Brussels
NEW charges will be levied on the struggling fishing industry after British Ministers voted for them, despite opposition from other EU states, it became clear last night.
Dr Allan Macartney, SNP Euro-MP for the fishing constituency of North-east Scotland, said the Government had effectively imposed a charge of #4m a year on the already crisis-ridden industry at a time when it was supposed to be fighting for a better deal for fishermen.
But Government officials disputed his claim, and said the new deal would cost much less because flexibility had been built into the new system.
Farm ministers, led by Britain's Douglas Hogg, agreed to the deal in Luxembourg earlier this week. From mid-1999, the cost of veterinary checks will apply to fish catches in the same way as they now apply to fresh meat, live animals and other meat products.
The European Union's idea is to harmonise these charges to remove distortions in competition. The charges are currently paid from local authority funds but must in future be covered by the industry itself. Most observers believe the costs will fall on the fish-processing sector.
The issue has rumbled on in Brussels for months after Euro-MPs demanded to be consulted. Although the European Parliament has no power to intervene, its influential fisheries committee came down strongly against the idea.
Ministers failed to agree after it became obvious the Germans, Spanish and Swedes were opposed. Germany protested that the charges did not amount to true harmonisation.
But the three nations combined could muster only 22 votes in the council, four short of a blocking minority, and the deal went through with British support on a qualified majority vote.
The parliament's president, Mr Klaus Hansch, wrote to the council yesterday demanding to know how it had come to a decision on the issue which, he insisted, was in breach of an earlier agreement.
Commission officials said the deal was now done, although it still had to be formally confirmed.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article