European and External Relations Committee
Meeting date: Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Official Report
466KB pdf
“Brussels Bulletin”
Agenda item 2 is the “Brussels Bulletin”. Do members have any comments on it?
I refer to page 3 of the bulletin and the elements of “An Agenda for new skills and jobs: A European contribution towards full employment” under the Europe 2020 strategy. The bulletin says:
“The Communication sets out four priorities”
and that it
“expands on these priorities with a series of actions.”
There are many important elements within those actions. I want to highlight actions 10 and 12, which are about reviewing the health and safety strategy and legislation. Those actions should be flagged up. This committee will not deal with them because of the timescales that are attached to them, but a future committee might look forward to dealing with them.
That point about the Europe 2020 initiative is well made. I, too, considered that. Perhaps we can pass it on to Ian Duncan.
We will have the cabinet secretary before us on 18 January. He is responsible for Europe 2020, so we will have a chance to make that point then as well.
That is good. Thanks very much.
I again flag up the great difficulties that the Scottish fishing fleet is facing at the moment. Negotiations are under way today in Brussels, and a 50 per cent drop in fishing for cod stocks off the west coast of Scotland is among the proposals that are being made. If there is no improvement on that proposal, it will basically decimate that industry. Even worse, there is talk of a 100 per cent cut in fishing for cod off the west coast of Scotland and in the Irish Sea from next year. Therefore, there are major issues for the Scottish fleet.
I also draw attention to the fact that there is supposed to be consideration of punitive measures against Iceland and the Faroe Islands for what has been described as their illegal activity of overfishing mackerel in their waters. It should be noted that, despite all the propaganda that we are hearing, neither Iceland nor the Faroe Islands was invited to be party to the discussions on mackerel quotas. As they were not invited to take part in those discussions, it might be regarded as a bit thick that they are now allegedly to be punished for overfishing stocks in their own territorial waters.
Amid all the propaganda about dreadful Iceland and the dreadful Faroe Islands, it should be remembered that since neither of those countries is a member of the European Union, neither was invited to be party to the discussion. It is perhaps not unreasonable, therefore, that they should go ahead and fish for mackerel in the numbers that they consider appropriate. Obviously, the matter will have to be sorted out, but, given the background to the dispute, we should not necessarily believe everything that we read about the dreadful Faroese and the dreadful Icelanders.
I do not quite agree with Ted Brocklebank. There is a long tradition of quotas being settled. My understanding is that although Iceland and the Faroes had not been invited to the quota meetings, the meetings had been intended to go ahead as normal. The Faroes fish regularly for mackerel in Norwegian waters under agreement, but long-standing agreements are now clearly being broken. There is a problem with the behaviour of Iceland and the Faroes.
That is not accurate because, strictly speaking, any deal that the Faroes does with Norway, which is not an EU member, is outwith the EU negotiations. Neither Iceland nor the Faroes is a member of the EU.
Over the past year, mackerel have moved north into colder waters, as we have seen with cod and other species. Large numbers of mackerel are now swimming in Icelandic and Faroese waters that were not there before. Given that Iceland and the Faroe Islands were not invited to take part in the unilateral discussions that are held under the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, it is not unreasonable that they should come to their own view on the matter. I am arguing Bill Wilson’s point now, but I have talked to some of our own mackerel fishermen up in the north-east of Scotland, who ask whether, if Scotland was in the same situation, we would not be doing exactly the same thing.
The evidence from Marine Scotland did not say that the mackerel had moved north. It said that because there had been successful conservation measures, the population was expanding outwards. That successful conservation measure is now at risk because of a unilateral decision to catch large numbers of fish that were not previously being caught.
It serves no useful purpose for us to carry on arguing. There is another side to the issue.
It proves that fish do not know whether they are in EU waters. It is an interesting point.
Do we pass on our comments to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee?
Simon Watkins: We can certainly do that.
We should express the two viewpoints.
Page 1 of the “Brussels Bulletin” talks about the United Kingdom seeking a freeze on the EU budget. I would like Ian Duncan to keep an eye on that. Obviously, if there is a freeze on the budget, it will have an effect on Scotland.