SOUTH WEST FIRST
LETTER FROM STRASBOURG - September, 2002
DISTANT MEMORY
The summer recess is a distant
memory, weeks ago already, as I set off for the first Strasbourg session
of the autumn. One anecdote
from our family visit to Vermont in New England.
The Americans have begun issuing State quarters, their 25 cent
coin, with separate designs and messages.
So, even with their single currency, they feel the need to
respect local identity and character.
TWO THEMES DOMINATE
On arrival I find two themes
dominating early discussions in the EPP-ED (European Peoples
Party-European Democrats, of which we Conservatives are allied members)
group meeting. First come
is the effects of the disastrous floods and a debate about how the
European budget can be altered to provide emergency and reconstruction
relief. The Germans are
particularly keen on this point. The
other issue is Iraq, Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction, the
war against terrorism, the expectation of early U.S. direct action and
continental anxieties about any fall-out.
A MINUTES SILENCE
At the opening of the session we
observe a minutes silence for the victims of the floods and another
minute for the latest victims of terrorism in Spain and Northern
Ireland. At last someone has noticed, or is willing to notice, the
skullduggery going on there, day by day, giving the lie to Blairs
Belfast peace process.
LACK OF CONSULTATION
On Tuesday morning there is a
special meeting for the rapporteurs of my Research Committee for the
Sixth Framework Programme of European Research, as well as co-ordinators
like myself, to confront representatives of the Commission and the
Council in an informal trialogue meeting.
The spirit of Tony Blairs predilection for by-passing Parliament
seems to have infected the other two institutions over the summer
recess. They changed
certain crucial elements of the compromise understanding we reached in
July, concerning both the Framework and the specific programmes, without
notice or consultation.
TRYING TO AVOID DELAY
We on the Parliament side are
rather cross about this, because we agreed to the compromise in order to
avoid the delay of going into conciliation and the necessity of a third
reading. This was to put
the legislation for the research programme in place before it was due to
start in January 2003. In
the past we have been bickering with the Council over budget and content
well past the nominal starting date.
It was widely agreed that the research community in Europe needed
certainty to enable planning their work.
NO COMPROMISE
Two parts of the compromise are
at stake. First is
the block of amendments to specific programmes of research within the
framework and second is the very sensitive issue of stem cell research.
The background to the first point is that the Parliament has
co-decision powers over the framework but only consultation on the
specific programme. That
means we can impose amendments on the Council, by an absolute majority
or 314 votes, for the framework, but not the specific programme.
We agreed not to press certain amendments to the framework, on
the understanding that the Council would accept the block amendments, or
the sense of them, within the specific programmes.
It would seem that the undertaking given did not mean what we
took it to mean!
PASSIONS RUN HIGH
The second point is the real
problem. In a number of
countries in the EU any research using stem cells and surplus embryos
from IVF treatment (in vitro fertilisation or test tube babies) is
strictly banned. There are
a number of areas of research into medical conditions where their use is
essential to finding cures. There
is a passionate debate about the ethics of such research and whether EU
funds should be used for it at all, or only in the Member States where
it is legal and whether the countries who ban it should in effect be
financing it in other countries via the EU research budget.
The funda-mentalists on this issue have doggedly fought the
matter all the way through our parliamentary procedure and managed to
persuade a blocking minority of member states in the Council to impose a
moritorium on spending in this area under threat of blocking the entire
programme.
NOBODY IS SATISFIED
The new Danish presidency of the
Council, anxious to avoid a total blockage, came up with a so-called
delicate compromise of a moratorium until end 2003 and a deadline of the
same date for proposals on how to proceed.
This of course satisfies neither point of view very much, but
certainly gives more comfort to the fundamentalists on the issue while
annoying the Parliament as a whole about the procedural point of
reneging on a previous compromise agreement.
MUCH ADO ABOUT WHAT?
One foolish argument advanced
for accepting the new arrangement is that only nine intentions to bid
for funds had been received out of over 14,000 total.
So if it is not that much of a problem why are the blocking
minority making such a fuss? The
answer, of course, is the principle of the matter and people tend to be
at their most obdurate when principles are at stake.
It may all blow over or it may blow up.
CHANGING THE RULES
This session is the first to be
held under the new rules of procedure on voting.
The effect has been to cut dramatically the number of votes on
reports and the time spent doing it.
Essentially, it has been decided that every report adopted in
committee with fewer than 10% of the members of the committee voting
against will be tabled for a vote without a debate or amendment in the
plenary session. Hitherto
minority political groups such as the Greens or 32 individual members
signing together could table any number of amendments again, so as to
have a second crack at it or to make a political statement at the
plenary stage. We
Conservatives have done this on many occasions when we differed from our
EPP-ED allies, for example.
CLOSER WATCH
Now we would need 63 signatures
or political groups whose membership comprised more than 10% of the
membership of the Parliament. You
can see the attractions for the two major groups in the Parliament of
curbing the opportunities of small groups while speeding up voting time.
In one sense it makes it more important for us to remain within one of
them, yet it seems to me to contradict one of the avowed aims of
proportional representation, to give minorities a seat at the table and
a voice in the debate. We
shall see how it goes, but it means we must watch committee work even
more closely.
SELLAFIELD VISIT
Outside these grand matters, I
am involved in lots of organisation for events and visits.
I meet BNFL (British Nuclear Fuels Ltd) late Tuesday afternoon to
discuss details of the visit we are running to bring continental MEPs to
Sellafield to see for themselves what goes on.
We had hoped to persuade Irish and Austrian MEPs to come as they
are the most intransigent opponents of nuclear energy in general and
re-processing in particular. Sadly,
all have pulled out. One
Austrian colleague said ‘but what’s the point, I just see a
building, it won’t change anything’, which is at least consistent
from someone who doesn’t know one reactor type from another and
certainly won’t let any facts get in the way of her beliefs.
FMD MEETING
I am organising a meeting at
Bicton Agricultural College in East Devon on Friday 13th
September, with my friend Robert Sturdy MEP, speaking about the foot and
mouth disease special committee of inquiry and the mid-term review of
the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) just published by Commissioner
Fischler. It was Robert
whose initiative persuaded continental MEPs from all political groups
except socialists to sign the motion for a special committee.
He was ably supported by our own Neil Parish MEP.
The motion required the signatures of one quarter the membership
of the Parliament or 157 MEPs, no mean feat!
COORDINATING VISITS
Looking further ahead, I am
organising visitor groups to Brussels for Conservatives from Bournemouth
and East Dorset (end September) and Devon and Cornwall (end November)
which involves a fair amount of work putting the programme together.
OPEN SESAME
And I am organising a Conference
in Brussels on small business issues in November under the heading of
SESAME – opening doors for business (Supporting Every Small and
Medium-sized Enterprise). As
part of the run up to the event, I have just published SESAME for the
south west in printed booklet format as well as on my website.
The 24 page booklet is full of contact and access information.
AGE AND EXPERIENCE
WINS
One event this week which did
not get the full attention of the press was the leadership contest in
the Labour group of MEPs. They
have had a remarkable churn rate in recent years, with travel burdens
being the most cited reason. This
time it was a gender contest and most unusually for politically correct
new Labour, it was masculine/age and experience that won over feminine
qualities.
UNION FARES?
On a different note, a Labour
MEP was overhead discussing the announcement that Ryanair plans to
operate flights to Strasbourg. The
attraction would be low
fares (may be), the difficulty would be that Ryanair doesn’t recognise
Irish Trade Unions (or maybe any Trade Unions).
My Conservative colleague who overheard this snippet felt this
added up to two good reasons for flying with this airline.
HOPE OVER EXPERIENCE
Another reason would be the news
I heard on Friday morning as I set out on my journey home via Stuttgart
and dear old British Airways. It
seems there was a strike at Air France, the pilots want more pay, so all
I can say is, that to fly
with them is the triumph of hope over experience.
|
