10 Approval of international fisheries
agreements
| (29004)
13994/07
COM(07) 595
| Draft Council Regulation authorising the Commission to approve modifications to protocols of fisheries partnership agreements concluded between the European Community and third countries
|
| Legal base | Articles 37 and 300(4) EC; consultation; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 11 October 2010
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 16-v (2007-08), chapter 2 (5 December 2007)
|
| To be discussed in Council | See paragraph 10.6 below
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
10.1 Over many years, we and our predecessors have considered
from time to time documents concerning either the conclusion (or
extension) of a fisheries partnership agreement with a third country
providing EU fishing vessels with catch opportunities in the waters
of the country in question, in return for a financial payment.
Almost invariably, such documents comprise a draft Council Decision
and a draft Council Regulation formally approving the agreement
on behalf of the EU, and, because agreements of this kind usually
relate to waters in which the UK industry has no interest, the
documents tend to be cleared without our making a substantive
Report to the House.
10.2 These fisheries partnership agreements and their
associated protocols now enable amendments to be made where appropriate
both to the fishing opportunities provided and to the related
financial contribution by the EU. In order to streamline the decision-making
process, the Commission put forward in October 2007 this proposal
that any such amendments should in future be approved by itself,
rather than the Council, subject to it securing the necessary
qualified majority within the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture.
However, this would also be subject to any new fishing opportunities
being distributed among the interested Member States in accordance
with the allocation key set out in the Council Regulation concluding
the protocol of the relevant agreement, and to the new financial
contribution not being more than double the amount in the original
agreement.
10.3 Our predecessors were told by the then Government
that the change proposed could undermine the Council's powers,
and raised important questions about the roles, responsibilities
and powers of the different institutions. It therefore said that
the UK would need to have a convincing explanation from the Commission
of the necessity for such a change before agreeing, though it
added that "the proposal will theoretically have little impact
on UK policy".
10.4 In their Report of 5 December 2007, our predecessors
drew the proposal to the attention of the House, and said that
they would be interested to learn in due course whether the Commission
was able to give any explanation beyond the need to streamline
procedures, and whether this met the Government's concerns. They
also raised a number of questions on the proposal, including whether
it would simply apply to partnership agreements where fishing
opportunities are provided in exchange for a financial contribution,
or whether it would also apply to agreements, such as those with
Norway, based on reciprocal access to fish stocks. Pending this
further information, they said that they were holding the document
under scrutiny.
10.5 They subsequently noted (but did not report
to the House) a letter of 21 February 2008 from the Government,
drawing attention to the difference of view between the Commission
and a significant number of Member States (including the UK) over
the implications which the proposal would have for the competence
of the Council in this area, and indicating that the Presidency
was reflecting on what the next steps should be.
Minister's letter of 11 October 2010
10.6 We have received from the Parliamentary Under
Secretary for Natural Environment and Fisheries at the Department
for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Mr Richard Benyon)
a letter of 11 October 2010 saying that the Commission has now
withdrawn the proposal entirely, and has not indicated any plans
to re-draft or submit an alternative.
Conclusion
10.7 In the light of this information, we are
content to clear the document.
| 
