2 Use of cat and dog fur
| (28075)
15674/06
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(06) 684
| Draft Regulation banning the placing on the market and the import of or export from the Community of cat and dog fur and products containing such fur
|
| Legal base | Articles 95 and 133 EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Document originated | 20 November 2006
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 27 November 2006
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 18 December 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information awaited
|
Background
2.1 According to the Commission, although cat and dog fur are
not separately identified in the trade statistics, there is evidence
that such fur (and products containing them) are currently entering
the Community and being traded, without being declared as such.
It also says that, since this fur is not readily distinguishable
from other kinds (including synthetic material), and tends to
be less expensive, there has been an incentive to fraudulent labelling,
which has led to concerns among consumers that they could unwittingly
buy fur or products made from cats and dogs — concerns which
are increased by the fact that most of these products originate
from third countries where cats and dogs may be reared and killed
under inhumane conditions.
2.2 The Commission also points out that these concerns
have led a number of Member States to introduce national measures
to restrict or ban the use of fur from cats and dogs, including
bans on their rearing for fur production, bans of the production
and/or import of fur produced from those animals, and labelling
requirements. It adds that increasing public awareness of the
problem is likely to result in further action at national level,
which could lead to a fragmentation of the internal market.
The current document
2.3 The Commission has therefore put forward this
draft Regulation, which would ban the placing on the market, and
the import to or export from the Community, of fur from cats and
dogs and of products made from them. It also requires information
on new methods for detecting the species of origin of fur and
fur products to be made available to the Commission and exchanged
between Member States, with a view to establishing common detection
methodologies at Community level.
The Government's view
2.4 In their joint Explanatory Memorandum of 18 December
2006, the Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare
at the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Ben
Bradshaw) and Minister for Trade, Investment and foreign Affairs
at the Department of Trade and Industry (Mr Ian McCartney) note
that the proposal follows a commitment in the Commission's Action
Plan on the Protection of Welfare of Animals to address public
concerns in this area, and comes after successful lobbying by
the UK and others. The Government has therefore welcomed the proposal,
and has said that the UK will work to ensure that a workable ban
is implemented as soon as possible. However, the Ministers point
out that, although the proposal will address public concerns,
the EU Treaty does not enable the Community to legislate on the
basis of ethical considerations, and that the proposal's legal
basis rests on the need to prevent obstacles which might affect
the functioning of the internal market.
2.5 They add that there is no substantial evidence
that cat and dog fur (or items containing them) are being imported
or are on sale in the UK, and they point out that national legislation
already prohibits the keeping of animals (including cats and dogs)
solely or primarily for the value of their fur. However, they
also note that the British Fur Trade Association does not believe
that this legislation is necessary as its members have voluntarily
undertaken not to trade in domestic cat and dog fur, and that
it is also concerned that the proposal will lead to possible further
initiatives aimed at banning fur in general from the Community
market.
2.6 The Ministers have attached to their Explanatory
Memorandum a partial Regulatory Impact Assessment. This highlights
the difficulties of quantifying the extent of the present trade
in cat and dog fur, and hence of assessing the potential costs
and benefits of the proposal, particularly as the fur in question
could also be incorporated in a large number of other products.
In addition, the costs will depend upon the degree of enforcement
envisaged, which could include action only if clear evidence presents
itself; taking a more proactive approach, but seeking to reduce
the burden by targeting consignments most likely to include cat
and dog fur; or adopting a blanket approach to all consignments.
However, if attention were concentrated on imports from third
countries of items most likely to contain cat and dog fur, the
Assessment suggests that about £2.6 billion of import trade
would be covered in the UK, whereas some £9.5 billion of
imports would be affected if all potential products were covered.
In short, it says that there is a clear trade-off between the
degree of enforcement and the likely costs.
Conclusion
2.7 The concerns expressed by consumers over the
likelihood of purchasing items made from cat and dog fur are understandable,
and the rationale for this proposal is hence clear. However, it
is also clear that there are a number of uncertainties relating
both to the testing methods to be applied, and more particularly
to the way in which the measure would be enforced. We note that
the Government will be producing a further Regulatory Impact Assessment
once work on assessing the implications of the proposal have been
completed, and we propose to take a further view on it at that
stage. In the meantime, we think it right to draw the proposal
to the attention of the House.
|
