“Brussels Bulletin”
Welcome to the second meeting in 2013 of the European and External Relations Committee. I make the usual request that all mobile phones and electronic devices be switched off because they interfere with the broadcasting equipment.
Agenda item 1 is consideration of the latest edition of the “Brussels Bulletin”, which is compiled regularly by our European officer, Dr Ian Duncan. Ian will talk us through the bulletin.
Ian Duncan (Clerk and European Officer)
I will start in reverse order with the fisheries negotiations. You will recall that, the week before last, Hanzala Malik raised the issue of mackerel. The Norwegians and the European Union have agreed their total allowable catch for mackerel in accordance with the science, which accounts for 95 per cent of the catch. The remaining 5 per cent is to be shared between Iceland and the Faroe Islands. However, they are not catching 5 per cent of the total allowable catch; rather, on last year’s evidence alone, they are catching more than 30 per cent. That is not a great success at all.
Hanzala Malik asked why there had been no action at an EU level. That remains a question because there has still been no action. The next stage will be to broker a deal between Iceland and the Faroe Islands and the EU and Norway, but it does not look as if there has been progress. I suspect that the only way forward will be to look at other measures; we will have to wait and see what comes out in the next couple of weeks.
A couple of other things in the bulletin are worth commenting on. First, the Commission has published an action plan for entrepreneurship, which is probably helpful. I draw your attention to what it is terming the importance of facilitating access to microfinance or financial instruments, which will bring us back into the territory of JESSICA and JEREMIE—the joint European support for sustainable investment in city areas and the joint European resources for micro to medium enterprises. That will be important.
On funding, I want to draw your attention to the energy efficiency audit, which was done by the European Court of Auditors. It is worth noting that it has audited the main recipients of the cohesion funds. It is not complimentary at all; basically, it is all but saying that wrongdoing has happened. Lots of money has been spent, but in some cases it is not easy to trace that money or to defend what it has achieved.
There is a consultation on energy technology, which is perhaps worth drawing to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee’s attention. In addition, more money is going into energy—the European Investment Bank is injecting a further €10 billion into clean energy.
Willie Coffey will want to be aware that the credit rating agencies issue is once again back in the European Parliament. It is keen to introduce registration and regulation of those bodies.
Finally, yesterday and today the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development began its discussions on the reform of the common agricultural policy. At present, more than 1,000 amendments are being discussed. It is worth noting that no one now believes that agreement will be reached in time for the reform to be incorporated into a 2014 launch date, so that is now expected to be delayed until 2015. That would mean a continuation of the current arrangements for an additional year. That might be good news for some people in the west, but it is very bad news for the farmers in the east. That is what people are expecting; it is not a certainty but it is worth being aware of.
I am happy to take questions on those issues or on any other matters.
I have two questions. First, on the mackerel issue, I understand that it has been said that Iceland and the Faroes are actually breaking the law. Can you explain how they are breaking the law? What law are they breaking?
That is a more difficult question to answer. Iceland and the Faroes argue that they are not breaking the law because the biological stock is changing and is now in their waters, so the commonsense approach is for them to catch the fish in their waters.
The laws that one might seek to invoke would be global laws or laws of original agreement. In the past, there has been an agreement among Iceland, the Faroes, the EU and Norway that the stock should be divided up in such a way that there is 5 per cent for Iceland and the Faroes and 95 per cent for the rest. However, that agreement was made at a time when, frankly, the mackerel were just not in the waters of those nations, which were therefore broadly indifferent to the issue. Now that the fishermen in Iceland and the Faroes are finding an abundance of mackerel in their waters—they could almost literally throw a net from the beach to drag them ashore—they are resentful at being excluded from capturing the fish. In that sense, they now no longer feel bound to an agreement—not a law but an agreement—which they argue is no longer tenable.
I just wanted to clarify that they are breaching an agreement rather than a law.
Yes, that is right.
Secondly, when you said that the one-year delay caused by the negotiations on the amendments to the CAP may be good for people in the west but bad for people in the east, what did you mean by that remark?
As you may recall, when the member states in the east joined the EU, an agreement was reached—a slightly self-serving agreement for the west—that, as it would take some time for the eastern member states fully to understand what they could do with the CAP moneys, there was no point in giving them their share too soon. Instead, it was agreed that the current arrangements would be kept in place with only a slight adjustment for the east.
At the moment, therefore, a number of member states in the east receive considerably less CAP moneys than would otherwise be their share under the current agreement. In order for the member states in the east to get more money, other member states will need to get less money. The expectation is that farmers in the west would get proportionately less money as those in the east get more. Delaying the reform for a year will continue that slightly iniquitous balance of payments.
Thank you very much.
First, I suggest that it would be good for the committee to write a letter of congratulations to the Irish Government to wish it well with the new presidency.
Secondly, I am still concerned about the fish situation. I really think that we need to make some serious approaches to the European Union to ask that it get a grip on the issue somehow. I am not sure what the best route to take would be, but one suggestion that comes to mind is a ban on imports of all stock from Iceland and the Faroes until such time as we can come to a conclusion. That might make people focus on the issue a little. However, as I do not know the full picture, I am not sure whether that is the only option that is open to us. I would not wish to harm the industry in those countries, but at the same time we cannot allow them to harm our industry. There needs to be fairness, so action needs to be taken.
As a committee, we should perhaps write to the European Commission to bring to its attention that we have serious concerns about the issue and that we would rather that the Commission took affirmative action at the earliest opportunity. Unfortunately, these things tend to take a very long time to resolve and, in the meanwhile, we are losing the fish. That needs to come to a halt.
I can pick up on that. You might recall that five or six years ago the Marine Conservation Society accredited the mackerel fishery of the waters around the north-west and north-east of Europe as sustainable. You may have seen reports in the news this week that the society’s advice is now to stop eating as much mackerel, because it is no longer being sustainably fished.
The frustration is that 95 per cent of the agreement is still being adhered to; the problem is the 5 per cent that is no longer being adhered to. The EU and Norway are doing what they are meant to be doing within the rules and guidance from the scientists, but Iceland and the Faroes are not, which is causing a serious problem.
The difficulty, and the reason why there is no ban on imports, is that support is not as widespread as one would imagine. The United Kingdom itself has been less than excited by the prospect of a ban, because principal mackerel processing takes place in the UK. A lot of jobs in the north-east of Scotland, up in Shetland and down in the north of England depend on mackerel processing. It becomes a more complicated thing to balance.
You are absolutely right that something must be done—there is no question about that—but it might be worth the committee asking what the Scottish Government and the UK Government intend to do to establish a more balanced and sustainable fishery as an urgent first step. Once we have that information we can take forward the issue as best we can, probably in collaboration with the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee of the Scottish Parliament, to make sure that we are all linking arms. That might be a first step.
It would be a wise move for us to seek advice from our own Government in Scotland and the UK Government about the approach that they may wish to take. Ultimately, we need to have a negotiated settlement with our friends in the north, and ultimately that is what we will get.
I want to pick up other aspects of the “Brussels Bulletin”. My attention is drawn to the Irish presidency of the Council of the European Union. One of the Irish commitments is to support enlargement of the union, which comes at an interesting time, given the events of yesterday. We could face shrinkage of the EU if Mr Cameron gets his way and recommends the withdrawal of Scotland from the EU—perhaps against Scotland’s will. We will have a very interesting discussion over the next three years, particularly on Scotland’s position in the UK and therefore its position in the EU.
I am particularly interested in a little paragraph at the foot of Ian Duncan’s report, which relates to accession states such as Serbia and Kosovo. I am sure that I do not need to remind Irish colleagues or any other colleagues about the delicacy of that issue. As many members know, Serbia does not recognise the independence of Kosovo, which is bound to introduce some difficulties in negotiations to bring Serbia into the EU.
I would like to put on record that we in the Scottish Parliament have and have had useful working relationships with Serbia, Kosovo, Macedonia and so on and we would support a fair and simplified transition process for all those states to join the EU. I hope that Scotland will remain one of the nations in that family of nations.
It is worth noting that the next state that is likely to join the union is Croatia, which will join just after the end of the Irish presidency.
With regard to negotiations, Willie Coffey is quite right that Serbia and Kosovo remains a thorny issue. The Irish have adopted a different strategy. Rather than trying to tackle the big issue first, they are trying to tackle other issues in the hope of creating good will, which will then allow solutions to be found for the thornier issues. They are hoping to make progress with that.
I suspect that the bigger test will be Turkey, which, as members know, is the longest-serving accession state. It has been an accession state since 1999, which is a long time. Progress has been more or less stuck because of various member states halting what they call “chapters”—the chapters of the acquis communautaire. They close chapters, which means that nothing can be done with them.
10:15
The Irish are hopeful that something can be done to open up the chapters so that some progress can be made towards accession. As you will recall, a number of other member states have joined the EU since 1999. Even Iceland, which might not be quite as keen to join as it once was, is still considered to be more likely to join than Turkey, despite the fact that it put in its application only about 18 months or two years ago. I note your points.
Thank you.
I wanted to ask about precisely that—Iceland’s negotiations to join the EU. I think that one reason for the stalling of those negotiations is a domestic election in Iceland. There are four chapters outstanding, including the fishing chapter. I do not know whether that ties in with the mackerel dispute.
Are you aware of any plan on how to move on the Icelandic question, for want of a better phrase?
I suspect that the process is being held up by the fact that the Icelandic people are now no longer quite as vociferous in their push for Iceland to join. The president has always been lukewarm in his support for the idea and has suggested that a referendum might still be required if progress is to be made. The fisheries chapter will remain the most problematic of all, particularly given that the mackerel issue remains unresolved. I suspect that, until a resolution is achieved on mackerel, it will be all but impossible to make progress on the fisheries chapter. That is the biggest issue because, now that the banks are no longer quite what they were, the fishing industry is the industry in Iceland.
Is it your view that, if the Icelandic people suddenly became a bit more enthusiastic about joining, Iceland could join quite quickly?
Yes. Iceland would be broadly compliant with all the necessary laws. As far as I am aware, there are some smaller issues that need to be addressed. The fishing chapter is the thorniest of all, because it could be addressed in different ways. I suspect that Iceland would seek to have various opt-outs from the common fisheries policy, which various member states—including, no doubt, the UK and Scotland—would not be supportive of, for various reasons.
If that issue could be addressed and adjustments could be made, I suspect that the fisheries chapter could be closed relatively quickly, but for that to be the case Iceland would have to address the mackerel issue and I have yet to see how its fishermen would accept its doing that. At the moment, its fishermen are determined—against all scientific evidence—that the stock is being fished entirely sustainably.
An opt-out from the CFP might be of interest to a hypothetical independent Scotland in negotiations after the referendum.
I imagine that it would be of interest to lots of member states with fish.
I just want to pursue what Hanzala Malik said about sanctions being the answer. Am I right in thinking that the problem is with not just the mackerel but the whitefish from Iceland that are also landed in this country, which our processors depend on, and that any such sanctions would be fairly undesirable for our processing sector?
I understand that the suggested total allowable catch for mackerel is some 600,000 tonnes. If Iceland and the Faroes are now catching more than 30 per cent of that TAC when their allocation is only 5 per cent, surely the answer lies in redistributing the 25 per cent extra that is being caught between all the catchers. If that were done, they might not have to take such a big hit and, in that way, the problem could be resolved. Do you have a comment to make on that?
I will comment on the white-fish issue first. You will be aware that most of the cod that is eaten in the UK is caught in Icelandic waters and that much of it is landed and processed here.
In discussions in Brussels before Christmas, the directorate-general for maritime affairs and fisheries was of the view that it could still create a restriction that would focus primarily on a single species—the mackerel—rather than an expanded restriction. If there was a desire to be punitive, the restriction could be expanded beyond mackerel, but the fact that that would have a concomitant effect on processors in the UK remains the sticking point for the UK.
Jamie McGrigor mentioned redistribution. It is one of those devilish questions, because the total allowable catch is broadly what scientists believe can be taken from the sea while leaving enough fish to breed and create the next generation of fish—it is, therefore, based on the science—while the allocation of the total allowable catch is based on an allocation key.
You will be aware that the allocation key for the North Sea was set quite some time ago. It is literally a formula: once you have the total allowable catch, you plug in the formula and you can see exactly what the UK gets, what Scotland gets and what all the member states get. If you were to accept that 600,000 tonnes was a wrong figure and, indeed, should be 30 per cent higher, the application of the distribution key would mean that the EU and Norway would still get 95 per cent of it. The Faroes and Iceland would get a wee bit more, but not what they are currently harvesting.
The Faroes and Iceland argue that there should be a redrafting of the allocation key. At the moment, the EU position is that small adjustments can be made, but the Icelandic view is that small adjustments are inadequate to represent what they see as a fundamental change in the stock. Your notion is a sensible one in one regard, but it is unlikely to find support in Norway or the Faroe Islands.
I see in the “Brussels Bulletin” that the sweetener, aspartame, has been reviewed five times since it was authorised in 1994 and is up for review again. There are grave concerns about the impact that it has on health. Could you give us a wee update on the situation? What does the fact that it is being continually reviewed mean?
My next question does not concern something that is in the “Brussels Bulletin”, but perhaps you could bring something back to us in the next “Brussels Bulletin”. William Hague has produced the fresh start project’s manifesto, which contains the UK Government’s proposed position on renegotiation. There have been many conversations about what that means. I am specifically asking about the consequences of a withdrawal from the social charter for the working time directive, workers’ rights, equal pay, gender balance and so on.
I have grave concerns about the impact of a withdrawal from the social charter. I do not know whether you have a comment to make on that matter or whether you would like to bring something back to us in the next “Brussels Bulletin”.
I suggest that I bring something back to you. As you might remember, it was a big step when the UK signed up to the social chapter. There is no doubt that withdrawal from any of the areas would have a huge impact.
I suggest that, in collaboration with the Scottish Parliament information centre, we put together a short note on what the social chapter means and the consequences that might result from any adjustment. That might take a little too long to make it available at the next meeting, but we can bring it to you as quickly as possible.
I included the NutraSweet issue in the bulletin because it struck me as an interesting one. NutraSweet is an almost endemic sweetener, and yet there have been many reports that have said that there are issues around it, and people in the USA have been concerned about it. One of the good things is that the European Food Safety Authority is assiduous in this area and follows the research closely. It is trying to assess the safe limits for the use of aspartame and the right approach to its use.
The EFSA’s consultation closes on 15 February. It is likely to publish an interim review of the responses. When it does so, we can take a look at it and see exactly what it is saying. The next step will be dependent on that outcome and on the recommendations of the EFSA. Once we know what its view is, we will be in a better position to know what will happen next.
Are members content to send the “Brussels Bulletin” to the relevant committees, drawing the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee’s attention to the item that was mentioned earlier?
Members indicated agreement.