You will know by now that this was the month that the new Commission, headed by Mr Barroso, finally got the all-clear from the Parliament: The vote was 449 votes in favour, 149 against and 82 abstentions. Those in favour were the majority of Christian Democrats, Socialists and Liberals, with some Conservatives; those against were the far Left, far Right and the Greens, and those abstaining were French and Italian Liberals and Socialists ( who probably could not bring themselves to vote for anyone put up by Berlusconi) together with 18 of the British Conservatives.

 

I voted for the new Commission. It seemed to me right finally to set to work a team of Commissioners who are a nearer approximation to our priorities (the accent on enterprise and implementation) that we have ever had. It also seemed odd to abstain or vote against when we Conservatives were in favour of the Barroso Commission the first time it was put before us, with the accident-prone Italian, Mr Buttligione, and with Mr Kovacs the Hungarian nominee for energy Commissioner who knew nothing about energy. The second try by Mr Barroso ( which we did actually vote on) had lost Mr Buttiglione ( retired hurt) and had got Mr Frattini (a smoothie ex Foreign Minister) in exchange. Meanwhile Mr Kovacs had moved to the tax and customs portfolio where any damage he might do is limited by the existence of the national  veto, and Mrs Udre, the Latvian Commissioner, about whom questions were raised over corruption issues at home, had also disappeared in favour of Mr Piebalgs, an ex-diplomat. All these were improvements worth voting for.

 

Of course there was, at the last moment, the issue of Mr Barrot, the French Commissioner, who, the UKIP spokesman claimed, should not be in the Commission at all as he had been convicted in a political party funding scandal, along with all the senior members of his party. But since then he had been amnestied, pardoned and his criminal record wiped clean. This is, apparently, how France operates, and French politicians from other parties acknowledged that scandals about public funding for political parties are par for the course. But MEPs of other nationalities felt that he should have admitted his past, certainly to Mr Barroso who was left to pick up the pieces. Mr Barrot continues, in the humble post of Transport Commissioner, his wings clipped at the outset.

 

Many Conservatives have said to me that MEPs should be able to censure individual Commissioners and insist on their removal or resignation. This is an astonishingly federalist point of view to come from Conservatives. But we did edge towards it this month. The point is that Commissioners are the nominees of Member State governments. If the Parliament gets the infinite right to sack them this impinges on the rights of Member States, and enhances the role of the federal Parliament. Mr Barroso squared this circle by telling MEPs that he had got a commitment from all the new team that they would resign if he asked them to do so. Jacques Santer would have given a lot to have had a similar commitment from Mrs Cresson (and her dentist).

 

Reforms to animal transport look like being one of the things the new Commission will not be tackling for some time. The news here is that despite pressure from MEPs for many years, agriculture ministers finally decided this month not to reduce the time limits or stocking density rules for the transport of live animals within the EU. For cattle, sheep and goats these can be as long as 29 hours with a one hour break. The only country to vote for a reduction of these hours was the Netherlands; Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and Sweden abstained and everyone else, including the UK, voted against. This was the result of a powerful lobby by distant countries, notably Ireland. One thing that may have stayed our government's hand from a bolder attitude was that ministers did agree to certain improvements in the way animals are transported. The International League for the Protection of Horses told us that they welcomed the agreement as they were at risk of losing any real welfare improvements if this compromise had not been introduced and agreed.

 

In Brussels the other day I met a British civil servant of Asian origin who rejoices in the name of Mayerling Patel (apparently her mother had a crush on Omar Sharif having seen him in the film 'Mayerling'.) Ms Patel told me something that might be of interest to Readers. There is now a form E112, available via the Department of Health web site, which shows you how to go about getting hospital treatment in another EU country. It's quite a rigmarole but if you are becoming desperate for that vital operation because of NHS delays it is worth studying. The Department of Health is terrified by the imminent EU directive aimed at introducing a single market in services, including health services. This would mean that a British patient could seek treatment in any other EU country - and the NHS would have to bear the cost. Somehow I don't think this will happen: Ms Patel is hard at work on amendments. The Department is quite keen to offload NHS patients abroad to a limited extent. But Fawlty Towers habits die hard. There is no difficulty in getting British patients to go to Belgium; but it is much harder to get anyone to go to Germany where we have similar arrangements.

 

We had another appalling report from the Court of Auditors this month. They had found fraud or errors dotted all over the farm accounts for 2003 - in 25 % of aid in Italy, 14% in France and 6% in Britain. They could not "sign off" the regional fund accounts because the bureaucratic system the Commission has now adopted to stop fraud has created a labyrinth where audit trails cannot be followed. I know that the South West, or Cornwall and West Devon, currently get a lot of money from the EU but it seems to me that the case of EU regional aid is fast fading if it leads to this mess.

 

Strasbourg this month was celebrating the 60th anniversary of its liberation by French force (the Americans hung back) on 23 November 1944. There were tricolours everywhere. It was ironic that in the European part of town the Germans were back fighting it out, since the leaders of the largest political groups in the Parliament are both German.