June 2002

MARCHING TO THE RIGHT IN EUROPE

Conservatives in Europe have every reason for optimism at the moment because, after a decade of dominance by the Left, the continent is now moving to the Right again.

In France, President Chirac had a walkover at the presidential election, with the socialist candidate not even making it to the final round. His victory was overwhelmingly confirmed in the elections to the French National Assembly.

In Germany, there is a high probability that the imminent federal election will see the leader of the Bavarian Christian Social Union, Edmund Stoiber, dislodge Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder after four years in which the economy has gone from bad to worse, with unemployment now running at over twice the British rate.

In Italy, Silvio Berlusconi continues to lead a coalition of the centre-right committed to free markets.

Portugal has just elected a Conservative government, only to find its programme of deregulation and tax-cuts blocked by the rules of the monetary union, that is, by the country's membership of the euro.

But we may soon see this sort of mindless meddling stop. That is because as a result of these elections there will be a decisive change in the composition of the Council of Ministers, the body drawn from national governments which decides most of the policies for the EU. With a Conservative majority there, we may hope for a shift at long last towards liberalisation rather than restriction. The shackles on economic growth in Europe will then fall away.

The only cloud on the horizon is that this shift to the Right is sometimes taking an uncomfortable shape.

In France, the vacuum left by the electoral collapse of the socialists was filled by the National Front under Jean Marie le Pen. His success was due mainly, though not only, to his fierce anti-immigrant stance.

The recent election in the Netherlands saw a surge forward by another anti-immigrant party, out of sympathy for its assassinated leader, Pim Fortuyn. But it would have gained votes anyway, because even the liberal Dutch are growing fearful about the future of their country, prosperous as it is.

The Irish election also produced a landslide for the more nationalist of the two main parties, Fianna Fail, together with a strong showing by Sinn Fein, and a disaster for the moderate opposition, Fine Gael.

Even in the UK there have been victories at local elections, though on a very minor scale, for the British National Party. What overall pattern can we see in these rather confusing trends, and what message can we read in them?

I do not myself often seek advice from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which during recent times has been in thrall to fellow-travellers of the Left. But this year I was struck by a particular speech made there. It was delivered by the minister of Gibraltar, who as one of his main tasks serves the 2000 British servicemen stationed on the Rock. He will be all too aware that Tony Blair wants to hand Gibraltar over to Spain. It adds insult to injury that, under the latest proposals for reform of the Kirk, his own job would be abolished too.

What he had to say was this: "It's no accident that the rise of Fascism in Europe has followed the introduction of the euro. This rising tide of xenophobia comes from a feeling of fear and lack of identity."

That sums up neatly the factors which UK Conservatives ought to be taking into account in a complex situation. We should stand firm on our freedoms, the freedoms both of ourselves and of others. But we should be clear that, when people start to lose faith in their freedoms, it is not necessarily because they are wicked. They may have good reason for their insecurity.

Historically, Fascism has arisen among the powerless, because they believe they are being abused by the powerful. We should, to coin a phrase, be tough on Fascism but tough also on the causes of Fascism.

The abuse of power is the big threat we all face today, both in our own country and in the wider context of Europe. Blair is subverting British democracy. So are his allies in the EU in their ceaseless efforts to create a superstate which nobody has voted for.

In resisting this, UK Conservatives should remain undaunted by cheap charges that we are anti-European. We are not. We are the ones who took Britain into Europe. We have always worked constructively with our partners.

But we have, right through almost 30 years of membership, held to a clear line on the nature of this co-operation. We will not allow the nation state to be abolished. It is the strongest guarantee of democracy. It is the social, political and cultural context which gives individuals their identity. When that identity is secure, they can enjoy their own freedoms and tolerate the freedoms of others.

Of course, this does not mean we shall withhold co-operation where it benefits all Europeans. If we had not co-operated, indeed led the way, we would not have got the Single Market which has allowed every member state to expand its trade.

Without our co-operation the Common Agricultural Policy would have long ago fallen apart. It remains decrepit, and as ever in need of reform, but on balance it is probably still in our interest to co-operate with it.

The same cannot be said for the Common Fisheries Policy, which equally could not have been attempted without our co-operation. But the attempt has been a failure, and the time has now come to devolve powers over fishing back to member states. I am glad to see in the context of the newly published package of reforms from the European Commission, a core objective to devolve almost total control of 6 and 12 mile zones to individual Member States, and significant new management responsibilities to stakeholders within 200 mile zones.

On the other hand, there are areas where we should intensify co-operation. All of Europe benefits from speaking with one strong voice on breaking down barriers to free international movement of goods, services and intellectual property through the World Trade Organisation. This is opening the vast market of China to us. I hope we will do much more to open our own markets to poor producers from the Third World: that is the way to prosperity for them, rather than through the charade of aid which lines the pockets of corrupt and useless dictators, or at best raises our sales of arms to them.

But as the British Conservatives have held to a clear line, we shall know where to draw it. We shall say no to the euro till such time as it is in our economic interest, if that day ever dawns. We shall say no to harmonised taxes. We shall say no to European control of our financial regulation, labour markets and pensions. We shall say no to the Federal EU superstate. In that way we can keep our citizens free of any fear that a faceless bureaucracy in Brussels will run their lives. We shall keep our identity, and our democracy.

THE CHIPS ARE DOWN AND THE FISH ARE OUT

The CFP has been a catastrophe. Collapsing fish stocks, diminishing fleets and lost jobs have been its hallmarks. Emergency closures of fishing grounds, draconian conservation measures, tie-ups, lay-offs and de-commissioning have become familiar features. 66,000 jobs have been lost in the EU catching sector (22%) in the period 1990-1998, Over the same period, employment in the processing sector has fallen by 14%.

Amid great controversy, the European Commission finally published its White Paper on CFP reform at the end of May. There has been a predictably hostile reaction from many parts of the industry and vociferous opposition to many aspects of the reforms in the Council of Ministers. A serious North / South divide appears to be emerging with Amigos de la Pesca, the lobby group representing the interests of Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, France and, bizarrely, Ireland, leading the charge to protect Mediterranean and Southern interests.

The Commission proposes to enforce a dramatic reduction in fishing effort by enforcing mandatory cuts in days at sea of between 30% and 60%. They conclude that this will lead to actual (voluntary) cuts in overall EU fleet capacity of around 18% as fishermen scramble to leave the industry. However, the table of anticipated cuts they published in the appendices of their reform proposals shows that on average, the Commission expects Northern EU Member States to cut the size of their fleets by over 20%, while in the South the cuts will be nearer 10%. They argue that this is because stocks are under greater pressure in the North than they are in the South.

It is easy to understand where the Commission are coming from. In the EU there are too many fishermen chasing too few fish. In the words of David Armstrong, one of the senior Commission officials in DG Fish - "Fish can live quite happily without fishermen, however, fishermen cannot live happily without fish!" The implications of these projected cuts in fleet size are quite shocking. While the UK will be expected to slash gross tonnage by a massive 23%, Spain will only face a 9.4% cut. While Ireland will need to cut by 20%, Greece will only face a 2% reduction. These proposals are, needless to say, highly controversial and have caused angry protests across the EU. Even the Spanish are outraged that they are being asked to make further cuts. But here in the UK, where we have already had an over-subscribed de-commissioning scheme that has taken out 20% of our whitefish fleet, a further 23% will decimate the industry and destroy thousands of jobs.

I feel that there has to be a more balanced approach to achieving a sustainable fishery. We need to make more use of technical conservation measures and compensated tie-ups with less emphasis on the wholesale destruction of our fishing boats. We must insist on the introduction of more selective fishing gear, such as nets with larger mesh sizes and properly positioned square mesh panels, so that more juvenile fish can escape. We must also limit fishing activity to areas and times when there are few juvenile fish around and, as in the case of Norway, the catching of juvenile fish should automatically trigger strict enforcement measures that can include emergency closures.

The state of our stocks leaves little room for optimism. Cod and Northern Hake remain at dangerously low levels and the Commission intends to take further dramatic steps to save these species from being wiped out in EU waters. Their multi-annual recovery plans include massive cuts in fishing effort and the fitting of satellite monitoring equipment to all vessels of over 10 metres, in order that proper tracking and monitoring can be maintained. These drastic cuts will be applied in the North Sea, the West of Scotland, the Irish Sea and the Kattegat.

It is of great importance to understand that there is money in the EU budget to compensate fishermen for tie-ups. However, such compensation has to be co-financed and the UK government has a very poor record of doing so. While almost every other Member State regularly accesses aid from Brussels, co-financed with public funds from their own Treasury, the UK government has, in the past, often left our fishermen to dangle in the wind. This is largely due to the famous Fontainbleu Agreement that netted huge claw-backs for Britain out of the EU budget. However, the downside means that all co-financing is based on a 71% (UK) to 29% (EU) split rather than on a 50-50 split as is the case in every other Member State.

So, while our UK fishermen are often left without compensation, the Spanish fishermen are meanwhile routinely compensated for enforced tie-ups and other publicly aided projects. Following the failure of the EU to renew an international fishing agreement with Morocco in 2000, 410 vessels in Galicia and Andalucia were compensated on a daily basis for almost two years. We must press for a level playing field. All EU fishermen must be properly compensated for tie-ups on an equal basis and additional aid should even be sought for those affected in the processing sector. Instead of relying on Member States to cough up their share, I believe that the Commission should pay out all of the aid package up-front. They can then claw back the contribution due from the Member State.

The main problem today is conservation and the need to achieve sustainable fisheries to ensure the survival of our fishing communities. The Commission's tough new policies for the reform of the CFP point the way ahead for a sustainable future. Nonetheless, I have persuaded the Commission that the reformed CFP should be reviewed again in 5 years time to see whether it has effectively addressed the real problems it is intended to resolve. If we judge it has not then the present policies should be dismantled and replaced by Member State control over their own fisheries. We therefore have five years to make sure the reforms work. Five years to restore fish stocks, restore profitability and restore confidence. It is an enormous challenge.

Struan Stevenson MEP Struan Stevenson is a Conservative Member of the European Parliament for Scotland. He is President of the Fisheries Committee in the European Parliament.