and unemployment is too high.

That’s why I am so concerned that because the Prime Minister is too weak to control his own party on Europe, he risks creating years of economic uncertainty that will put investment and jobs at risk – just at the time when we need them most.

Of course, I know that there are many differing views on the European Union and I hear them from my constituents.

I am clear that the EU needs to change and work better for people in here in Britain.

But the real tragedy of David Cameron’s speech is that David Cameron’s Party won’t let him address the need for change in the EU in a sensible and pragmatic way.

David Cameron says he wants to be in the EU but for many in his Party, getting David Cameron to commit now to an in/out referendum is not about consent, but about exit.

Sadly it seems we have a British Prime Minister sleepwalking towards exit, knowing he is letting down the national interest, but too weak to do anything about it.

Labour’s approach is that to get the best deal for Britain we need to be round the table with our allies in Europe, not shouting from the sidelines with one foot already out of the door.

It simply doesn’t make sense to leave the largest trading bloc in the world and give up the ability to influence the rules of the market where almost half of all UK exports end up.

Business leaders from across the country are clear that leaving the EU would be bad for jobs and bad for our economy. In an open letter earlier this month, the heads of some of the UK’s largest companies warned of the damaging uncertainty the announcement of a referendum would do. It will scare off investment and the companies that bring jobs here at the very time we need them most.

European unity is not – and must not – be about never ending union towards common federal government or the merging of national identities into a United States of Europe.

Instead, Labour’s vision of Europe is a flexible Europe with a common political framework that can permanently accommodate varying levels of integration amongst Member States.

There is so much that we can do to make Europe work us – from tackling cross-border crime and making sure that murderers and paedophiles who have committed crimes in the UK don’t escape justice for technical reasons of being outside the EU.

But Labour are clear Europe needs to change – and that is why we are calling for reforms that will help make the EU more focused on promoting jobs and growth – like reducing and reforming the EU Budget and having a European Commissioner with sole responsibility for promoting Growth in the EU.

And yes that would mean here in Scotland we can better deal, more funds to create more jobs and build a better local economy.

We will also have to deal with how we can encourage Britons to go and work in Europe if that is what they want to do, but also make sure that we manage much better when others come to our country, and what benefits they are entitled to when they do.

So as Labour, we will make the hard headed, patriotic case, founded on the national interest, both for Britain in Europe, and for change in Europe.

When there is so much for us to do to get Britain back on its feet again, allowing ourselves to push away from our main tasks at hand would be taking a reckless gamble with our country’s future. .

Clearly David Cameron is a Prime Minister imprisoned by party interest, so it falls to Labour to stand up for the national interest.

Thanks to the efforts of European Socialists and Social Democratic Ministers, the EU Social Ministers Council meetings in Brussels have today agreed to introduce a European-wide Youth Guarantee.

After a year of intense campaigning under the umbrella of the Party of European Socialists (PES) family, an EU-wide ‘youth guarantee’ has been made a reality, by the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) with an initial funding of 6 billion euro from the EU budget to tackle young unemployment.

This positive outcome from the Council echoes the tireless efforts of PES ‘family’ from activists to Socialist Prime Ministers and Presidents. The efforts of EU Commissioner for Social Affairs Laszlo Andor and the support of the European Parliament were also instrumental in such rapid progress being made.

PES President Sergei Stanishev stated: “This decision should be seen as a great start of our journey to rebuild the futures of millions of young people left stranded by weeks, months, or years of unemployment. One year ago, the European Youth Guarantee was an ambitious idea. 20 days ago, PES Heads of State and Prime Ministers secured a budget line of 6 billion euro dedicated to young unemployment and, today, the EPSCO Council has made the Youth Guarantee official. This is a huge success but not the end of the road. Now, we need to increase funding to 10 billion euros so that we can bring the Youth Guarantee to all corners of the EU”.

The funding of the scheme must be shared at national and European level, particularly through the European Social Fund. A 6 billion euro package is a promising beginning but we cannot put a funding ceiling on combating youth unemployment. The PES family will keep the pressure on to ensure that the Youth Guarantee reaches as many as possible of the 5.8 million futures blighted by this crisis.

Thanks to the Irish Labour Party, tackling the issue of youth unemployment has been one of the top priorities of the Irish Presidency of the Council of the EU. The scheme, inspired by the successful experiences in Austria and Finland, has been recently implemented in Luxembourg and it is at the centre of the political debate in France.

Since February 2012, all PES Member Parties have been active in the ‘Your Future is My Future’ campaign to establish a European-wide Youth Guarantee. Only the Left in Europe have the policies to help our youth!

This New Year saw Ireland take over the Presidency of the Council of the European Union. This means that for the next six months Ireland is setting the agenda in Europe. In their first week, Ireland set a number of priorities for their term including growing the single digital market and finalising the banking union for Euro users. However the Irish Presidency confirmed that the first item on economic council agenda was the Financial Transaction Tax.
To put it simply, a Financial Transaction Tax would see banks make a real contribution to the economic recovery. The tax would see a 0.01% levy on the purchase and sale transfer of 4 main financial asset classes: equities, bonds, foreign exchanges and their derivatives. It is estimated that if such a tax was introduced in the UK, it would raise £8.4 billion.
The main argument of those opposed to such a tax is that it would need to be implemented in other countries so as not to disadvantage our financial sector. This criticism no longer applies as this month eleven of our European neighbours have decided to introduce the tax. Included in this eleven were two of Europe’s biggest economies, France and Germany. Of course I am disappointed that the British Government has not followed suit but I hope it is only a matter of time.
Such a levy could be put to good use including, a programme to tackle climate change, to boost foreign aid and reverse government cuts. One option for a portion of this revenue could be used to tackle youth unemployment by funding a Youth Guarantee Scheme.
In Scotland, youth unemployment currently sits at 19.9%.
For nearly a year, we in the European Parliament have been calling for a Youth Guarantee Scheme. We propose that Member- State governments should be encouraged to pass legislation guaranteeing that in their countries, all those EU citizens and residents under 25 years old and those recent graduates under the age of 30 would be given the offer of a good-quality job, an apprenticeship or a place in further education within four months of becoming unemployed or leaving formal education.
There is no denying that the start-up cost for the Guarantee would be significant, but a tax on banks combined with European funding would shoulder the cost. The long terms costs of continued youth unemployment would be higher.
By investing in our young, we are investing in an increase in tax revenues, a reduction in the amount of social benefits and the strengthening of our national economy.
Last week, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly in support of the measure. I hope the UK government decides to follow suit in the month ahead.