SOUTH WEST FIRST   Letter From Strasbourg

June 2000

The French influence

This month there was to be no sitting of the Parliament on the Monday because it is the Whit Monday public holiday in France and Germany, among other countries, so I arranged to attend a conference on regional transport infrastructure organised by the South West Chamber of Commerce in Taunton.  It has to be said that such public holidays don't normally prevent official meetings of the European Parliament, I regularly have to travel on UK Bank holidays, but no doubt the French influence carried the day!

LOYALTY DOESN'T PAY

I opted to travel out on the Tuesday morning, not least, so I could stay at home with the family and watch a certain football match between England and Portugal on television.  My gloom the next day was reinforced by a piece of the aircraft cabin fitting falling off and narrowly missing me.  Such was my reward for loyally flying with B.A.!  Travelling a day later meant a fast catch up on all the faxes and messages awaiting me in Strasbourg before launching into the days sequence of meetings.

THE LONG RUNNING SAGA

There were a number of issues bubbling over.  First was the question of the calendar for 2001 and the various amendments proposing two day sessions, longer Brussels sessions or no Fridays, as part of the long running battle to gain control over where we meet and when.  This is called the seat question and it boils down to the argument between many of us, possibly most of us, who on the one hand think we should stick to meeting in Brussels, and the French, supported by the Germans, who are

adamant that the Parliament continues to hold twelve full, week long sessions in Strasbourg.

THE PERILS OF SMOKING

I think the hottest issue of the week was the draft tobacco directive, both because it is a sensitive issue and because opinions are divided.  The Directive aims to establish common standards on the content of cigarettes and the labelling with health warnings on packaging.  It is a separate proposal from the draft directive on advertising tobacco which was adopted last year.  Interestingly, the industry is not opposed to the principle of legislation but to certain aspects and technical details.  One line of argument concerns the various levels of tar and additives which may be permitted in future, because if cigarettes are made with less they will be weaker with less taste, and, so the argument runs, smokers will tend to drag deeper and smoke more, so as to get the same kick.  Not a line calculated to find favour with the nanny brigade!

EMPLOYMENT CONSEQUENCES

A more serious aspect is the requirement that the directive shall apply to all manufacture in the EU, whether for export to markets with differing standards and tastes or not, because this has serious employment consequences in the UK.  The argument is should we seek to impose our standards on third or outside countries, particularly, when the likely outcome is that outside manufacturers will supply what the local market wants, our manufacturers will lose the business, and many of their employees will lose their jobs.

COMPASSION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE

I was surprised and shocked by the

hard nosed attitude of U.K. Civil Servants when I tackled them on this issue.  They reckoned these jobs in tobacco are going anyway, that this merely accelerates the process, that the workers concerned will easily find other jobs (as civil servants I suppose), and anyway this is a health issue with makes a few thousand job losses o.k. in the good cause!

WHICH LEGAL BASE?

Another issue is the question of legal base for the various tobacco measures.  This exercises our German colleagues in particular.  The argument is that the Commission have brought forward proposals which are essentially about health, but described as internal market measures.  The point is that health matters are still largely for national legislation with a minimal basis under the Treaty for concerted action.  Whereas internal market procedures require common standards for competition purposes.  This is a variation of the argument we in the U.K. had with the Commission over the working time directive, because we, when in Government, maintained it was part of the social chapter, and therefore not applicable to the U.K. under our then opt out.  The Commission said it was a health and safety issue and used a different legal base under the Treaty.  Eventually the New Labour Government surrendered our opt out and the Court found against us on that particular issue anyway.  Pity.

AGREEING THE MINUTIAE

Going back to tobacco, the other area for debate was all about the

size and content and design of health warning labelling on the packets.  Should 25%, 40% or 50% of the surface area be health warning?  What colours should be

used?  What typeface?  And, of

course what wording and descriptions should be used?   This is pretty detailed stuff and one could say that legislators should beware getting into too much technical detail.  At any rate, it shows you there was plenty of scope for differing views.  There were 120 amendments to be considered, to make it more complicated.

KEEPING YOUR WITS

Because views were so divided in the Group, the EPP-ED, it was agreed that there would be a free vote, although the shadow rapporteur would put out an indicative whip.  Likewise within our Conservative delegation, it was agreed to have a free vote. Help!  Because that meant studying every amendment and making up ones mind in a rush at short notice.  The process is made more difficult because amendments are listed in numbered sequence  in the order received by the Parliament services, but voted in the sequence in which they appear in the text.  So you can be jumping around from amendment one to one hundred covering the same paragraph of the original proposal.

STUDYING LEGISLATION

Now, you may be thinking, what is he going on about?  Studying legislation and amendments is what we voted him in to do and is what he gets paid to do, so whats the problem?  In the normal course of events the Group Rapporteur or shadow rapporteur for every piece of work that comes to the full plenary session for voting, will prepare a voting list together with our staff, and in consultation with the co-ordinator.  The topic will be discussed in working groups and the full group meeting to tease out any aspects where there may be

disagreement on how to vote, so that agreement can be reached in advance of the vote.

KEEPING ON TOP OF THE SITUATION

It is during that process, the week before the session, that we will go through a similar exercise within the Conservative delegation.  In our case it is the spokesman who flags up issues which may be difficult, either because of the line to be taken by our opponents in the Parliament or where we might not be happy with the EPP-ED line on matters like the euro, social issues or treaty changes, for example.  The outcome may be a group whip and a British whip as well, but the real point is that we must rely upon our colleagues to be on top of the situation in their own committee because there is not time enough to read every document and every amendment that comes from every committee every month.  We have to specialise and divide the work.

ONGOING DEBATE

Anyway I voted for the challenge on  legal base, for reasonable health labelling, against imposing common standards on exports, for lower tar levels and against EU subsidies on tobacco production (which is another story and not really part of this directive).  This was the first reading, so the issue will run and run, not least because we heard the next day that the Advocate General at the ECJ -European Court of Justice - had given a preliminary opinion that the Tobacco Advertising Directive did not have a legal base under the Treaty and should be thrown out.  If the Court upholds this view, and it does 4 times out of 5, the cat will definitely be among the pigeons (unless New Labour tries to ban that too!).

SPEAKING IN THE CHAMBER

And so to other matters.  I spoke twice during the week in the chamber.  Once on a report about de-commissioning old nuclear

research reactors and once on the Commission response to our committee question about the agreement struck with China for EU approval for China to join the WTO or World Trade Organisation.

TWO INTO ONE WON'T GO

On the Wednesday and Thursday we have meetings with the visiting delegation of Australian MPs and Senators.  I am a member of our Delegation for Inter-Parliamentary Relations with Australia and New Zealand, so I am expected to be very much in the thick of it for working sessions and dinners.  My problem was that the China WTO debate clashed with one session and it is difficult to be in two places at one time.

INTERESTING DEBATES

During the session I did attend in full, we discussed issues of regional security in south-east Asia with particular regard to the heavy Australian involvement in dealing with East Timor.  We had a debate about the Euro where they were treated  to an exchange of very different views between a Labour colleague (very pro Euro) and myself (against).  I made a presentation about the China WTO agreement and we agreed that it was a good thing, on the whole, and more likely to lead to better human rights observance in China than a policy of exclusion and ostracism.

DIFFICULT SITUATION

Perhaps the most interesting discussion was on the issue of immigration and asylum seekers, because Australia has very similar problems  to the ones we face.  We learned a new description 'Forum Shoppers' for the process of looking around for the most welcoming or least difficult entry control regime.  The Forum Shoppers are evidently lawyers who do the seeking for the would be immigrants. Lawyers hmm!  Mention of a new wave of boat people reminded me of the
time in 1979-80, when I was sailing  up from Perth via Dampier in West Australia to Hongkong and there were supposed to be loads of boat people in the South China Sea.

SOME LIGHT RELIEF

Thursday evening along with over 20 fellow MEPs I joined the bikers rally to ride pillion as part of a long procession of bikers on a route through  the villages and countryside near Strasbourg.  I went on the first rally in 1997 when the bikers were thanking us for our part in improving Commission proposals on type approval and noise limits affecting motorbikes.  They are a fine bunch and had come from all over Europe to take part.

LABOUR INCOMPETENCE

Final thought.  There has been a bit of publicity about the new Millennium Bridge across the Thames in London.  Evidently it wobbles, vibrates and generally displays a lively disposition when a lot of people are actually trying to use it so the architect and the engineers are having a second thought.  Well, we have a bridge across the River Ill joining new and old buildings.  It was vibrating a teeny bit the other day, but nothing to worry about.  Obviously not a Blairite Bridge - you know, all pretty to look at and no ………..use to anyone!