|
FRENCH SET TO OVERTAKE ENGLISH AS OFFICIAL
EU LANGUAGE
French rather than English is poised
to become the official language of the European
Community following EU enlargement on 1st May.
Plans are already underway to introduce French
language training for all staff in the European
Commission at a cost of #14 million to the taxpayer.
That is on top of the #500 million it costs the
Commission to run its interpretation services
each year.
The French are now engaged in a rearguard action
to prevent the eclipse of la langue diplomatique
(the language of diplomacy). The Commission has
been bullied into spending millions of taxpayers'
money into shoring up French as the official language
of the Community following enlargement, despite
the fact that English has now become the de facto
official language and the one most commonly spoken
by the new Member States.
Eighty-three per cent of the new staff from the
10 Accession states speak English, compared to
24% who speak French. Nevertheless, the French
have insisted that the Commission must pay for
compulsory training in French for an estimated
5000 staff by the year 2008.
It is a bizarre bit of French chauvinism.
FEARS ABOUT SCOTTISH SALMON ARE GROUNDLESS
There are serious flaws in the recent
American research paper published in the US 'Science'
magazine in January. The article, which triggered
a major salmon scare and has led to a sharp drop
in sales of Scottish farmed salmon, was commissioned
by the Philadelphia based - $3.8 bn - Pew Charitable
Trusts. They are well known for their international
campaigns against global pollution and they have
recently become influential opponents of the aquaculture
industry. The 'Science' magazine article based
on a $2.9 million research project carried out
by the Institute for Health & the Environment
at the State University of New York at Albany
- appears to have been deliberately misleading
in the advice it provides on salmon consumption.
Dr David Carpenter, one of the scientists involved
in the research has even confessed There may
be some legitimacy in saying the reason they chose
to fund this study was that they had another agenda
well beyond the health effects.
Nevertheless, the study's authors, in their conclusions
about limiting salmon consumption, appear to have
misapplied an already suspect risk model developed
by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
by failing to include any analysis of the health
benefits of eating salmon, despite over 5,000
scientific papers attesting to the necessity of
eating oil-rich fish as a regular component of
a balanced diet. The research does not actually
contain any new information - the data the research
provides is no different from the findings of
previous studies that also found dioxin levels
in farmed salmon to be well within official safety
limits. However, the interpretation used in the
research paper deliberately exaggerates the health
risks.
Moreover, the PCB levels in all EU farmed salmon
are significantly below the level determined to
be safe for sale in supermarkets by the US Food
& Drug Administration (FDA), as well as all
other international watchdogs such as the EU and
the UK Food Standards Agency, which does not accept
the findings of the US study. The research is
also out of date, being based on an analysis of
salmon purchased in supermarkets back in 2002.
The American research is therefore seriously
flawed. The health benefits associated with eating
salmon containing high levels of omega-3 fatty
acids, include reduced risk of coronary heart
disease, as well as proven benefits for pregnant
mothers. I strongly believe that the cancer risk
from eating large amounts of farmed salmon is
significantly lower than the risk of developing
heart disease from not eating generous amounts
of the fish!
EU fish farms undertake rigorous inspection and
quality control regimes to ensure that only the
highest possible environmental and welfare standards
are met and that the public is provided with an
entirely safe, non-toxic and reliable product.
I can therefore confidently say that the consumption
of salmon farmed in the EU is both safe and healthy
and I myself eat two portions of fish per week,
one of which is always an oily-fish like salmon!"
I am also urging the European Commissions Safeguarding
Committee to look sympathetically at requests
from the UK and Irish governments to introduce
immediate measures preventing the dumping of farmed
salmon by Norway into the EU. Norway in particular
has been guilty of dumping large quantities of
farmed salmon at below market value, causing salmon
prices to go into freefall. With thousands of
jobs at risk in remote, peripheral communities
of Scotland, we need rapid help from the Commission.
Scare stories and Norwegian dumping have posed
a huge threat to our industry and it is time to
fight back.
WHITEFISH SHAMBLES
The news that an "error" may
have slashed Scottish haddock quotas by 10%, has
further underlined the shambles of the December
Council talks in Brussels and the need for the
UK to repatriate fisheries management to national
and local control.
It was staggering that UK and Holyrood Ministers
signed up to cod protection measures that blatantly
discriminated against Scottish whitefish vessels,
but did not apply to vessels from France, Germany
and other EU nations. It was even more astonishing
that our Ministers hailed the alleged 65% increase
in haddock quota linked to 15 days at sea, as
a great victory, when in fact they knew that our
fishermen needed at least 24 days at sea to catch
any increased quota.
Now, in what sounds like a sick joke, we are
told that due to a technical error by Brussels
officials, the 51,000 tonnes of haddock Ministers
thought they had signed up to, is in fact only
46,000 tonnes. How on earth did the large team
of officials who accompanied our Ministers fail
to spot this technical error?
40% of our once proud whitefish fleet has been
scrapped in the past two years due to the woeful
mismanagement of the fishing industry by Brussels,
aided and abetted by UK and Scottish Ministers.
Many of the newest, safest and most modern trawlers
in the Scottish fleet have gone to the scrapyard.
Now our remaining fishermen are being forced to
put to sea in old, less seaworthy boats and because
of the ludicrous 15 days rule, they have no option
but to fish in the worst weather conditions. This
is a dangerous scandal and runs the risk of adding
injury to insult for our fishermen.
WORKING TIME DIRECTIVE OPT-OUT THREATENED
BY LABOUR MEPs
The UK opt-out from the Working Time
Directive is under threat following a vote in
the European Parliament in Strasbourg on 11th
February. A report approved by the Parliament
calls for the revision of the individual opt-out
with a view to phasing it out as soon as possible.
The vote was carried with a majority of 46 votes,
with all 28 UK Labour MEPs voting in favour. The
report now represents the official opinion of
the European Parliament, and is a strong indication
of future legislation from the EU.
Labour MEPs have again gone on the record and
voted against British
interests. The abolition of our opt-out to the
Working Time Directive will
seriously damage labour market flexibility in
Scotland. Research has shown that the majority
of Scottish employers and employees are in favour
of retaining the opt-out. A limit on working hours
would deny people the freedom to choose their
working patterns and would prevent millions from
earning overtime pay.
By voting to remove the UK opt-out, Labour MEPs
have ignored the views of their constituents and
their own Government, and have threatened current
working practices in the UK. The overall vote
was very close, and the votes of UK Labour MEPs
were decisive in producing the final result."
David Frost, Director-General of the British
Chambers of Commerce, has been giving evidence
on the Working Time Directive in the House of
Lords this week. Speaking in London last night
Mr Frost said:
"The Working Time Regulations have been
the single biggest financial burden on business
to come from Europe. According to our last Red
Tape survey it has cost #8.65 billion for business
to implement since August 1999. It is extremely
disappointing that UK Labour MEPs have voted against
our retention of the opt-out. It is a sorry day
when Labour MEPs vote to restrict the individual's
right to work. I'm sure our business members across
the country will be expressing their concerns
to their local MEPs in the run up to the European
Parliamentary elections."
I am sure that Scottish business leaders will
be bitterly disappointed at the outcome of the
vote which will seriously damage the flexibility
of the labour market within the UK, and the ability
of their businesses to respond competitively within
the global market place. Businesses will be particularly
dismayed by the fact that the vote to phase out
the opt-out was supported by many UK MEPs, who
they will regard as voting against the best interests
of UK business."
Since Labour signed up to the Social Chapter
in 1997, a raft of measures have been passed that
make British and EU labour markets less flexible,
add to burdens on business and threaten to destroy
British jobs. Many more are in the pipeline, not
least because Labour MEPs have actively promoted
measures in the European Parliament.
Since 1997, the following have been adopted:
- Working Time Directive;
- Young Workers' Directive;
- Postal Workers Directive; Parental Leave Directive;
- European Works Councils Directive;
- Part Time Workers Directive;
- National Works Councils Directive;
- Equal Treatment in Employment Directive;
- Equal Treatment - Race Directive; and
- Temporary Workers Directive.
EU ASKED TO LOOK INTO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
UK FISHERMEN
I have asked the European Commission
to explain why average fines handed out by Italian
courts to fishermen who break the law are 150
times lower than similar fines in the UK.
According to statistics produced by the European
Commission, fines in Italian courts for fishermen
caught falsifying their logbooks averaged #42
in 2002. However, fines for UK fishermen found
guilty of the same offence averaged a staggering
#6,254. Other discrepancies include fines for
fishermen caught fishing without a licence, which
varied from only #68 in Sweden, to #3,044 in Denmark
and a massive #14,630 in Ireland. I have now written
to the Fisheries Commissioner Franz Fischler asking
for an explanation as to why British fishermen
are being discriminated against.
The overall number of serious violations of fisheries
laws fell from 8,139 in 2001 to 6,756 in 2002.
Nevertheless, the wide discrepancy of fines across
the EU appears to show a marked bias against UK
and Irish fishermen.
We cannot have a system where our fishermen are
being penalised with gigantic fines while Mediterranean
skippers get away with a smack on the wrist. I
have therefore asked Commissioner Fischler to
examine ways in which some guidance could be offered
to courts in the EU. We need a more fair and even-handed
system of punishments for serious violations of
fisheries laws.
STRUAN STEVENSON MEP
www.scottishtorymeps.org.uk
For further information please
contact:-
Elaine McKean
Indigo (PR) Ltd
27 Maritime Street
Edinburgh EH6 6SE
Tel 0131 554 1230
Mobile 07866 602 985
|
