European and External Relations Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Official Report 444KB pdf

---

“Brussels Bulletin”

I am sure that MEPs would be quite happy to do that if there was an interest in a case.

Ian Duncan might have information to add.

The information is available on the European Parliament website. You could perhaps register an interest with the MEPs about human rights for when that topic comes up again in future.

If any issue that is coming up is of interest, I suppose that we can ask an MEP about it. I just wanted to know how we can find out what is coming up.

On the item about bluefin tuna on page 4, I do not know whether Ian Duncan or others saw the recent film “The End of the Line”, which highlights the pillaging of the seas in many places and focuses on bluefin tuna specifically. Of course, whereas the EU has always been extremely diligent in hammering down on our people for allegedly fishing out cod stocks, it seems to have been dilatory in dealing with bluefin tuna, which is set to become virtually extinct. There is still talk of providing an extra year’s delay for the implementation of the ban.

I was interested to read, on the same page, about Catherine Stihler raising the case of the Eritrean girl who faces deportation. There are similar cases in the area that I cover and I am sure that the same is true of other MSPs’ areas. It is interesting that the issue was raised at question time. Perhaps I could contact one of my party’s MEPs, although Catherine is very good—I have spoken to her on numerous occasions. It might be the case that MSPs could contact an MEP to find out whether they could raise a particular case in the European Parliament.

That happened at a themed question time, which the President of the Commission regularly attends. The case that Sandra White mentioned fell within the theme that was being dealt with. The themes are announced well in advance. If members had an issue that they wanted to explore and which fell within one of the themes, I am sure that any number of MEPs would be happy to facilitate a question. However, MEPs do not have much time to ask their question. As you can imagine, they have very tight time—

I should emphasise that, obviously, the MEPs will probably want to ask their own questions, so it might be difficult for them to be a carrier of your question. However, if you liaise directly with the MEPs in your party, they might well be happy to take forward any issues that chime with the questions that they want to explore.

That issue is quite interesting. The vote that took place on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora—CITES—was not to support the ban. There will now be no ban on fishing for bluefin tuna. In effect, that was the first time that the EU Council of Ministers had advocated a total ban on the fishing of a particular fish species, although the fisheries council has attempted to apply various bans on the fishing of cod. As members can imagine, a lot of politics was involved in the decision making on the bluefin tuna. The vote was by no means unanimous. However, the lobbying that took place within CITES was far more blatant than would have been the case even within the EU. The reality is that something like CITES is very open to abuse—although that might be the wrong word. One tends to find that perverse decisions can often be taken because, for example, land-locked countries have a very powerful voice in sea matters.

Yes, that is also true. Issues were raised about how trade should function. Another issue that was looked at was to do with polar bears. Again, a ban was blocked by the Inuit people because they hunt for polar bears.

An important point is that, although the EU is often criticised for being biased, its bias can be far less than in some other international fora. I always found it amusing that the International Whaling Commission has a delegate from Monaco, who has quite a powerful voice. I always thought that that would be a great job to have.

That brings the public part of today’s meeting to a close. I thank members of the public for their attendance.

12:23 Meeting continued in private until 12:48.  

That takes us to item 4, which is on the “Brussels Bulletin”. We usually suspend the meeting to allow our witnesses to depart, but as it is the only remaining item that we will take in public, we will push on. We are joined by Ian Duncan, who will be happy to answer any questions. It was quite a short bulletin, so I do not know whether colleagues have any issues that they want to raise.

I was very concerned to read on page 4 the headline, “Lady Ashton’s No 2s”, which I thought was verging on too much information. It came as an immense relief to me—if you will pardon the pun—to read on and find out that it related only to her deputies in the Commission.

I will not ask Ian Duncan to comment further on that.

A bit like we do.

The situation is a bit like it is here, although the time pressure is even greater. MEPs sometimes have only 30 seconds to ask their question. It can be very tight.

How can we find out what the themes are going to be? I ask because MSPs have been told by the Home Office, “Butt out. Asylum is nothing to do with you.” It is difficult when the Westminster MP will have nothing to do with a case—we have to take it up. That would be a way of taking a case up if I could not do so through Westminster. How can we find out which themes will be asked about?

The bulletin goes on to say:

“EU ambassadors also confirmed their opposition to lifting the ban on international trade in ivory.”

Are we content to agree to forward the “Brussels Bulletin” to the relevant subject committees for their information?

Members indicated agreement.