SOUTH
WEST FIRST
LETTER FROM STRASBOURG
November 2000
TRAVELLING IMPROVING
Quite
often I include tales of travel troubles suffered on the slog to
Strasbourg. In the last few
weeks the problems have been at home with my regular rail route from
Devon to London suffering serious subsidence from the floods.
So it was good news after attending Remembrance Day ceremonies on
the Hoe at Plymouth to be able to travel all the way to London by train
without the coach trip between Exeter and Tiverton Parkway.
TOGETHER
BUT SEPARATE
On Monday
in Strasbourg the first issue on the agenda in the EPP-ED (European
Peoples Party-European Democrats) Group meeting is a discussion and vote
on the group position on the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
This shows up in stark relief the difference between we
Conservatives and almost all our centre right allies on the continent,
and underlines the importance of our remaining together but separate as
allied not full members.
INSTINCT
PREVAILS
We are
instinctively against this exercise, yet our friends and allies cannot
understand why we reject what they view as merely a re-statement of
existing rights. Most of
these rights seem to be from the social agenda of the left to re-inforce
or re-introduce trade union privileges and working conditions, as well
as social security and social assistance entitlements.
TYPICAL
RHETORIC
In one
sense it is difficult to cavil against a statement like "Everyone
has the right of access to preventive health care and the right to
benefit from medical treatment under the conditions established by
national laws and practices. A
high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition
and implementation of all Union policies and activities".
Article 35 word for word.
UNREALISTIC
EXPECTATIONS
However
this is fairly typical rhetoric of the left in arousing expectations
which are bound to be far greater than can be achieved in reality.
The second sentence is word for word from Article 152 of the
Treaty establishing the European Community as amended at the Amsterdam
summit, but I cannot see much evidence of it applying in practice.
Such lofty and grandiose statements have a habit of getting
shipwrecked on the rocks of finite financial resources causing much
heartache to raised hopes and politicians who make unrealisable
promises.
CONFUSION
REIGNS
I have
less difficulty in describing the following extract from article 23 as
specious nonsense. "The
principle of equality shall not prevent the maintenance or adoption of
measures providing for specific advantages in favour of the
under-represented sex." That
has an Orwellian ring to me. It
begs the question of how you define the under-represented sex i.e. in
what circumstances and level of society, and who decides.
A charter for confusion and discrimination more like!
UNCLEAR
LINES
One more
extract and I shall move off the subject.
In article 52 about guaranteed rights it says - "Subject
to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if
they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest
recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms
of others." But
who is to determine necessity and who would prevent abuse of such a
power of limitation?
PERSONAL
INTERPRETATION
The whole
thing boils down to whether one takes the intent or the actual text as
definitive; as to whether one
interprets the intent as benign or the text as threatening; as to
whether there is overlap of competences between this Charter, the
Charter on Human Rights and the rights enjoyed by individual member
states. If those who say
this Charter does no more than state existing rights are correct, then
one asks oneself why do we need this extra set of articles. At any rate the vote was taken and we differed from the rest
of the EPP in our opposition to the Charter.
ROTHE
REPORT
Tuesday
morning is taken up with meetings about the Rothe Report on the Draft
Directive on Electricity from Renewable Energy sources and the new rules
covering political group funds within the European Parliament.
CO-ORDINATION
OF ENERGY
The
renewable energy item is the first reading under co-decision procedure
of a proposal for European legislation.
The detailed text is therefore important and subject to some
sixty plus amendments, including the ones adopted in committee
previously, which must be voted in plenary.
Because we have a Spanish shadow
rapporteur whose position on certain key issues differs from the
majority view within the group, I have to spend time carefully vetting
the amendments to decide upon our voting list for the group as a whole.
It is at times like this that the role of co-ordinator is
particularly important and can be difficult too.
LATE
NIGHT WORKING
The key
issues are whether the targets for share of electricity from renewable
energy sources for each member state should be binding; whether support
(subsidy) mechanisms can last five or ten years; whether the definition
of RES should include energy from incinerating waste.
Our position is no, five years and yes respectively.
The report was to be debated Wednesday evening in the 9 p.m. to
midnight slot and voted on Thursday at noon.
ACCOUNTABILITY
Reform and
changes to rules are a significant theme this week.
The rules on group funds are of importance to me because I am
Hon. Treasurer of the British Delegation of the EPP, or Conservative
MEPs to put it another way, and am accountable for the way we administer
our funds autonomously within the EPP.
This is another way in which we maintain our status as allied not
full members by retaining our own budget.
Most detailed changes are things we do already.
So I am hopeful the changes will not be a problem.
RESTORING
CONFIDENCE
Tuesday
afternoon we receive Commissioner Neil Kinnock in our delegation meeting
so he can make a presentation about the internal reform process within
the Commission and answer questions.
It is unusual for us to receive a Labour Commissioner but the
topic is of great importance to both the efficiency and effectiveness of
the Commission as a whole and its restoring confidence in the Commission
in the wider world. The
reform process applies throughout the Commission and arises from the
Report of the "Wise Men" which triggered the resignation of
the twenty commissioners in March 1999 because of failure to take
responsibility for fraud, mismanagement and bad practice. It was the
Parliament which forced the issue by refusing to grant discharge of the
1996 Budget (signing the accounts in effect) that led to a censure vote
and the appointment of the "Wise Men".
CONCERNS
OF LOBBYISTS
By way of
a change I see a lobbyist from a tobacco company about the Tobacco
Directive and the ruling of the legal services of the Parliament that
parts of the Directive have an incorrect legal base.
I also see lobbyists from Japan who are very exercised about the
draft Directive on Waste electronic and electrical equipment known
joyfully by the acronym WEEE. This
is about what happens to all obsolete computers and all manner of
electrical goods which contain plastic, metals and sundry chemicals.
All these components need different treatment which means a lot
of work taking them apart in addition to collection and final disposal
costs. Understandably there is concern about who bears the cost of
all this.
IMPORTANCE
OF RUSSIA
In the
evening I attend a dinner debate on the security of supply of neutral
gas for Europe. This is a subject I covered in a Report some years ago, so
much of the ground covered is familiar.
However, we are told that the transport costs of gas are ten
times those of oil, namely 1$ per barrel for oil and $10 per barrel
equivalent for gas. This to
illustrate the importance of gas production in countries relatively near
to the EU such as Russia and Algeria.
By 2020 it is estimated 50% of gas imports to the EU will come
from Russia. Food for
thought.
ASSISTANTS
STATUTE
Wednesday
morning I am allowed to attend the backbench committee meeting (I used
to be Chairman of it in the last Parliament, now as Treasurer and member
of the Bureau of the delegation, I am normally ineligible to attend) to
listen to a presentation by Quaestor and Labour MEP Richard Balfe about
other changes, namely the new Assistants Statute and the proposed
Members Statute. The former
is about improving the status and working conditions of MEPs assistants
in Brussels. In particular,
their tax and social security status as, mostly, foreign nationals
working in Belgium.
COMMON
SALARY
The draft
members statute has been an issue as long as I can remember, but there
seems to be much political pressure for it now.
At present MEPs are all paid the same salary as their national
counterparts and pay the same tax as everyone else in their Member
States. There is a huge
range in salary level and considerable variation in other benefits.
For example in Greece the salary is less than half that in the UK
but their MEPs enjoy the benefit of a free car and chauffeur in Greece.
The status is intended to establish a common salary (the weighted
average of the Member States) subject to community tax rates and a
common pension scheme. Although
the average is about the same as the UK parliamentary salary the latest
figure for weighted average would give us a significant increase.
I personally prefer that we remain on the same salary as MPs and
pay UK taxes just like the people we represent.
I guess the only sure thing in this matter is that we shall be
criticised whatever the outcome.
|