1 Use
of cat and dog fur
| (28075)
15674/06
+ ADD 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 133EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | SEM of 10 May 2007
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 41-v (2006-07), para 2 (10 January 2007)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 11-12 June 2007
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
1.1 According to the Commission, there is evidence that cat and
dog fur is currently entering the Community and being traded,
without being declared as such. Moreover, since it is not readily
distinguishable from other kinds of fur, and tends to be less
expensive, there has been an incentive to fraudulent labelling,
leading to concerns that consumers could unwittingly buy fur or
products made from cats and dogs. In addition, it says that these
concerns have led a number of Member States to introduce national
measures, and that increasing public awareness of the problem
is likely to result in further action, which could lead to a fragmentation
of the internal market.
1.2 It therefore put forward in November 2006 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 would also require information
on new methods for detecting the species of origin to be made
available to the Commission and exchanged between Member States,
with a view to establishing common detection methodologies at
Community level.
1.3 In our Report of 10 January 2007, we noted that
the Government had welcomed the proposal, but had pointed out
that the EC 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. It had added 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 that national legislation already prohibits the keeping of
animals solely or primarily for the value of their fur. Also,
members of the British Fur Trade Association had voluntarily undertaken
not to trade in domestic cat and dog fur, and were concerned that
the proposal would lead to the general banning of fur from the
Community market.
1.4 We also noted that a partial Regulatory Impact
Assessment had highlighted the difficulties of quantifying the
extent of the present trade, and hence of assessing the potential
costs and benefits of the proposal. Moreover, the costs would
depend upon the degree of enforcement envisaged: thus, if attention
was concentrated on imports from third countries of items most
likely to contain cat and dog fur, the Assessment suggested 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, there
is a clear trade-off between the degree of enforcement and the
likely costs. In view of this, and the fact that the Government
intended to produce a further Assessment, we said that we would
take a further view on it at that stage.
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 10 May
2007
1.5 We have received jointly from the Minister for
Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare at the Department
of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Ben Bradshaw) and the
Minister for Trade, Investment and Foreign Affairs at the Department
of Trade and Industry (Mr Ian McCartney) a supplementary Explanatory
Memorandum of 10 May 2007, enclosing an updated Regulatory Impact
Assessment. The latter appears to add little to the earlier Assessment
provided by the Ministers in December 2006, but, in their supplementary
Explanatory Memorandum, they confirm that, on the basis that there
is no substantiated evidence that cat and dog fur (or items containing
them) are being imported or are on sale in the UK, and in the
absence of agreement on a fully comprehensive testing regime,
the Government intends to adopt a "light touch" approach
to enforcement. Thus, action would be taken only when clear cut
evidence of attempts to breach a ban is found during physical
examination checks for other enforcement purposes.
Conclusion
1.6 We have noted the continuing difficulty of
assessing the potential costs and benefits of this proposal, but
that the Government intends to adopt a "light touch"
to enforcement. In view of the probability that cat and dog fur
are not being used in the UK, this strikes us as a sensible and
proportionate approach. However, as the costs of any such action
would fall, not just on HM Revenue and Customs, but on traders
as well, we would like to be clear that there is no risk of the
UK being put under pressure subsequently by the Commission to
take a more proactive approach. We would be grateful therefore
if the Ministers could provide us with the necessary reassurance.
|
