My Speeches

Sept 7th 2010 - Debate, Guidelines for the Employment Policies of the Member States.

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 09:00:00 +0100

Speech to Parliament

Debate, Guidelines for the Employment Policies of the Member States.

The only guideline is for the EU to stop interfering.

The Working Time Directive is a disincentive to work, why can't you let people work overtime when they want to, and please don't tell me that this is to protect workers from exploitation when the EU's puppet court, the ECJ, has ruled in favour of companies exploiting groups of workers by paying them less than the minimum wage in no less than four countries.

Are you aware that more than a fifth of newly qualified junior doctors in the UK are turned down because the WTD means they lack experience, and that more are dropping out of training for the same reason.

Recently this house passed a report on independent truck drivers which will result in many of them packing it in.

In voting today MEPs approved a paragraph in the Bove report which will add a massive reporting burden to SMEs, hours after President Barroso had complained that SMEs were being strangled by red tape.

The EU is the problem, not the answer, as the people of Europe are beginning to realise.

Derek Clark MEP
Strasbourg 7th Sept 2010

June 15th 2010 Speech to Parliament - Strasbourg Plenary

Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:00:00 +0100

Speech to Parliament Strasbourg Plenary 15th June 2010

Debate,- Organisation of working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities

(ie Self Employed Drivers, why can't they just say so?)

"It is essential that Amendment 30, with special regard to para 7(a), be adopted. Self employed drivers would not then be included in these provisions.

It is not a road safety issue, all drivers are limited to driving times and associated work, monitored by the tachograph.

Including the self employed drivers will penalise them, especially those who do not use an agency. Company drivers have their schedules provided but true independents spend time preparing their own schedules and bidding for new business.

If included in these provisions those tasks will be part of their working week so they will have less time to drive, load, unload and cater for passengers as compared to those commercially employed. Thus will business be lost and unemployment caused in the small business sector.

The big operator will take up the slack and we will have another example of the EU promoting big business at the expense of the SMEs, who employ half the work force.

I therefore support the rapporteur in Amendment 30, as well as the commission in this respect, - and you don't hear that often from this part of the house".

Derek Clark MEP
Strasbourg 15th June 2010

May 19th 2010 - A new partnership for the modernisation of Europe's Universities

Wed, 19 May 2010 09:00:00 +0100

Speech to Parliament 19th May 2010

Debate; A new partnership for the modernisation of Europe's Universities

Madam President, why does this report seek more international co-operation at University level? Universities have shared information with each other for centuries, before the EU existed.

The Renaissance spanning the 14th to 17th centuries was a surge in intellectual development spreading from Florence right across Europe through the universities. The Arts, music, literature and the sciences became vibrant and spawned countless works which enrich us still today.

So what of modernisation, do you look for the technological developments of the future? If so the scene today is just as promising. Universities elsewhere may be overtaking us but they owe their beginnings to European universities. This tide of higher education often returns home. The universities of Britain take post-graduate students from across the world, pursuing their studies further and sharing their information, not least with commerce and industry.

But we do not need to politicise higher education through such as the Bologna and Erasmus processes. We do not need programs on "multiculturalism" or "multiligualism", or any other "ism"; that will happen anyway as students from around the world meet and mix on campus.

If you wish to serve the modern and future worlds see that universities are funded properly, encourage those students who wish to study abroad, then simply leave them alone to get on with it.

Derek Clark MEP
Strasbourg May 19th 2010

Dec 15th 2009 - Restrictive measures, rights of individuals following Lisbon

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:00:00 +0000

Speech to Parliament Dec 15th 2009

Oral question,- restrictive measures, rights of individuals following Lisbon

Like charity rights begin at home. I ask about the rights of European Sikhs. Because they wear the Kirpan, a small ceremonial dagger within their clothing, they have been prevented from entering the Parliament buildings. The Kirpan is an article of faith which they may not remove, so their exclusion is a matter of religious and racial intolerance.

In successive years I wrote to each of the two previous Presidents of Parliament, and the commission, who all replied that the exclusion is on security grounds

President, in celebrating her diamond jubilee Queen Elizabeth came to my region, the East Midlands, where in their place of worship in Leicester she talked to Sikhs, all wearing the Kirpan, standing as close to them as you are to your colleagues. I am minded to speak on this today because a month ago I was at the Palace of Westminster. There, in our democratic Parliament, very close both to the House of Lords and to the House of Commons, I met several Sikhs all wearing the Kirpan.

With them was a leading Sikh I have come to know. His forebears stood shoulder to shoulder with my forebears, fighting for democracy in those conflicts which have so disfigured Europe. As a result you and 700 others have the freedom to come from the four corners of Europe to meet in this place.

So what of the Lisbon treaty which speaks of a Union founded on respect for freedom, equality, the rights of minorities, values of non-discrimination. Will you live up to your treaty, or is it just empty words?

Derek Clark MEP Strasbourg 15th December 2009

Footnote. Baroness Ashton, summing up and speaking as the High Representative, said," The European Court of Justice will ensure that the rights of individuals will be protected". She did not say this in answer to my comments, nor did she refer to what I said, but rights are rights.

May 5th 2009 - Employment Issues

Tue, 05 May 2009 09:00:00 +0100

Debate - Employment Summit.
If Globalisation causes redundancies there will be a shortfall in revenue so the globalisation fund will be spending money you have not got. Don't fight globalisation, join it by encouraging competition within the EU and learn how to compete on world markets.

You want to renew the social agenda via the WTD which seems to have two aims. First it was supposed to provide more jobs by limiting hours worked so that companies had to take on more staff. But extra staff means extra costs of social taxes so that unit costs rise. Small companies then become uncompetitive, lose orders, causing short time or even closure. Workers then have no job at all, how social is that?

Second it was meant to result in more time with the family but what use is that if the take home wage is then insufficient? How social is it if the family is deprived of some of the nice things of life? Let individuals work out their own salvation.

Many countries have a minimum wage structure and I support that; we do not wish to see the social ills of people exploited. But the EU has now destroyed even that with one of its own institutions, the ECJ, where the rulings on "Laval" and other cases ruin member states minimum wage policies. How social is it to overturn the way National Parliaments have tried to protect workers.

These measures are nothing less than an attempt to establish a soviet style command economy and we all know how well that worked.

Derek Clark MEP Strasbourg May 5th 2009

May 4th 2009 - Organisation of Working Time

Mon, 04 May 2009 09:00:00 +0100

Debate - Organisation of Working Time.
On Feb 18th President Klaus remarked, "the EU structure is a dogma which contradicts the experience of heritage"

Well, member states have a heritage, they do things their own way, including the way people work. When I pointed this out in the first conciliation meeting and remarked that member states should not be forced into a straight jacket, a colleague MEP actually queried as to whether I should have been invited to the meeting. There's democracy for you.

But the Commissioner's document produced later that night," ... preferences and needs of workers make it impossible to fix a date to end opt outs". Nice to hear an echo.

As President Klaus said, " there is a great distance between the citizen and the elected EU representatives, but much less distance within member states, which makes the EU undemocratic". Agreed and I, for one, insist on being more representative of the citizens of the EU. After all, where there were but 4 member states wanting opt outs in 2004 there are now 15, does that not tell you anything? And MEPs had the nerve to call 15 member states out of 27 a blocking minority!!

Parliament is in denial.

Derek Clark MEP Strasbourg May 4th 2009

Feb 4th 2009 - EU's future policy on Climate change

Wed, 04 Feb 2009 09:00:00 +0000

Debate - The Future begins today - EU's future policy on Climate change.
A mystique bordering on a religious creed has grown up around alleged global warming. The environmental scientist has had a field day but the natural world obeys the laws of Physics and Chemistry, my teaching subjects for 39 years.

The global warming theory has cast carbon dioxide, a natural constituent of the atmosphere, as a demon gas. So, does it have the claimed effect? You need to draw graphs here, showing how rising CO2 maybe causes global warming.

Is it an Arithmetic graph, I must get technical here, where equal rises in CO2 produce equal increases in warming?

Is it an Exponential, a runaway, where extra CO2 causes warming in ever increasing amounts?

Or is it a Logarithmic, where extra CO2 causes less and less warming, eventually becoming a flat line so that any extra CO2 has no effect?

The Hadley Centre, the UK's leading authority on global warming confirms that it is a Logarithmic. We are almost on the flat line now, if not already there.

There is no problem.

Derek Clark MEP Strasbourg Feb 4th 2009

Dec 15th 2008 - Debate; Working Time Directive

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:00:00 +0000

Speech to Parliament Strasbourg Mon Dec 15th 2008

Debate; Working Time Directive

Mr President, the Working Time Directive is a waste of time, it has been going round since before I became an MEP, shortly after which a minister from the UK Work & Pensions Dept asked me to support HMG's position,- to retain the opt-outs. Naturally I did so, I still do and I am in good company with other countries which also wish to retain opt-outs.

So let me to trace some of its history.

Dec18th 2007, the rapporteur said that a group of countries did not want the WTD or a social Europe, they wanted a free market,- the law of the jungle -, so they must be psychiatric cases, he said. Thanks, due to world -wide trading, and freedom from EU restraints at home, the UK is strong enough to be the EU's second biggest contributor, £15 billion each year. I don't suppose he would turn that away.

In Dec that year the Portuguese presidency said they could not risk a vote on the WTD in council, so let the Slovenia which followed sort it out,- and that's after working it in with the Temporary Workers Agency to help it along.

Slovenia suggested first a 65 hour working week, then 70 hours but the Council attitude to stand-by time wrecked that, while the ECJ drove a cart and horse through minimum wages.

When Finland ended their presidency their labour minister commented to the Employment Committee that ministers talked big about the WTD when in Brussels, when they get home it was a different story. Quite.

Now last month, Nov 4th, the rapporteur again said that the WTD must come first, before economics. Well, if you neglect the economics how do you raise the taxes which result from WTD ? Companies taking on extra workers to fill the gaps left by shorter working time raises unit costs, they fail to compete and jobs are lost. Which is why France abandoned their 35 hour week.

Follow the French and bury this unworkable Working Time Directive for once and all.

Derek Clark MEP
Strasbourg Dec 15th 2008

October 20th 2008 - Temporary Worker Agencies

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 09:00:00 +0100

Speech to Parliament Strasbourg Oct 20th 2008

Debate; Temporary Worker Agencies

Madam President this has been batted to and fro between the Commission and Council right from 2002,- 6 years. There has been no common position until June this year, so they pass to Parliament like a hot potato.

Is this sudden change of mind due to the current economic downturn? Whether that is so or not it will not help in these times of falling employment, because;

The report says that temporary workers are to be paid the same as a permanent, full-time worker; Wrong.

At one end the temporary agencies use it to get young people a start in life, that will go.

At the other end inexperienced workers will be paid the same as an experienced long time employee, which goes right against established practice and discourages employee loyalty, which is so important to many employers.

More experience = more skill = more pay
This is bad move, reject it.

Derek Clark MEP Strasbourg Oct 20th 2008

Oct 8th 2008 - Doha Round, WTO Trade Talks Collapse

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 09:00:00 +0100

Speech to Parliament Brussels Oct 8th 2008

Debate; Doha Round, WTO Trade Talks Collapse

The EU likes to throw its weight around when it comes to trade. Remember the six year long "banana war" with the US, after the EU gave special market access to its former colonies in the Caribbean?

The Director-general of the WTO is former Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy. Is there not a conflict of interests? After all, his EU pension might depend on him not attacking EU policies. Could that have been a factor in his mind as he attempted to negotiate between trading blocs?

Peter Mandelson blamed the collapse of the Doha round on US Agricultural subsidies. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. For decades the Common Agricultural Policy has been stuffing the pockets of EU farmers with enormous subsidies.

This had as much to do, one would think, with the collapse of the trade talks and anyway, the last thing the EU should be doing is scoring points against other regions in trade talks, at a time of global hunger and financial crisis.

Footnote, The Commissioner for Trade should have been there but Peter Mandelson had already departed so Mariane Fisher Boel stood in having, as she put it, "drawn the short straw".

Derek Clark MEP
Brussels Oct 8th 2008

Sept 25th 2008 - Social Package (second part), cross border healthcare

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:00:00 +0100

Speech to Parliament Brussels Sept 25th 2008

Debate; Social Package (second part), cross border healthcare

The central feature of this package, travelling for non hospital treatment outside the home country, funding is by the home country but limited to the amount it would have cost there.

So a patient benefits by going to where the treatment is cheaper, as long as it is better treatment.

Health tourists have to find the difference between costs where treated and the home country basic provision. Yes, travel costs are paid, ultimately by the home country but at their own level, leaving the health tourist to find the treatment top-up and, probably, a travel cost excess.

The poorest can not afford to do this and they are left in the lowest standard of treatment. The rich can do so, but they could well go for private treatment anyway.

Regarding waiting lists, if healthcare in a country is poor and expensive they will not be troubled by health tourists. But where it is cheap and good they would soon be overburdened

It therefore produces a two tier healthcare system. Is that what they call an unintended consequence?

Derek Clark MEP
Brussels Sept 25th 2008

Sept 24th 2008 - The Threat to British Shipping

Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:00:00 +0100

Debate: - An (Electronic) Bridge over Troubled Waters
or, The Threat to British Shipping.

Well, says Derek Clark MEP, UK waters were peaceful enough until the CFP got to work and virtually destroyed our fishing industry. Now it's the turn of our maritime trade, with several MEPs producing a raft of reports concerned with shipping in EU waters. It does not take a genius to see that this means, primarily, UK waters. We are still world wide traders, while the EU is introspective, viewing globalisation suspiciously rather than as increased opportunities in an ever growing market place.
Sterckx recommends an Automatic Identification System (AIS), linked to EU's Galileo satellite, to log the movement of every ship in our waters, irrespective of its flag, whether in passage, in harbour or at anchor off our shores. An EU Centre will collate the data and, electronically stored, it becomes a nightmare security risk.
Exporters and importers could have their trade details released to unscrupulous rival outfits giving rise to possible commercial espionage and market penetration. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has already expressed its fears.
Vessels tracked in UK waters come go around the world and will be endangered by leaked data of their movements and cargo, for piracy is with us still. Off Somalia, for example, a multi-national force is hard pressed by opportunist pirates who would relish the chance to know where, and when, the richest pickings were to be had.
Vlasto wants the EU to be empowered to refuse ships access to our waters. The vessels of our trading partners, especially of our Commonwealth, could then be turned away in an EU trade war, crippling our economy. Relying on massive food imports, here is the potential to threaten our continued independence.
Kohlicek seeks to hinder investigation into maritime accidents by preventing witness statements being obtained from third country authorities. Member states are to pick up the bill for shipwreck and damage caused by uninsured ships. This encourages countries to turn stricken ships away, in defiance of the rule of the sea.
Costa specifies new regulations on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents, while de Grandes Pascual sets up new standards for ship inspection. The EU mill grinds on.
Ironically, with one exception, the region of every British MEP has a coastline, while some of the Commissioners originating these proposals come from land-locked states. Likewise all MEPs, whether or not their countries have a coastline, voted on this package, Wednesday, September 24th. Without exception these reports were adopted, Costa by a small margin, all the others by overwhelming majorities. Unless something strange happens in the Council they will all soon become law.
In his speech to the House the day before the vote Derek Clark said-
"I will encourage my government to reject this rotten proposal, for British Maritime Trade, and Global Maritime Trade, is under threat from bureaucrats you would not trust with a rowing boat."

Derek Clark MEP
Brussels Sept 24th 2008

Sept 23rd 2008 - Maritime transport

Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:00:00 +0100

Speech to Parliament Brussels Sept 23rd 2008

Joint Debate, Maritime transport

What is this Madam President, "A bridge over troubled waters?" For the UK it was peaceful waters until the CFP got to work and near destroyed our fishing industry. Now you want to ruin our maritime trade.
Seemingly the Sterckzx and Vlasto reports just aim to use the Automatic Identification System with Galileo, to plot ship movements in EU waters. That is, spying on the movement of every ship in UK waters, in our harbours, at anchor off our shores, no matter what nationality. The details will be connected to an EU Data Centre, which, like any database is prone to security lapses. The IMO fears that data of shipping information, with cargo details, could in the wrong hands, endanger ships trading with Europe.
Collecting data leads to control systems and the vessels of our trading partners, especially of our Commonwealth, could be ordered away in an EU trade war. For a nation that relies on maritime trade to feed itself this really is the end of independence. The EU will decide whether Britain eats or starve.
The UK has the greatest interest in these reports for we trade around the world, we've been doing that for centuries, and every UK MEP represents a region, bar one, with a coastline. Meanwhile, as the EU erects its protective trade barriers, all its Member States, whether or not they have a coastline, get to vote on this.
I will encourage my government to reject this rotten proposal for British maritime trade and Global Maritime trade is under threat from bureaucrats you would not trust with a rowing boat.
Worse, according to Vlasto the EU will be able to refuse ships access to our waters. So the EU could decide if foreign warships are permitted to visit, those of our friends and allies perhaps? A nuclear powered ship might be rejected for political correctness, which could apply to the Royal Navy's nuclear submarines. They helped to keep the Soviet Union at bay and guaranteed the freedom you now enjoy.
Well, if the EU goes on meddling with powder kegs like Georgia or the Ukraine you might just need that sort of protection again, what price political correctness then?

Derek Clark MEP
Brussels Sept 23rd 2008

Sept 9th 2008 - Conditions of entry and residence of Third Country Nationals

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:00:00 +0100

Speech to Employment committee Brussels Sept 9th 2008

Debate: Conditions of entry and residence of Third Country Nationals for the
purposes of highly qualified employment.

My President I am not against immigrants, my country has a long record of accepting people from across the world. But this is about highly qualified people and there are considerations.

I have no problem with highly qualified people coming to my country from another well developed country. A year or two ago the UK health service recruited 100 nurses from Norway, which is as prosperous as we are. I saw no problem with that, if Norway could spare them, well and good.

I do object to highly qualified people coming to Europe from undeveloped countries. To come to extend their education, to receive training and to stay a short while to gain experience is fine but no more. Such highly qualified people are needed in their own countries to help build their prosperity.

I want to see prosperous countries around the world. Highly qualified people going back to, say, Africa, will do more good for those backward countries than throwing money at them.

Derek Clark MEP
Brussels Sept 9th 2008

9th Sept 2008 - Sanctions against employers of Illegally Staying Third Country Nationals

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:00:00 +0100

Speech to Employment Committee Brussels 9th Sept 2008

Debate: Sanctions against employers of Illegally Staying Third Country Nationals.

Mr President I am all in favour of dealing with illegal immigrant workers but not this way. It proposes that all employers in a chain can be held liable if there is just one illegal immigrant elsewhere in the chain, made clear in amendments 59 and 60.

To give an example. An illegal worker is found picking fruit or veg in a field so the gang master and the farmer are liable for prosecution. Well and good but it looks like the haulier who takes the produce away, the packager, the wholesaler and the shop or supermarket can also be held liable. Worse, if a shop is employing an illegal worker it means that the farmer at the bottom of the chain could be prosecuted, which is obviously unjust. You can not punish some one who has complied with the law for what has happened afterwards.

It will turn employers into spies as they try to check on each other to stay clear. It will certainly ruin the relationships of trust which exist between the links in these chains.

But this new legislation only applies to businesses. Non profit organisations like charities and Non Government Organisations are to be exempt. But some NGOs help illegal immigrants and get an EU subsidy to do so.

This is hypocrisy, it is a clear attack on employers and it will hit small businesses especially, they can not afford the staff to check it out, whereas a big business can.

In the UK the Home Office admitted some time ago that there were hundreds, if not thousands, of illegal workers in their departments. How can you punish a government?- mind you, with our government it may not be a bad idea.

Among the amendments it states that it will be a criminal offence to employ an illegal worker. We come to the really crazy parts. Amendment 82 says that the illegal work should not invalidate a contract or employment relationship. How on earth could a contract continue if the employer is in jail, not to say the employment relationship?

Now all of this is about third country nationals and you don't seem to have a problem with masses of workers milling around the EU. That is in spite of the ECJ rulings about the employment of workers which break the minimum wage requirements of several countries and which has made you all so angry. This proposal is clearly all about EU protectionism.

Finally, it says that there shall be no sanctions against those who provide assistance to third country nationals for facilitating their unauthorised presence. So the people traffickers will get away with it. These are the very people you should be going after, those who forge passports to get people in, or those who carry illegals in the back of a lorry. You should be trying to stop illegal immigrants at the point of entry.

This whole proposal is a mess, it should be discarded.

Derek Clark MEP
Brussels 9th Sept 2008

Sept 2nd 2008 - Social Package (First Part)

Tue, 02 Sep 2008 09:00:00 +0100

Speech to Parliament Strasbourg Sept 2nd 2008

Key debate - Social Package (First Part)

Mr President, the Lisbon Treaty was dismissed by the legitimate Irish referendum so of course, you need a big program to divert attention, hence this new package. Well, its not really new, it is a re-hash of earlier proposals.

But is big. It has EU legislation, Social dialogue, Cooperation, EU funding, partnership, dialogue and communication, and that's from just one page. Let me focus on Funding.

A prosperous economy will provide the funds but you have lumbered yourselves with the Euro where the ECB's interest rate is trying to cover diverse economies. "One size fits all", some people say, actually it fits no one. In the UK the Bank of England can not get it right for all our regions Indeed, the week end papers remarked that the economic North- South divide in the UK is now greater than ever before.

The EU is protectionist, you are afraid of "Globalisation". Don't fight it, don't try to combat it, join it. Join the world market of an ever growing population. Encourage enterprise by slashing red tape, call a halt to the never ending stream of directives and regulations which only hinder businesses. Accept the rest of the world on even terms and the European economy will increase, bringing the greatest social package of all,- more and better jobs.

In conclusion one notes that it falls to the French Presidency to kick start this venture but will they? According to "EurActiv", 3rd July, "The Commission and the French Presidency... have both declared social policy a priority in 2008". But if you read De Deutsche Welle of 2nd July, "French President Nikolas Sarkozy has made it clear that social policy won't be a top priority, issues like immigration, climate change and energy will take centre stage".

So which statement do you believe? For my part I think the French will do as always, they will look after themselves. For that I congratulate them, I wish my government did the same.

Derek Clark MEP
Sept 2nd 2008

July 9th 2008 - Coordination of Social Security Systems

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 09:00:00 +0100

Speech to Parliament Strasbourg July 9th 2008

Debate,- Coordination of Social Security Systems

In 251 amendment 4 mentions mobility for the unemployed. Does that mean bussing unemployed around the EU looking for work, at taxpayer's expense? And a member state is liable for social security payments for someone who worked there but moved to another and then became unemployed.

Amendment 148 suggests that the taxpayer should pay for travel for medical examination in other member state with a reimbursement system between member states, using a complex EU formula.

Member states may make decisions on invalidity which are to be binding on another, although complicated by the degree of invalidity, but they may have rules against overlapping of benefits.

The rules will concern all EU citizens moving within the EU for any reason whatsoever. This includes legally resident third country nationals who have worked in more than one member state, as well as stateless persons and refugees.

In several places these reports claim to simplify regulations and modernise existing legislation for social security authorities, employers and citizens, while being very inclusive. There will be, "no implication for the Community budget".

Financial and administrative burdens, it says, will be reduced by the rules for coordination which can only be done at community level but that this is not harmonisation.

How can one have reimbursement; EU determined formulae; a rule covering all movement and rules for coordination without harmonisation?

All in all these reports are a mass of conflicting statements. If they are adopted they will need a great deal of administrative effort, costing money which the reports say is not needed!

Finally, the family has an identity crisis. Birth and adoption allowances are, evidently, not "family benefits". So when is a family not a family and an adopted child is well, what, exactly?

So I would like to avoid an identity crisis. A "frontier worker is a person working in one Member State but Residing in another, providing they return home once a week". This is France and I'm going home tomorrow; am I a frontier worker, even 'though I live right in the middle of England?

Derek Clark MEP
Strasbourg July 9th 2008

July 9th 2008 - Debate,- Coordination of Social Security Systems

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 09:00:00 +0100

Speech to Parliament Strasbourg July 9th 2008

Debate,- Coordination of Social Security Systems

Amendment 148 suggests that the taxpayer should pay for travel for medical examination in other member state with a reimbursement system between member states, using a complex EU formula.

Member states may make decisions on invalidity which are to be binding on another, although complicated by the degree of invalidity, but they may have rules against overlapping of benefits.

Financial and administrative burdens, it says, will be reduced by the rules for coordination which can only be done at community level but that this is not harmonisation.

How can one have reimbursement; EU determined formulae; a rule covering all movement and rules for coordination without harmonisation?

All in all these reports are a mass of conflicting statements. If they are adopted they will need a great deal of administrative effort, costing money which the reports say is not needed!

Finally, the family has an identity crisis. Birth and adoption allowances are, evidently, not "family benefits". So when is a family not a family and an adopted child is well, what, exactly?

Derek Clark MEP
Strasbourg July 9th 2008

July 8th 2008 - Energy supplies, EU market in Natural Gas

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:00:00 +0100

Speech to Parliament Strasbourg July 8th 2008

Joint Debate,- Energy supplies, EU market in Natural Gas

This debate assumes that the EU is to be heavily reliant on natural gas for energy. I challenge that, not least because almost all natural gas has to be imported. It places us in the hands of others, not all of whom are totally friendly. Do I have to recall how Russia cut off the supply of gas to the Ukraine at Christmas time two years ago?

What about alternative indigenous sources? Western Europe is rich in coal which needs only travel a short distance to power stations. Yes, coal has a bad name partly for pollution and partly for the extra carbon dioxide it produces per kilowatt as compared to gas. But you are behind the times. Coal can be much more efficiently burned these days, releasing much less CO2 than previous methods. Personally, I prefer not to see it burnt but coked instead. Turning coal into coke produces two smoke-free sources; gas and coke, which, when properly burnt, together produce more energy than the coal it came from, in the ratio of 5:4. Moreover, by thoroughly scrubbing the gas, what are otherwise pollutants are removed which are, in fact, the same by-products we get from oil. All that from under our feet!!

Further, there is nuclear power for electricity. That too has a bad name on account of one, admittedly serious event at Chernobyl. But that was an old Soviet installation of poor design in the hands of operators who tried an unsupervised shut down which went wrong. Why the doubts about nuclear, especially here in France where nuclear power stations supply 70% of electricity? Be it noted that Finland, very environmentally conscious, has just approved a third nuclear plant.

More recently we have the spectacle of the EU promotion of bio fuels which are now being severely questioned. Bio fuels are ether produced on new land produced by destroying the rain forests or by converting existing farm land. The former produces more CO2 than the biofuels save, while the latter is causing food shortages especially in undeveloped countries.

Of course we need natural gas, not least for domestic use but the thrust of these reports is for the supply of gas to the EU to be controlled by the EU itself, by way of regulation. Well, if its anything like the CFP where the regulations intended to conserve the fisheries has resulted in their near-destruction, then heaven help us all.

Without doubt gas supply regulations will be a red-tape nightmare just when the Commission has said it wants to cut it down. How else will you produce a situation where the gas supply is split into two, transport and storage? Surely the most efficient system is for the storer to then supply, but no, you want to divide and increase the bureaucracy.

The reports suggest licences for the pipe line operators, while at the other end "smart" meters will be installed so that the consumer can be closely monitored, by whom, exactly? Thus is state surveillance ratcheted upwards while energy failure is to be a public order issue, giving the police powers of intervention.

Apart from placing the consumer in the uncertain hands of unreliable regimes these reports extend the power of the state over the individual. In short, its all about control.

While all this is going on it must be noted that earlier today Parliament voted to approve investigation into the environmental impact of the proposed gas pipe-line under the Baltic Sea. That is tantamount to approving a project to bring Russian natural gas direct to Germany, by-passing Poland, thus preserving their supplies and never mind the rest of us. Is that what they call "Solidarity?".

Derek Clark MEP
July 8th 2008

July 8th 2008 - Joint Debate – Energy Supplies, EU market in Natural Gas

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:00:00 +0100

Speech to Parliament Strasbourg July 8th 2008

Joint Debate – Energy Supplies, EU market in Natural Gas

This debate assumes that the EU is to be heavily reliant on natural gas for energy. I challenge that, not least because almost all natural gas has to be imported. It places us in the hands of others not all of whom are totally friendly. Do I have to recall how Russia cut off the supply of gas to the Ukraine at Christmas time two years ago?

More recently we have the spectacle of the EU promotion f bio fuels which are now being severely questions. Bio fuels are ether produced on new land produced by destroying the rain forests or by converting existing farm land. The former produces more CO2 than the bio fuels save, while the latter is causing food shortages especially in undeveloped countries.

Of course we need natural gas; not least for domestic use but the thrust of these report is for the supply of gas to the EU to be controlled by the EU itself, by way of regulation. Well, if its anything like the CFP where the regulations intended to conserve the fisheries has resulted in their near-destruction, then heaven help us all.

Without doubt gas supply regulations will be a red-tape nightmare just when the Commission has said it wants to cut it down. How else will you produce a situation where the gas supply is split into tow, transport and storage? Surely the most efficient system is for the storer to then supply, but no, you want to divide and increase the bureaucracy.

The reports suggest licences for the pipe line operators, while at the other end “smart” meters will be installed so that the consumer can be closely monitored, by whom, exactly? Thus is state surveillance ratcheted upwards while energy failure is to be a public order issue, giving the p0olice powers of intervention?

Apart from placing the consumer in the uncertain hands of unreliable regimes these reports extend the power of the state over the individual, In short, its all about control.

While all this is going on it must be noted that earlier today Parliament voted to approve investigation into the environmental impact of the proposed gas pipe-line under the Baltic Sea. That is tantamount to approving a project to bring Russian natural gas direct to Germany, by-passing Poland, thus preserving their sup0plies and never mind the rest of us. Is that what they call “Solidarity?”

Derek Clark MEP
Strasbourg July 8th 2008