Taking the lead on lead shot

[Markio]

I got a responce from an SNP MEP,very good i thought til i replied and got the same computer generated answer.

 

Change the subject heading and send it again. Just a guess.

[Markio]

Received today from UKIP:

 

I can confirm that Mr Agnew will oppose any EU legislation to restrict the use of lead shot. This is yet another example of the European Commission barging in at the behest of the Green Lobby (which in the European Parliament contains a significant number of Communists). Mr Agnew has used a shotgun since the age he was legally allowed to carry one and is well aware of this issue and the implications that stem from it.

 

He does, however, have one reservation, which he would like you to pass on to the lobbying organisations for your sport. There are growing numbers of farmed poultry ranging outdoors in the UK. Lead shot should not be allowed to fall onto these areas, in any significant quantity. He is confident that the sport can regulate itself in this regard, without interference from the EU.

 

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), to which you refer, is what can be described as an EU controlled agency which has specifically been created to enforce the REACH Directive. This Agency has the power to change rules without any reference to MEPs and serves as a very good example of the undemocratic way in which we are governed by the EU. Indeed, it is far from clear to whom the ECHA is actually accountable.

 

MEPs can produce an 'own initiative' report in response to constituents’ concerns. This would take the form of 'calling on the Commission’ to take such and such an action. However, the Commission, even in the face of a massive majority, is not obliged to take action. As it is the only EU Institution with the power to propose legislation, they can ignore us if they choose.

 

We can sign 'written declarations’ and if they attract enough signatures, this can have a deterrent effect but the Commission is still likely to ignore them. However, that is a worst case scenario. The Commission is not stupid and will bend if it feels it expedient. We should be able to find many sympathetic MEPs from rural constituencies in the UK and in countries where there is a strong country sports lobby or sporting gun manufacturing base, such as France, Italy and Spain.

 

Mr Agnew feels it is time that the UK's shooting lobby got together en mass (a la the US NRA) to resist all government/green inspired attacks. Unfortunately it was due to short-sighted attitudes that we lost first carbines, then pistols. This was largely due to the shotgun lobby’s ‘ostrich’ mentality which meant that they adopted a policy of: "I don't shoot carbines or pistols so they can't hurt me!”. As a result we are weaker now and the anti-gun lobby will continue to peck away at our rights and freedoms. Much can be achieved by a more co-ordinated approach.

[Beardo]

i got the same reply as you Markio

[al4x]

Well ****** me if I didn't get a reply and its not negative considering its a Lib dem MP :o

 

Dear ~*****

 

Thank you for contacting Andrew Duff regarding the ECHA investigation into the impact of lead ammunition. This study is ongoing and at an early stage. It is impossible to predict the outcome of the study; it is far from certain that the ECHA would call for a blanket ban on lead ammunition as a result. Even if this were to be the case, such proposals would have to be taken up by the European Commission before being passed onto the Parliament. The Commission does not respond to each individual study by European agencies. In short: it is very unlikely that any legislation calling for a blanket ban on lead ammunition will be before the European Parliament for some time.

 

Nevertheless, Andrew is very much aware of the strength of feeling on this issue, and also of the important cultural and economic benefits that the shooting industry brings to the East of England. You can rest assured that he will have this in mind should any change to ammunition regulation be placed before the Parliament.

 

Thank you again for raising this important issue to Andrew's attention, and please do not hesitate to contact us again on this or any other European matter. We shall try to update you as any developments occur.

 

Best regards,

 

Amy Nerou

 

Amy Nerou

Assistant to Andrew Duff

Liberal Democrats MEP

[David BASC]

I have had just 1 reply from the 6 MEP’s I have e-mailed so far it reads:

 

ECHA Investigation into Lead in Ammunition

 

Thank you for your recent letter. You have expressed concern that the European Union might legislate to ban lead in ammunition, but I know of no such proposal.

 

In 2004 the European Commission published a study into the effects of lead shot on human health and the environment. The report acknowledged the toxicity of lead towards humans and to the environment beyond wetlands, which are covered under the international agreement to which your letter refers.

 

The report also noted that the effects depend on the concentration of the lead particles. Crucially in this instance effects are localised, with the primary environmental concern being potential soil contamination.

 

While migratory birds on wetlands have an obvious cross border context, Liberal Democrat MEPs believe that soil protection can and should be an issue of national rather than European authority.

 

It is, in any case, not presently clear that substitutes would be less likely to contaminate soil.

 

At the time of writing the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is aware of only one Member State that is considering new restrictions on the use of lead shot. I am told that Sweden is not likely to present its case for domestic restrictions until 2014.

 

A ban on the use of lead in ammunition is unlikely to come before MEPs in the near future. In the event that it does, I will assess its merits with a strong degree of scepticism.

 

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me on this issue.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Chris Davies MEP

 

 

 

The MEP’s are not aware of any proposal to ban lead shot though the European Parliament because there is no such proposal… its important to understand that under the REACH process MEPs are excluded from decision making on lead ammunition.

 

This is reserved to specific committees of the European Commission. If a decision were ever taken to ban lead ammunition the MEPs would not have a vote on the decision. (see post 27 – quote from UKIP)

 

They are limited to a vote on whether or not the Commission has exceeded its remit. The control of lead and other chemicals comes within the Commission’s competence.

 

 

David

[Thunderbird]

Dear me

 

Thank you for your email regarding lead in ammunition. As you know, I am passionate about rural life and rural pursuits and am sure you can imagine that the concept of Brussels interfering in this was simply not acceptable to me. Due to the number of constituent queries I have received on this issue, I contacted ECHA directly to obtain the current state of play on this matter as quickly as possible.

 

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has informed me of the following:

 

ECHA is not working on a restriction dossier on this issue, nor has the European Commission requested them to do so. However ECHA did carry out a number of studies on the cost effectiveness of reducing emissions from hazardous substances. Lead in ammunition was included as part of this package due to existing obligations under the African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA.). ECHA also felt that this study would be a valuable fact-finding exercise.

 

At present there has been no formal notice made by Sweden, in the Registry of Intentions, regarding a restriction dossier and so nothing is likely to come forward in the near future. Any request for a European wide restriction at some later date would be subject to a widespread consultation process and there is no reason to believe that this will happen. We will certainly keep watching and act accordingly if anything comes forward.

 

As your MEP, I will continue to support our rural heritage and way of life and will continue to push for less interference from Brussels.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Julie Girling

MEP for the South West of England & Gibraltar

Chief Whip of the UK Conservative Party Delegation in the European Parliament

Agriculture and Rural Development

Environment, Public Health & Food Safety

Fisheries

 

Email: julie.girling@europarl.europa.eu

Tel: 0032 228 45678

[wymberley]

Guys,

Have had an absolutely cracking reply from my MEP, Julie Girling which is good news. If I had any idea on how to transfer this from my inbox to here I'd do so but as I've said before, I'm somewhat of a computor dummy. Leave it with me and I'll see what I can sort out.

 

Edit: OK scrub around this! I have no idea how, but I missed Thunderbird's post and because I thought BASC may like the info I asked David if he could post it up.

 

David BASC, I'm sorry to have wasted your's and your colleagues' time.

 

I'll get me coat!

Edited July 10, 2012 by wymberley

[David BASC]

Try copy and paste, thats what i did

[wymberley]

Try copy and paste, thats what i did

I did try but it makes such a mess!

[David BASC]

No worries,

 

Seems the general message so far is that we need to wait until the report is made and see what it says and what the commission plans to do next.

 

Then back FACE UK and the joint defence by all the UK shooting organisations

 

David

[markm]

I have had the same response today as david basc has mentioned above.

[David BASC]

Got this from my Labour MeP's:

 

 

Thank you for your recent e-mail about lead in ammunition and the EU's chemical legislation. As well as myself, I am replying on behalf of my Labour MEP colleague, Arlene McCarthy, to whom you have also written on this matter.

 

I have discussed the points you raise with another of my Labour colleagues, Linda McAvan, who leads for our side in the European Parliament on this issue. She tells me that there are currently no plans to further restrict lead in lead shot. As you mention, the UK has already brought in restrictions on the use of lead shot in wetlands in line with our international environmental commitments. However it is the case that not all EU countries have done so yet.

 

With this in mind, the European Chemicals Agency has contracted a UK consultancy to study the cost of phasing out lead in shots, including examining possible alternatives. Stakeholders such as the Countryside Alliance have been providing information to help this research. The study is part of a wider project, in conjunction with the UK Environment Agency and the UK's Health and Safety Executive, to better understand the abatement costs of reducing the use of hazardous substances in general.

 

If the European Commission or any EU country decides in the future to propose further restrictions on lead in lead shots, this would have to go through a lengthy approval process lasting several years. Any proposal would be subject to several rounds of public consultation and would have to be agreed several times by a committee of experts from every EU member state. Officials from the UK government would be involved at every stage of the decision-making procedure.

 

Substances are only restricted after rigorous scientific assessment proving that there is a risk to human health or to the environment. To date, only fourteen substances are restricted under the EU’s REACH legislation and Linda McAvan stresses that the decision to do so is not taken lightly.

 

I now turn finally to the specific question you ask about the role of MEPs in the decision-making process. If the issue ever gets as far as a formal proposal, which as Linda points out is likely to be several years from now, then yes, MEPs would only have a very small role to play. What we have is the power of scrutiny over the final result as do national governments. This is the normal procedure for decisions made under what is known as comitology.

 

I hope you will find this information useful.

 

Best wishes,

 

Brian Simpson MEP

[kent]

Got this from my Labour MeP's:

 

 

Thank you for your recent e-mail about lead in ammunition and the EU's chemical legislation. As well as myself, I am replying on behalf of my Labour MEP colleague, Arlene McCarthy, to whom you have also written on this matter.

 

I have discussed the points you raise with another of my Labour colleagues, Linda McAvan, who leads for our side in the European Parliament on this issue. She tells me that there are currently no plans to further restrict lead in lead shot. As you mention, the UK has already brought in restrictions on the use of lead shot in wetlands in line with our international environmental commitments. However it is the case that not all EU countries have done so yet.

 

With this in mind, the European Chemicals Agency has contracted a UK consultancy to study the cost of phasing out lead in shots, including examining possible alternatives. Stakeholders such as the Countryside Alliance have been providing information to help this research. The study is part of a wider project, in conjunction with the UK Environment Agency and the UK's Health and Safety Executive, to better understand the abatement costs of reducing the use of hazardous substances in general.

 

If the European Commission or any EU country decides in the future to propose further restrictions on lead in lead shots, this would have to go through a lengthy approval process lasting several years. Any proposal would be subject to several rounds of public consultation and would have to be agreed several times by a committee of experts from every EU member state. Officials from the UK government would be involved at every stage of the decision-making procedure.

 

Substances are only restricted after rigorous scientific assessment proving that there is a risk to human health or to the environment. To date, only fourteen substances are restricted under the EU’s REACH legislation and Linda McAvan stresses that the decision to do so is not taken lightly.

 

I now turn finally to the specific question you ask about the role of MEPs in the decision-making process. If the issue ever gets as far as a formal proposal, which as Linda points out is likely to be several years from now, then yes, MEPs would only have a very small role to play. What we have is the power of scrutiny over the final result as do national governments. This is the normal procedure for decisions made under what is known as comitology.

 

I hope you will find this information useful.

 

Best wishes,

 

Brian Simpson MEP

 

 

Thank goodness thier part is small as they cannot even use the correct words "shots"

[David BASC]

I know, I spotted this, but at least they looked into it and gave an answer.

 

Seems that the MEPsl are on board, but as they say, if and when the commission decides what to do, their roll will he small and not able to do anything.

 

It seems clear the decision will be made by scientists and h&s experts with little if any political influence.

 

David

[Thunderbird]

I've had quite a few responses now and unless they're lying through their teeth (politicians, no?) I'm pretty pleased with the replies.

[Graham M]

Just received this reply from my MEP-

Dear Mr M

Thank you for your email regarding lead in ammunition. As the Conservative MEP who looks after correspondence from your area, I will answer on behalf of myself, Philip Bradbourn MEP and Anthea McIntyre MEP.

 

I read your concerns with great interest and took them to our spokesperson for this issue, Julie Girling MEP. She said:

 

“I am passionate about rural life and rural pursuits and I'm sure you can imagine that the concept of Brussels interfering in this was simply not acceptable to me. Due to the number of constituent queries I have received on this issue, I contacted ECHA directly to get a current state of play on this matter as quickly as possible.

 

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has informed me of the following:

 

“ECHA is not working on a restriction dossier on this issue, nor has the European Commission requested them to do so. However ECHA did carry out a number of studies on the cost effectiveness of reducing emissions from hazardous substances. Lead in ammunition was included as part of this package due to existing obligations under the African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA.) ECHA also felt that this study would be a valuable fact-finding exercise.

 

At present there has been no formal notice made by Sweden, in the Registry of Intentions, regarding a restriction dossier and so nothing is likely to come forward in the near future. Any request for a European wide restriction at some later date would be subject to a widespread consultation process and there is no reason to believe that this will happen. We will certainly keep watching and act accordingly if anything comes forward.”

 

As your MEP for this issue, I will continue to support and celebrate our rural heritage and way of life and I will continue to push for less interference from Brussels.”

 

Thank you for getting in touch, and I do hope the above message brings reassurance to your concerns.

 

Very best wishes,

 

Malcolm Harbour MEP

[al4x]

Just had one of the more amusing replies,

 

Thank you very much for your email. The European Union is constantly bringing in more and more legislation that controls our lives. Much of it is unnecessary and it often has an unforeseen negative impact on our lives and activities.

 

It is because of issues like this one that you raise, I am opposed to the UK remaining a member of the European Union.

 

I have written a pamphlet dispelling the pro-EU myths, setting out a timetable for withdrawal from the EU and a positive alternative to EU membership. You can download it from my website http://www.dcbmep.org/

 

Yours sincerely

 

David Campbell Bannerman MEP

[David BASC]

Dear all,

 

As you have seen many of the MEP’s are of a view that we are at the start of a long road, true enough!

 

The adoption of any new restriction on the manufacturing, placing on the market or use of substances involves 15 main steps.

 

Step 1We are currently at Step 1 – preparatory work. We can confirm that the consultants have submitted the results of their study on the use of lead shot in a report to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). On the basis of this report ECHA will consult with the initiating Member State (Sweden) and the European Commission on whether to proceed with a restriction and we are preparing for all possible outcomes.

 

Step 2We would reach Step 2 if Sweden or the European Commission decided to proceed with a restriction. In doing so they would first have to give notification of their intention to prepare a restriction dossier. ECHA maintains a Registry of Intentions which is publicly available on its website. That enables stakeholders to prepare their contributions to the process.

 

For more info on these steps have a look at http://www.basc.org.uk/en/media/key_issues.cfm/cid/CCB9D91A-9217-4238-9F6BDF36E4525FB7

 

David

[poontang]

Dear Mr Poontang

 

Thank you very much for your email. The European Union is constantly bringing in more and more legislation that controls our lives. Much of it is unnecessary and it often has an unforeseen negative impact on our lives and activities.

 

It is because of issues like this one that you raise, I am opposed to the UK remaining a member of the European Union.

 

I have written a pamphlet dispelling the pro-EU myths, setting out a timetable for withdrawal from the EU and a positive alternative to EU membership. You can download it from my website http://www.dcbmep.org/

 

Yours sincerely

 

David Campbell Bannerman MEP

 

 

:rolleyes:

 

 

A 'Tell it as it is' reply from a local Conservative MEP.

 

 

Edit: Looks like Al4x got one too.

Edited July 12, 2012 by poontang

[al4x]

so basically the threat will be slow if ever from europe but far more imminent from the WWT pushing DEFRA and the LAG in the banning direction.

[poontang]

 

 

 

 

Step 1We are currently at Step 1 – preparatory work. We can confirm that the consultants have submitted the results of their study on the use of lead shot in a report to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). On the basis of this report ECHA will consult with the initiating Member State (Sweden) and the European Commission on whether to proceed with a restriction and we are preparing for all possible outcomes.

 

 

 

 

 

David

 

Hi David,

 

Who are these 'consultants' and what were the results of their study to the ECHA please?

[David BASC]

I will ask for the details and get back to you all, I believe the study will be on the echa web site.

 

David

[Conor O'Gorman]

Thanks for spotting that Poontang, I will add the contractor name to the webpage update.

 

The contract was awarded to Amec Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited

Details published here

http://www.publictenders.net/node/1661614

 

Details of the prior open procurement procedure can be found here

http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13617/tender_specifications_echa_2011_140_en.pdf

See page 69 Lot 4: lead in shots

 

Details of the report submitted by Amec to ECHA have not been made public.

When its made public I will provide a link, as things stand I have no idea when that will be.

[clakk]

seems this may become more of a hot potato, here is a little bit that will e-mail your MEP on the issue.

 

http://campaign.publicaffairsbriefing.co.uk/emailsupport.aspx?cid=28d54059-db76-48fd-a7be-f54a2403cf6b

done thanks 4 the heads up :good:

[David BASC]

Picking up Al4x’s point on post 45, It would be risky in my opinion to say how quickly or how slowly REACH may move on this issue on a European level, or indeed what interim restrictions could be in place while consultations etc take place as they move through the next 14 steps, if indeed they do.

 

You will note that there is little if any political input from MEP’s through the 15 step process.

 

Turning back to the UK, I have no doubt that WWT et al will keep up the pressure but remember they are just one member of the LAG. What is most important as I have said before BASC’s advice to all is that compliance with the law on lead shot in the coming season is a key platform for mounting any successful defence of lead ammunition. Breaking the law – whatever one thinks of it – will only aid those who wish to see lead ammunition banned.

 

I have no doubt all the UK shooting organisations support this position.

 

David