Speeches to the European Parliament by Jeffrey Titford MEP

Speeches to the European Parliament by Jeffrey Titford MEP (UKIP)

1999-2003

2003

SITTING OF THURSDAY 19 JUNE 2003

Additives in animal nutrition

Titford (EDD). – Mr President, as I look around the Chamber this morning, I am 200 miles from home but I do not feel as if I am in another country; instead, I feel as if I am on another planet. Certainly, when I try to explain to the small farmers what is happening here, they look at me as if I do come from that planet.

Exploring these regulations and their proposed amendments, it is clear that the underlying ethos is the control of corporate business, itself a reasonable objective in a sector which has had more than its fair share of problems.

What the authors of these regulations have clearly failed to recognise, however, is that many small and medium-sized livestock and poultry farmers and many family businesses also formulate feeds. Some of these enterprises operate on an extremely small scale and make up in flexibility, innovation and quality what they lose in economies of scale. None of these businesses can hope to deal with the complexities of this regulation, the paperwork, the recordings and the inspections – and they will progressively be driven out of the feed industry. They and their customers are either going out of business completely or are being forced to rely on the corporate feed producers whom they would normally wish to avoid.

Once again, therefore, this Parliament, with its mania for regulations and its one-size-fits-all mentality, is obstructing the very things many of its Members profess to support: variety, diversity and quality, to say nothing of support for small and medium-sized enterprises.

I voted against these regulations at the first reading and if I thought it could succeed, I would have tabled an amendment to strike out the common position. As it is, I can only leave colleagues to make their own judgements as to the efforts made. I suspect they will not be that charitable.

SITTING OF TUESDAY 13 MAY 2003

Exercise of Commission implementing powers

Titford (EDD). – Mr President, I am distinctly uneasy about this proposal, but there does not seem to be an easy answer. On the one hand, Mr Corbett wants to give the Parliament equivalency with the Council, suggesting that somehow this improves the accountability of the system and by inference its democratic legitimacy. On the other hand, the Council reflects the primacy of the nation-states, in theory at least, and should have the final say on whether a legislative instrument should have legal force.

Again, on the one hand, the problem is that the secretive and complex system adopted by the Council does not facilitate external scrutiny, which therefore negates any resemblance of accountability and therefore democracy. On the other hand, the Parliament, despite its pretensions, lacks the European demos and therefore cannot claim to be a democratic institution. On that basis, the current state of affairs is not satisfactory, but nor is what is proposed.

SITTING OF TUESDAY 13 MAY 2003

Parliament's estimates for 2004

Titford (EDD). – Mr President, as this report rightly observes, next year is an election year and our electorates will be asked once again to vote for their MEPs. Those who seek re-election will no doubt be seeking to justify themselves on the basis of their record and new entrants will be of course arguing that they are better alternatives. Looking at this report, the phrase that stands out is 'best value for money'. How many prospective MEPs will be standing on this ticket? As a rule of thumb we calculate that each British MEP costs UK taxpayers about £1.2 million annually – that is of course pounds sterling – or just short of £100 million a year for them all.

When one considers value for money, however, this must be considered not only in relative terms, i.e. whether one or another MEP provides more value than the other, but in comparative terms, in comparison with what else could be bought. Given the great concern in the UK about health services, one comparison might be with the cost of health provision. For the price of our national representation we could afford to provide and equip and service a major teaching hospital – with some change left over. Another interesting comparison is that the money British taxpayers are spending on their MEPs would cover the entire operating costs of the police force of a medium-sized British county. Alternatively we could keep in service ten complete infantry battalions. I wonder which would give Britain more influence in the world. We could even pay for three Eurofighters a year, if they ever reach squadron service.

On the other hand, if this House actually prevented some of the more insane regulations created by the Commission from reaching the statute books, thus slowing down the growing burdens on business, there might be an economic argument for MEPs. As far as I can see, this House acts mainly as a rubber stamp, but here again I could get one of those in a stationery shop for approximately £3.00 or EUR5.00, which would be slightly cheaper.

In all, therefore, I have the greatest difficulty in arguing that this House or the British representation provide best value. That is the message I intend to take to my electorate.

SITTING OF TUESDAY 8 APRIL 2003

2001 discharge procedure

Titford (EDD). – Mr President, in the rarefied atmosphere of this House it is very easy to lose touch with reality. In this context the reality is other people's money. It is taken from them on the grounds that Parliament feels it has the right to decide how it is spent.

People do not volunteer to pay tax and in the final analysis the money demanded is taken under the threat of force. If they do not pay, citizens can lose their possessions, their livelihoods, be made bankrupt and even go to jail. All of this imposes a special responsibility on us, a special trust, and we must ask ourselves whether we could look our constituents in the eye and say yes: all of this money has been spent and properly accounted for. Speaking for myself, I have to ask myself whether I personally could justify putting someone in prison because they have not paid their taxes that this Community has used. I cannot say in all honesty that I could and, frankly, that is the test.

On this basis I do not see how anyone could consent to the discharge of these accounts. The test has not been passed. We have not discharged our responsibility of trust to the citizens of our Member States in ensuring that the money has been properly spent. We have no right to grant discharge.

SITTING OF THURSDAY 27 MARCH 2003

Protection of the financial interests of the Community and the European Prosecutor

Titford (EDD). – Mr President, there cannot be anyone in the House who is not aware of the most important rule in politics: when you are in a hole, stop digging. There is also the joke about the tourist who, lost in depths of Ireland, asked a local how to get to Tipperary and he was told ‘I would not start from here’. Yet, lost at the bottom of the hole, starts Mrs Theato, who declares in her explanatory statement that ‘it has long been acknowledged that the Communities' financial interests require special protection under criminal law’. I agree, but if there were no Community funds, there would be no Community financial interests and, therefore, no need for their protection. That is where I am coming from. It has never made sense to hand over money to an organisation to spend in a manner that has evaded reform and which cannot be accounted for. That is the 'hole'. The answer is to stop digging. Stop giving the Community money.

As for the creation of a European Prosecutor: that might be your desired destination, but my advice is that if I were you, I would not start from here. The essentially corrupt and uncontrolled system is the problem.

Attack the cause, not the system.

SITTING OF TUESDAY 14 JANUARY 2003

Harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport

Titford (EDD). – Mr President, in this legislation I detect a worrying and sinister extension of the scope of Community power. It seems to me that the Commission is no longer content just to set harmonised standards; it is now moving firmly into setting standards and priorities for enforcement. Within the narrow confines of this legislation, ensuring standards for adequate enforcement certainly has its own internal logic, but there is more to it than meets the eye.

Road transport enforcement is carried out by a variety of agencies, most of which have multiple responsibilities and duties. In this instance, the main burden will fall on police forces whose duties also extend to dealing with a wide range of criminal matters outside the scope of this regulation and the scope of Community law. With resources painfully limited, the decisions on how these resources should be employed should be local decisions, based on an assessment of the needs of the local communities and their different patterns. In this context, where the officers who deal with transport matters also deal with crime, such as burglary and other accident prevention, Community requirements in this specific area will almost certainly lead to a distortion of priorities, dictated not by local needs but by a supranational authority which has neither knowledge nor understanding of local conditions. As a result, national authorities, in their haste to conform with the requirements of the Commission in this area, will be neglecting other duties which are actually far more important.

It is not unrealistic, therefore, to suggest that burglars will be able to roam free because police management, under pressure from national authorities, is more concerned with satisfying Community requirements. This is simply not acceptable. I will therefore be voting against this regulation.

2002

SITTING OF THURSDAY 19 DECEMBER 2002

European Year of Education through Sport 2004

Titford (EDD). – Mr President, the value of sport as a tool to promote national identity and further integration has long been recognised. Not for nothing have both democratic and totalitarian governments used taxpayers’ funds on sporting activities.

In terms of the construction of Europe, the role of sport was formally recognised by the Communities in the Adonino report presented to the Milan European Council in June 1985. There can be no question that this issue was seen as a major asset, enabling the Communities to foster active engagement of the citizens of Europe in the construction of that project. Therefore, whatever the fine rhetoric that might flow from this House, the true aim of this particular European Year is to promote further European integration. In other words, this is naked propaganda.

It is not a coincidence that the Year has been declared to coincide with the Olympic Games. Members of this House may think otherwise, but this is a cynical attempt to hijack the Games in order to promote the European agenda.

It is therefore outrageous that European taxpayers’ money is to be spent on this project. The sum of EUR 11.5 million may be a small amount in the grander scheme of things, but it is still a lot of money. There is no justification. We are not here to finance such naked and cynical propaganda.

SITTING OF TUESDAY 17 DECEMBER 2002

Foot and mouth disease: lessons to be learned and proposals for the future

Titford (EDD). – Mr President, whether it is a jumbo jet crash in an isolated Scottish village, a tanker wreck on an ecologically sensitive coastline, a terrorist bombing or a major civil disorder, the effectiveness of a response depends almost entirely on advance planning.

The same applies to a major epidemic of a commercially important animal disease such as foot and mouth. In this context, however, the Commission had assumed statutory responsibility for dictating the nature of planning undertaken by Member States – the so-called contingency planning. It should also have monitored its adequacy.

Therefore, notwithstanding the obvious and manifest failing of the British authorities in this respect, clearly the Commission's performance was disastrous. Rightly, the temporary committee had identified this lamentable lack of diligence on the part of the Commission. Yet what is missing from this report is any indication of why the Commission failed so manifestly in its duty. I rather regret therefore that the temporary committee has chosen to draw attention to, and I quote, ‘the high quality of the Commission's work in controlling the crisis... stressed by the national veterinary authorities of Member States concerned’.

I would suggest therefore that, before leaping into the usual role of telling everyone else what is going wrong, the Commission this time spends its time examining why, when the chips were down, it performed so badly.

SITTING OF TUESDAY 17 DECEMBER 2002

Electrical and electronic equipment: 1. Waste (WEEE), 2. Dangerous substances

Titford (EDD). – Mr President, the concerns about increasing quantities of electrical and electronic equipment entering the waste system have been well rehearsed. There can be no dispute that this type of waste is a problem. Furthermore, there is no dispute that the problem will continue to grow. However, there is a world of difference between agreeing that something is a problem and agreeing with a proposed solution.

My purpose in making this address, therefore, is to enter into the record my total disagreement with this directive. My central objection is that the directive is economically illiterate. Its effect will be to create massive quantities of materials in a highly volatile market. When quantities increase as a result of this directive, the value of recycled materials will drop, making the economics of recycling extremely uncertain. On this basis, producers and eventually their customers, are being asked to sign a blank cheque.

Neither does any serious consideration seem to have been given to the problem of labour recruitment. Salvaging materials is highly labour-intensive yet the work is unattractive. Either wages will have to go up sharply to meet the demand for more staff or the scheme will be bedevilled by labour shortages. The recycling plants required to meet this directive are highly capital-intensive. With such uncertain returns it seem unlikely that there will be any commitment to providing the necessary facilities.

Finally, I have to add to a list of objections that is by no means complete the fact that, as we have learned to expect from EU legislation, the system is highly bureaucratic, adding massive overheads and a totally unnecessary burden on industry. It also requires Member States to create yet more criminal offences to regulate the commercial market. Is turning our businessmen into criminals really what European unity is really all about? Is this really what Monnet planned? Surely there is a better way.

Logically, if there are tax breaks for companies which use recycled materials and import controls which favour equipment with high proportions of recycled materials as well as tax breaks for companies that process the materials, this would create a market. One could find that, as with the car batteries' recycling – before the EU destroyed it – a new market would be created. Properly designed such a scheme could permit end-users to be paid for delivering waste material, which is exactly what happened with car batteries and the reason why – before the EU intervened – we managed to recycle over 80% of car batteries. With that degree of cooperation the most expensive part of the scheme – collection costs – are minimised.

It seems that, whenever there is a choice between a simple and effective scheme and one that is costly, bureaucratic and inefficient and also criminalises the business fraternity, the European Union always goes for the latter. If you need an explanation as to why there is growing disenchantment with the European Union, just look at this directive and the many more like it.

SITTING OF THURSDAY 5 DECEMBER 2002

Vote

Titford (EDD), in writing. – I have voted against the Report on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs because it approves of the regulation and furthermore does not seek to improve the content or alter the aims of either the former regulation or the Commission proposal.

The overall aim is regionalisation via a uniform Community approach. A development I cannot support as a sovereignist. The regulation will put unnecessary restrictions on producers in particular affecting small and medium sized producers of agricultural products. Furthermore, I firmly believe that the consumers will be able to orient themselves better if the name of the Member State in which the product has been produced is evident. The consumer should be able to support home production, if this is their wish.

Finally it is unjustifiable that LDCs should live up to EU production standards. This constitutes a hidden trade barrier.

SITTING OF THURSDAY 5 DECEMBER 2002

Vote

Bonde, Farage, Sandbæk and Titford (EDD), in writing. – (DA) During the vote on the Statute, we voted in favour of transparency and comparability and against hidden income, as well as in favour of abolishing the system for reimbursing travel expenses and replacing it with a system through which actual expenditure is reimbursed. We have opted for this, even though we are in principle opposed to uniform remuneration, for we believe that MEPs must be remunerated like their colleagues in the Member States.

SITTING OF WEDNESDAY 4 DECEMBER 2002

EC-Angola fisheries agreement

Titford (EDD). – Madam President, the complete, total and disgraceful failure of the common fisheries policy and the consequent collapse of fish stocks means that the EU must now cast its net wider and wider to satisfy voracious Spanish demands. Not content with destroying the North Sea, Africa is now the prize.

There are now 16 third country agreements in place. Today we are discussing Angola and, according to the World Wildlife Fund, this deal will strip a vulnerable African coastal community of a precious asset. When each deal is debated, my colleague, Mr Nigel Farage, has urged you to open your eyes to the environmental destruction and, more seriously, to the deaths of many hundreds of black African fishermen which European Union boats are causing every year.

Exhaustive documentary evidence from Mauritania and Senegal confirms the scale of this tragedy. The contempt with which our pleadings have met leads me to think that most of the rest of you must inhabit a different planet. There is a better way. Ten years ago, Namibia threw out the Spanish boats and took control over her 200-mile territorial waters. 14 000 people now work in an industry worth USD 350 million a year. Namibia should be our model if we really want to help the third world. Let us stop exploiting these poor countries and encourage them to modernise their industries. Let us recognise that the only fishery management schemes that work around the world are the ones with national control.

SITTING OF WEDNESDAY 20 NOVEMBER 2002

Traditional herbal medicinal products

Titford (EDD). – Mr President, it seems that a guiding ethos of this establishment is the precautionary principle, which aims to keep risks as low as reasonably practical. However, British courts suggest that this requires weighing costs against the measures necessary to eliminate the risk. If we are to believe the rapporteur, the risks from uncontrolled use of herbal medicines are considerable. But I have looked at just one of his claims: that is that in the US products based on ephedrine have accounted for more than 1 200 cases of toxic effects, including 70 deaths. However, the dietary supplement industry estimates that as many as two billion doses of this product are consumed each year in the United States.

As to Mr Nisticò's claims, the US General Accounting Office has examined the FDA data which he uses. To reach its conclusions the FDA used a combination of scientific evidence on the effects of ephedrine and a set of adverse event reports (AERs). According to the GAO the FDA relied upon 'poorly-documented AERs and weak information'. Furthermore, it did not perform a causal analysis to determine whether ephedrine products caused or contributed to the adverse effects. It did not document which AERs were serious and did not establish criteria to determine which events were serious. It did not perform any reliable assessment of its analysis.

These are just brief extracts from an 83-page report. I have similar reports on other risks that Mr Nisticò cites. The risks have been seriously overstated on the basis of scandalously poor evidence. There is hardly a measurable risk from the use of herbal medicines and it is, in any event, far less than that arising from conventional medicines.

Given the minimal risk, the cost of this measure clearly outweighs the benefit. There is no justification for it. I declare an interest. I use herbal medicines every day of the year.

SITTING OF TUESDAY 22 OCTOBER 2002

Access to sensitive Council documents on security and defence

Titford (EDD). – Mr President, despite attempts to make them otherwise, security and defence are matters for the European Council. This Parliament has no competence in that area, either legislative or budgetary. Furthermore, it has to be said that, within the context of the Treaties, the function of this Parliament is to scrutinise the Commission. Its responsibility does not extend to the scrutiny or review of Council activities. Scrutiny of Council members remains the responsibility of individual national parliaments. It is to them that their individual ministers are responsible. Only those parliaments can hold ministers to account.

On that basis, it seems to be a measure of the self-importance of the Members of this Parliament that they are seeking information that is not in the public domain. I would say that it is none of their business. Parliament should not be asking for it, and the Council should not give it.

This also has wider implications. The information is not to be given to all Members but to a select and privileged cartel within this Parliament. Furthermore, those who receive that information are to be sworn to secrecy and can be disciplined for breaches of confidence. There cannot be a better way of muzzling representatives of the public.

The central point is that, if the primary role of Parliament is scrutinising the Commission, then that is exactly what it should be doing. Time allocated for debates on these matters is already ridiculously short, and scrutiny is therefore minimal. It would be far better if the House concentrated on its statutory duties, rather than poking its nose into areas which are none of its business.

In pursuit of more information, therefore, it would be much better if it devoted its energies to pressing for more transparency and openness from the Commission.

SITTING OF TUESDAY 24 SEPTEMBER 2002

Environmental performance of freight transport system

Titford (EDD). – Mr President, experience has taught me that when bureaucrats and politicians resort to jargon, citizens should guard their wallets. What is one supposed to make of the phrasing used to proclaim that one of the aims of the Marco Polo programme is to maintain the module repetition of freight transport at its 1998 levels by promoting a modal shift from road to other transport modes?

Another gem was the heading 'optimism in infrastructure capacity and logistical concepts'. This sort of mindless gobbledegook means as much to the ordinary citizen of Europe as a text in ancient Sanskrit. The Commission needs to learn that transparency is not about putting things on the website. It is about writing in clear, jargon-free language that ordinary people can understand.

As to the substantive issue of reducing road congestion and improving the environmental performance of the transport system, I note that this ambitious aim is to be funded to the tune of EUR 115 million over 5 years. That is just EUR 23 million a year to be spent Europe-wide between 15 Member States – or is it to be 25 Member States? Frankly, even if this aim could be achieved by the Commission's financial instrument – and I share Mr Bradbourn's scepticism on this – the amount of money allocated would hardly begin to dent the problem. As always, the Community's ambitions are bigger than our pockets. Therein lies the problem. The money being spent belongs to the taxpayers of Europe, it is drawn from national governments, each of which has its own unique problems. Thus, as always, the Commission is looking for a European problem that does not exist on a European level and then failing to address it.

Mr Bradbourn's traffic-light solution, however, hardly seems appropriate. The problem in eastern England, the region I represent, is that we have neither decent roads nor decent railways. Yet improving infrastructure would cost more in my part of England than the whole of the budget allocated to this scheme. Given such a pathetic response from the Commission and the clear evidence that this House does not have any better solutions, it would be better to leave transport improvements to national governments. Our government in particular seems well capable of making its own mess of our transport policy without any help from the Commission and its jargon.

SITTING OF TUESDAY 3 SEPTEMBER 2002

Air navigation

Titford (EDD). – Mr President, when my colleague spoke about the Single European Sky in July 2000 he thanked the then rapporteur, Sir Robert Atkins, for providing a gift to the Eurosceptic movement in the United Kingdom. Since then, the Europhile British press, particularly the national Sunday newspaper The Observer, has made great capital over the recent tragic collision between the Swiss and the Russian airliners. One journalist even suggested that the lack of a unified system was in part responsible for the incident. However, this issue is not about controlling airspace. A unified system through Eurocontrol already exists. It has been doing the job of coordinating air movements in 30 countries, half of them outside the EU, for 42 years. The real issue is the battle as old as the Communities themselves: the battle between supranationalism and intergovernmentalism.

The Eurocontrol system is based on intergovernment control; the Single European Sky framework directive is naked supranationalism. The Community wants to bring a portion of the system under supranational control. It wants to take over relations with Eurocontrol from Member States, bringing it closer to achieving its ambition to be what Monnet described as a European government. That is the real agenda.

I remind my British colleagues particularly, therefore, that if they vote for this measure they are voting for political integration.

SITTING OF MONDAY 1 JULY 2002

Restrictions on heavy goods vehicles in international transport

Titford (EDD). – Mr President, the amazing thing about this report is that it includes the phrase "the territory of the European Union now constitutes a single area without frontiers as regards roads". It seems therefore to have escaped the attention of the author of this startling claim that the UK does have a frontier with the rest of the European continent. It is called the English Channel, or la Manche, if you prefer. It may not be a road frontier, but the 22 miles of sea at its narrowest point does make a great deal of difference. You might have also noticed that we drive on the left and that there are certain other differences in the road systems in the UK. We have different commercial systems and a different tempo of life.

Accordingly, we have evolved our own system of controls. They work after a fashion and, while we thank the rapporteur for working on the system of convergence plus freedom, which gives Member States the freedom to set their own rules, we do not need your freedom. We are quite capable of setting our own rules and we are quite happy to have our truck drivers abide by yours. Therefore we do not need your convergence either and we do not need harmonization.

SITTING OF WEDNESDAY 12 JUNE 2002

Enlargement of the Union

Titford (EDD). – Madam President, it is a measure of the ideological poverty of the European Union that anyone can, with a straight face, still talk about success and the CAP in the same sentence. As the common fisheries policy is widely acknowledged as having been disastrous, so too is the CAP.

The central fault of the CAP is that it is a common policy, and it is not possible to have one policy covering sub-Arctic Finland, the temperate grasslands of Cheshire, the wine growers of Bordeaux, the arid near-subtropical vegetable growers of Catalonia, or the sheep producers of the mountains of Greece, much less the highly populous Denmark which produces more pigs than people.

But the other major fault of the CAP is that it is an agricultural policy. As demonstrated during the foot-and-mouth crisis in our country, agriculture is an integral part of the rural economy. There is massive interdependence between farming and its rural infrastructure. Support one part without taking into account the needs of the other and you can create damaging distortions, which is exactly what has happened.

Enlargement would have been an opportunity to have started with a clean sheet, but it was missed with Agenda 2000's so-called reforms; and it will be missed again. Now the disaster is to be imposed on the enlargement countries. This you will have cause to regret.

SITTING OF THURSDAY 30 MAY 2002

Vote

Titford (EDD), in writing. – If one were to judge by the Commission’s report, it would be possible to believe that cross-border transport and the free movement of goods in Europe could not exist without the EU.

Needless to say, governments are capable of freely cooperating on transport matters – and a broad range of other issues – without needing to surrender their powers to an unelected, supranational authority.

But what makes this project particularly odious is the triumphalist claim in the Commission’s report:

"The major cross-border projects of the last decade, such as the Channel Tunnel, the high-speed line between Brussels and Paris and the bridge/tunnel between Sweden and Denmark, send out signals to the citizens of the European Union that European integration is progressing".

In other words, like everything else the Commission touches – or, more accurately, "taints" – the real agenda is political integration. This is not only odious – it is dangerous. When are the Commission and its fellow travellers going to realise that their continued efforts to hijack virtually every activity in Europe is creating the sort of backlash typified by Le Pen and Fortuyn? A lot less integration and a little more humility would do us all a lot of good.

SITTING OF WEDNESDAY 10 APRIL 2002

Workers' exposure to asbestos

Titford (EDD). – Mr President, it should be noted that the Commission has been unable to suggest a maximum limit value on the exposure to chrysotile, mainly because it has been impossible to prove that any deaths have arisen from the use of products containing white asbestos. Yet this committee knows better. It thinks that the precautionary principle should apply. The only way to protect workers is a policy of zero risk.

To demonstrate the absurdity of this stance, you should note that a human being on average breathes in 20,000 white asbestos fibres a day; up to 2 million exist in the lungs of healthy individuals, and they are all from natural sources. In fact, although occupational exposure to massive levels of white asbestos may pose some risk, as indeed does exposure to any dust at high levels, even the UK's own risk-averse Health and Safety Executive concedes that there is a negligible risk from exposure to products made from white asbestos. Yet the inclusion of white asbestos in this directive is estimated by none other than our own Trade Union Council to cost GBP 80 billion for the UK alone and up to GBP 500 billion throughout Europe, without possibly saving a single life. At the very least, therefore, this Parliament should pause for thought and refer this legislation back to a committee for a full evaluation of its costs and consequences.

SITTING OF TUESDAY 12 MARCH 2002

Food supplements

Titford (EDD). – Mr President, circulating the streets of Strasbourg this morning was a mobile advertising hoarding asking this Parliament how it could ignore the wishes of 450 million voters. The obvious answer is 'very easily': it has been doing it for years. And if this Parliament accepts the common position on this directive it will prove my point. It is a totally unnecessary intrusion into the freedoms of millions of people. Never have I received so many communications from ordinary people asking me to reject it. The Commission is entirely wrong to assert that lobby groups are scaremongering. As far as I can see the pressure is coming from ordinary people who are very worried by this proposal. It is those ordinary people whose interests are under threat. Accordingly I will be voting for the UEN Amendment No 7, calling for the rejection of the common position. I urge every Member of this House to do likewise.

SITTING OF TUESDAY 5 FEBRUARY 2002

Financial services legislation

Titford (EDD). – Mr President, what is interesting about this report is the expressed concern for Parliament's rights. This is matched by the claim that the committee wants to enhance democratic control over this fast-moving area. What I do not see is any concern expressed for those in financial services or for the customers they serve. Without dwelling on any particular aspect of the financial services legislation to which this report refers, I have to fulfil my own democratic responsibility and point out that the aggregation of Community legislation is slowly, but inexorably, strangling the financial community and making it almost impossible to trade.

In this context I am constantly reminded by my constituents that those most affected are the small and independent financial advisers, the net effect being that business is becoming steadily concentrated in the hands of larger and larger firms. On the other hand, I see no slackening in the number of financial scandals which break into the headlines. In fact, the very reverse seems to be the case. Coming as I do from a tradition where parliament is the guarantor of safeguards and freedoms of individuals, I therefore find this report yet another exercise in increasing the power of the Community institutions, with no thought for what the legislation is trying to achieve. The committee is counting the angels dancing on the end of a pin while the industry gradually collapses. This to me typifies what the Community is about.

2001

SITTING OF MONDAY 10 DECEMBER 2001

European Food Authority

Titford (EDD). – Let me start by saying that I am all for food and animal feed safety, but I cannot understand why the European Union believes that it is necessary to establish the European Food Safety Authority. I believe I am right in saying that almost all major diseases, except possibly BSE, come from countries outside the European Union. Therefore the World Health Organisation, which is already in existence and is doing just such work, should be adequate for this purpose and can protect all of our interests.

This organisation serves 27 of the countries of Europe including the countries of the European Union. It strikes me that the European Union is creating a further quango which, like most authorities the EU sets up, will be expensive to run and turn out to be a white elephant. If such a need did exist, surely it should be the work of each national government to look at the appropriate problems. These would be pertinent to the conditions of that country and they can act accordingly.

SITTING OF WEDNESDAY 14 NOVEMBER 2001

Vote

Bonde, Esclopé, Farage and Titford (EDD), in writing. – (FR) We consider this draft regulation to be a real threat to the urban public passenger transport service in that it abolishes the freedom to manage our territorial communities. Calling this fundamental principle into question in many Member States, possibly even going as far as constitutional recognition, is detrimental to free choice and, more importantly, to the free organisation of local public services, thus affecting service itself.

However, we can only agree with the exclusion of long-distance rail services due to the exclusive rights without compensation that apply to them.

We also approve all the amendments aiming to preserve the social clause.

However, for reasons of safety and coherent management, which would be jeopardised by the division of the lines, we consider the inclusion of local rail services within the scope of the regulation to be unacceptable.

That is why we propose that this text, which is neither acceptable nor desirable for the continuity of the local public passenger transport service, be rejected.

SITTING OF TUESDAY 13 NOVEMBER 2001

Market access to port services

Titford (EDD). – Mr President, in my constituency lie the ports of Felixstowe and Harwich, the largest privately owned port complex in Europe and a model of commercial success. The owners tell me that this directive has been prepared without thorough consultation and that, if passed, it will be seriously damaging to the whole UK port industry. They say that it would force many ports to restructure, yet would do nothing to improve efficiency in a cargo handling market characterised by competition between ports, not within ports. Thus, if there are problems of restrictive practices in cargo handling and pilotage in some continental ports, they should be tackled by individual Member States.

As is so often the case, one size does not fit all. I urge the Commission, even at this late stage, to rethink this damaging proposal. Competition is one thing. Destruction of a successful industry is quite another. I ask you to take this directive back and consult properly with those who are affected by it.

SITTING OF WEDNESDAY 5 SEPTEMBER 2001

Implementation of competition rules

Titford (EDD). – Mr President, yesterday I was in this House addressing the issue of the European Aviation Safety Agency when I noted that the means by which it was being achieved was through the gradual integration of the national systems. Naturally, as you would expect from me as a leader of a party that puts national sovereignty above the integrationalist tendencies of the EU, I strongly object to this process of gradual integration.

Today, under the different heading of reform of competition policy I find that I am confronted with exactly the same thing – yet another attempt by the Commission to achieve the gradual integration of national systems. But what makes this attempt particularly sinister is that it is being sold under the beguiling and wholly misleading claim that the reform is – I quote from the session’s news briefing – "to free hard-pressed Commission staff in the Competition Policy Department from routine matters to enable them to concentrate on major cases of non-competitive behaviour".

Although giving Commission officials an easier life might be one effect of this proposal, the way this is being done is to give national competition authorities limited powers to enforce the competition rules hitherto the monopoly of the Commission.

But these authorities are neither independent, as it is claimed, nor free to act. They are being granted licenses to act for the Commission in accordance with Community rules, under the supervision of the Commission and responsible to it. The Commission wants the competition authorities to form a network at the centre of which is the Commission. In other words, the Commission wants civil servants in the different Member States, paid salaries by the Member States, in government buildings paid for by the Member States, using facilities provided by and paid for by Member State governments, to work not for the Member States which finance them, but for the Commission implementing Community law.

Amazingly – and it is a reflection of how superficial is the view and understanding of so many commentators – this is seen and presented as subsidiarity and decentralisation. It is anything but decentralisation. It is the opposite, absorbing the civil servants of many countries into one vast centralised nexus. That is what the network is: everyone working for the one central authority – the Commission.

As for subsidiarity, this is not a matter of Member States being able to make their own decisions and run their own affairs at local level. This is the Commission running Member States’ affairs, using the resources and the facilities of those Member States as if they were its own.

That state of affairs, it seems, also applies to the courts which will hear the cases in Member States. Although they may nominally be the courts of the Member States and their running costs are paid for by the Member States, they are – as the draftsman so clearly reminded us – courts of Community law underlying the whole Community judicial system. In other words, not only are Member States’ civil servants being absorbed into the maw of the Community, but the courts are too.

All this is being done in the name of efficiency. It should be remembered that the most efficient form of government is the centralised dictatorship. The least efficient is the democracy. In important ways, therefore, efficiency is the enemy of democracy.

I fear that in the supposed interests of efficiency we are surrendering something much more valuable – the very democracy at the heart of all our nations – to the centralised technocracy which is the Commission. This is not so much integration as assimilation. It will all end in tears.

SITTING OF TUESDAY 4 SEPTEMBER 2001

Safety and air transport

Titford (EDD). – Mr President, like motherhood and apple pie, no-one could possibly be against safety, especially when it involves aeroplanes. But make no mistake: the real agenda of this proposal is further political integration. For, as the Commission so eloquently puts it in its own document, it intends to create the European Aviation Safety Agency through the gradual integration of national systems. That seems to me to be a driving force for the whole of the European Union – the gradual integration of national systems.

I wish that phrase could be plastered in massive letters on billboards around the United Kingdom so that my fellow subjects could really understand what is really going on. As Mr Duisenberg put it recently when he described the euro as a symbol of political integration, we have here yet another symbol – the European Aviation Safety Agency.

But what is particularly striking here, apart from the fact that we already have an independent intergovernmental agency in the Joint Aviation Authority, is the stark admission that continued intergovernmental cooperation is to be abandoned as it is developed and I quote from the rapporteur's report: "would have involved lengthy ratification procedures in the national parliaments of the states concerned . . ., which would not necessarily have been successful". How awkward and inconvenient democracy is. Rather like the Irish population when they run a referendum, you can never rely on it to behave. Much easier, therefore, to create another European institution and get rid of the whole messy business. Administratively convenient it may be, democracy it is not. But it is symbolic of the European Union's experience.

Given the aviation content here, and with due deference to the rapporteur, I can only conclude with a phrase that really will not translate from the English: "What a Messerschmidt".

SITTING OF MONDAY 2 JULY 2001

Resale rights

Titford (EDD). – Madam President, this report relates to the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee, and it is therefore far too late to affect the course of this directive – not that a single or group of MEPs could do that anyway. Nevertheless I will take this opportunity to put on record my party's opposition to this measure. In so doing I must point out a few home truths to this House, even though I know these will be unpopular with the institution, which prefers to live in its own world, totally detached from reality.

First, although this measure aims to remove distortions in the internal market, it is fair to say that there is no such thing as a Community market in the resale of artists' work. There is in fact a major market in the UK – mainly in London – and very little else in Europe. Therefore, the major effect would be not so much to distort as to disrupt the UK market. The net result of this will be to drive the trade elsewhere: to Japan, Switzerland and the United States, none of which countries will have the same concern for EU-based artists as the London market.

Secondly, such money as is collected will invariably go to the wrong people. Seventy per cent of the 'droit de suite' funds collected in France in 1996 went not to the artists but to the descendants of seven artists, including the relatives of Matisse and Picasso. This does not exactly conform with the images of helping the struggling artist.

Thirdly, the law itself is cumbersome and will add considerably to the costs of art markets by adding a tier of bureaucracy and expense. Many small firms will be excluded from low-value sales altogether, limiting the opportunities for new and aspiring artists to market their works. Instead of helping artists, this will hinder them, and there will be fewer small firms left in business. Who will then buy the works of unknown artists? Altogether this is an ill-conceived, irrational and ultimately unnecessary piece of legislation.

The legislation itself will be the instrument which creates distortions in an otherwise satisfactory market.

As is so often the case, Parliament and the European Union should leave things alone.

SITTING OF TUESDAY 13 FEBRUARY 2001

Food supplements

Titford (EDD). – Mr President, in the UK there are no specific laws controlling the sale of supplements sold as food. As a consequence, the UK consumers enjoy access to a relatively wide-range of products with minimal restrictions and competitive prices. No one is forced to buy these products and those that do buy them tend to be well informed about their purchases.

Thus, for the Commission to suggest that we approximate our laws on food supplements is in fact to propose creating laws that do not exist at present in the UK. The reason the UK Government has not created them is that there has been no need for them.

By and large the market regulates itself and where false claims are made, unsound or potentially dangerous products are marketed, the existing legal structures have proven adequate. Nor in the market where there is considerable international trade have any particular difficulties been experienced with the movement of goods and a healthy trade on the Internet has developed and is expanding.

There would seem to be scope for the admirable dictum: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Apart from keeping the technocrats busy with yet more interference in other people's lives, there is no need for additional law in this sphere. The Commission should not be attempting to make it. We would be better off without it.

SITTING OF WEDNESDAY 17 JANUARY 2001

Rapid reaction facility

Titford (EDD). – Mr President, my party fully recognises the need for the developed countries to make available resources for international crises and for our response to be rapid and effective. In this context, the Commission's proposal looks attractive in that it provides the mechanisms for affording a response to crisis situations.

However, we believe that for our efforts to be both rapid and effective, they should be planned, funded and executed on a truly international scale, utilising the resources and the capabilities of the whole free world, including the technical genius and the good will of the United States.

The mechanisms for ensuring this already exist in the form of the United Nations and its various agencies. Although imperfect and always capable of reform, these agencies have provided good service and have relieved much suffering. For the future, the way to ensure that responses are maximised is to continue working through these agencies, ensuring that resources are used wisely and efficiently. As far as the Commission's proposal is concerned, this is simply reinventing the wheel, putting the political ambitions of the European Union before the needs of suffering people.

People in crises need a European rapid reaction facility as much as a fish needs a bicycle. We should abandon these grandiose plans and instead support and develop the existing agencies which have a better track record that the EU will ever have.

2000

SITTING OF WEDNESDAY 13 DECEMBER 2000

VAT

Titford (EDD). – Mr President, very few issues among the growing band of United Kingdom Euro-sceptics excite as much interest as VAT, this being one of the concrete examples of the European Union interfering in domestic tax matters. The tax itself embodies many of the features of the European Union which makes it so unloved in my country: it is complicated, bureaucratic, difficult and expensive to administer and, in the UK at least, enforced by a draconian and unpopular inspectorate.

On Parliament's report, I find myself in complete disagreement with virtually every single word. I cannot, for instance, see why the introduction of the euro should require further or even any coordination of VAT rates. I do not see the introduction of a common system of VAT as a priority and I do not agree that the introduction of a common system is long overdue. In fact, nothing would please me, my party and the bulk of business people in the United Kingdom more than the complete abolition of VAT. We would prefer a simpler levy on retail goods. Moreover, we would prefer to determine our own taxes and reject the idea of a common tax system.

Therefore, as to the Commission's proposal to extend the timescale the reform is introduced, I can only express my neutrality. But as to reducing that time, as the rapporteur proposed, I have to oppose.

SITTING OF WEDNESDAY 15 NOVEMBER 2000

VOTE

Titford (EDD), in writing. – My party has serious reservations about Community law applying to the sale of consumer products, as against applying the concept of mutual recognition of standards. Thus, we are opposed in principle to the original directive and must therefore oppose any extension of it.

Even if this was not so, we would still have serious reservations. While this Commission proposal on general product safety is styled as a revision of the 92/59/EEC Directive, with claims that the approach followed in the original directive has not been altered, this does not seem to be entirely the case.

What particularly disturbs us are the plans revealed by Commissioner Byrne to develop a network of enforcement authorities to help implement this law.

Having seen proposals for "networks" elsewhere in Community initiatives, we see in this the beginnings of something which is altogether unhealthy – a unified enforcement system amounting to a European Union consumer law enforcement service.

This to us seems of a general trend where the Commission, having saturated Member States with its laws, is now taking altogether too keen an interest in enforcement systems, with an eye to direct control of them.

On this basis alone, my party opposes this measure.

SITTING OF TUESDAY 14 NOVEMBER 2000

Charter of Fundamental Rights

Titford (EDD). – Mr President, in the recommendation which is the subject of this debate Parliament approves the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It then goes on to instruct its President and the Presidents of the Council and the Commission to proclaim the Charter of Nice. But this Charter is clearly aimed at furthering the ever-closer union of the peoples of Europe. According to the co-rapporteur, Mr Duff, this is a major step towards improving the quality of European integration.

As a representative of my people in England, and not the European peoples, I can only say that I have no mandate to further European integration – and if it truly represents its people neither does the UK government. In fact the bulk of the people in the United Kingdom are wholly opposed to further integration. Therefore, as a democrat, so am I. I dissociate myself from this initiative and will vote against.

SITTING OF THURSDAY 21 SEPTEMBER 2000

Vote

Titford (EDD), in writing. – This proposal typifies the belief of this assembly that, for every ill in society, the solution is a new law and – when that fails – to create another.

The success or otherwise of a law depends on the nature of its enforcement, and the skill/experience of enforcement officers, which cannot be addressed by this directive.

This was recognised in 1972, when the Robens Committee Inquiry on health and safety in the UK, addressing the dynamic of excessive resort to law-making and its effect on enforcement, observed: ". . . the sheer mass of this law, far from advancing the cause of safety and health, may well have reached the point where it becomes counter-productive."

The response by the government of the day was the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974, a highly effective legislative model reducing the law to a few simple principles and duties, spearheaded by a new enforcement agency.

Although these developments were hailed as a major contribution to health and safety at work, the Commission has consistently undermined this Act. Ever since it began legislating in this area, it has confused the issue, making enforcement progressively more difficult. It should desist now, and this assembly should reject this directive.

SITTING OF TUESDAY 16 MAY 2000

Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies

Titford (EDD). – Mr President, as an MEP representing a farming area, I have first-hand experience of how devastating the BSE crisis has been to British agriculture. I can also vouch for the necessity of maintaining effective controls. You might therefore expect me to be enthusiastic about these new controls on BSE, but I am not. We already have enough and I believe they are adequate and effective. This proposal simply adds more red tape and costs to an already overburdened industry.

Of course, I have no objections to other countries adopting measures which match ours. In fact, it would be helpful if measures already in place in the UK were implemented throughout the EU and elsewhere.

Thus it is not new laws we need – we need more compliance. Until all Member States are able to assure us that there is full compliance, this proposal, if passed, will simply add to the list of laws which have not been implemented. In any case, if more controls were needed, we should not be looking to the Commission for guidance. The British BSE inquiry which was commissioned by the UK Government at a cost of £20 million is due to report in November. We should wait to see what this inquiry says.

SITTING OF WEDNESDAY 15 MARCH 2000

Trade in bovine animals and pigs

Titford (EDD). – Mr President, this proposal introduces an extension of a current exemption to Directive 64/432 applicable to the Spanish Government. Without this exemption, it would be required to implement a system of veterinary checks for tuberculosis and brucellosis, for each bovine animal exported from its region. These are already, of course, implemented by many other states.

This exemption has important implications for my country. Whilst Spain is being given exemption, the British meat industry is suffering heavily from the implementation of an allied directive which requires ruinously expensive veterinary checks in our slaughterhouses. So rigorous are the requirements for veterinary supervision that we do not have enough British vets to carry out the work. But instead of giving us more time, the Commission has commenced infringement proceedings.

In order to avoid ending up in the European Court of Justice, my government has had to recruit large numbers of EU vets, 300 of whom come from Spain. If Spain has such a large surplus of vets that it can afford to send so many to my country, why is it having such difficulty implementing the system of veterinary checks required by this directive? It does not seem right to me that British slaughterhouses should be put through the hoops as a result of the Commission's action whilst Spain is allowed to default on its obligations.

Why is the Commission giving Spain such an easy time? Should it not be asking why Spain can afford to send so many vets over to the United Kingdom to implement a related directive and perhaps be insisting that some of these officials be retained in their homeland to implement Community law in their own country?

On that basis, I believe that this proposed directive is wrong and I will be voting against it.

SITTING OF THURSDAY 3 FEBRUARY 2000

Vote

Titford (EDD), in writing. – My party opposed this measure and the proposed amendments.

There are few things more certain in life than taxes, death and pollution. However, there is also nothing more certain than EU environmental directives which have laudable intentions but which actually fail to achieve their stated objectives.

When it comes to pollution, like sin, we are all against it, but from there it is a far cry from believing that just because a measure is proposed against this evil it is necessarily good. In fact, this directive, like so many others addressing environmental issues, is not good. As is so often the case, it merely provides yet another massive bureaucratic structure to control a problem, which will only serve to create more jobs for officials, and cost the motor industries and consumers a great deal of money. The one thing it will not do is solve the problem – it is a massive sledgehammer to miss a nut.

No one, not least my party, could begin to disagree that recycling should be encouraged, but the best way to achieve that is to work with the market, not to create another bureaucratic monstrosity. Thus, a more appropriate way to encourage recycling is to tax manufacturers who do not increase the amounts of recoverable material in their vehicles, to encourage private sector recycling companies, through a package of tax incentives and assistance on complying with environmental requirements, and to incentivise the use of recycled materials.

Of course, these are areas where the EU does not have any jurisdiction and nor should it have such jurisdiction. However, in the absence of these powers, it should not seek to substitute a less effective measure. Instead, it should leave Member States to develop their own systems, and avoid the tendency to interfere where it is not wanted and can do no good.

SITTING OF WEDNESDAY 2 FEBRUARY 2000

Talks in Austria on forming a government

Titford (EDD). – Madame President, my group, the EDD, and especially my party, are very concerned by this debate. We cannot, and we do not, support in any way the sentiments and politics of Herr Haider and we deplore his references to the Third Reich. We also, however, deplore the fact that your Parliament should consider interfering in the policies of an elected government of any country, especially one which is part of the European Union. My party at home are certainly not racists, but we do not accept the rule or interference of the European Union very well. Are you going to interfere with Great Britain’s Parliament if we are elected?

Madame President, the people of Austria have spoken by electing Herr Haider to their Parliament. I believe they gave him 28% of the vote so there is going to be a coalition government. Your Parliament, may I suggest, Madame President, should wait to see if the party of Haider has an effect on the policies of that country. Then, and only then, might you consider if human rights are affected. Your Parliament may consider measures appropriate to counter that situation and then, Madame President and only then, may your Parliament consider interfering in the constitutional affairs of a country of the European Union.