It is a pity that David Cameron, whom I support, has chosen the question of the Conservative MEPs' status as allied members of the European People's Party and European Democrats group as one of the few issues on which to make a definite pledge. He wants us out of that group and hopes to form an alternative group in the      Parliament presumably less identified with the concept of a "federal Europe".

 

There are a number of reasons why this is a misguided decision, taken at the insistence of a few people who are, in their hearts, opposed to the whole idea of British membership of the EU. It is misguided because, in the European Parliament, numbers and allies really count. Unless and until we leave the EU we have a deep interest in influencing the decisions taken in the Parliament about the laws that will affect us. MEPs now have real power to determine the final shape of laws such as the new draft regulation on the testing and approval of chemicals, and the draft directive opening up the whole European market in services. The real work of the Parliament does not involve dreaming federal dreams or drawing up new constitutions: it involves the hard grind of going through new draft laws, often of enormous importance to UK interests, line by line.

 

To get what we want in this real legislative task it is enormously helpful to be in a big     group, able to decide a policy in concert with, amongst others, the German Christian Democrats. And as a consequence of being in the largest group we obtain some of the most influential positions in the Parliament: thus Giles Chichester has won great acclaim as the highly successful Chairman of the Parliament's Industry, Energy and Research Committee; John Bowis (a former health minister) acts as co-ordinator of the environment and health policy of the whole group; Edward McMillan Scott is a vice-President of the Parliament and chairs many of its sessions: we are successful and highly visible.

 

Giving this up would be a big step into the unknown and risks making the Conservative party, and its new leader, look very silly. To form a new group in the Parliament you need to find members from at least 5 nationalities. Who would they be? Well, the possibles are the Polish Law and Justice party, which has just formed a government with the Peasants Party. It is currently in another group with Ireland's Fianna Fail and the ex-fascists of Aleanza Nazionale. Then there is the Czech ODS party, but they are unlikely to make a move until after their general election in the summer, if then; there are assorted Baltic nationalists; there is the Swedish 'June list' - 3 MEPs, all former social democrats; there is a single MEP from Philippe de Villiers’ Mouvement pour la France; and a single Italian "Pensioners' party” MEP. Er, that's it. The Poles and the Czechs are parties of government; the others are luckless fragments, never likely or able to form a government.

 

This is not a potential grouping which the Conservatives, as historically one of the greatest and most successful parties in Western Europe, should dream of considering as an alternative to an alliance with the powerful parties of government from Germany, France, Holland, Belgium, Spain and elsewhere that the EPP-ED group as a whole represents. I hope David Cameron, with steadying advice, will think again. If we leave and fail to form a new group then Conservative MEPs would sit among the "non-inscrits" (non-attached) on the backbenches with only Robert Kilroy Silk to talk to, when and if he turns up.

 

In the meantime my policy, as that of others, will be to abide by our manifesto pledge 18 months ago to remain in the EPP-ED group, a pledge reinforced by the pre European elections letter of Liam Fox, then party chairman, ordering me to sign up to the EPP-ED group for the 2004-9 mandate.

 

The main issue we dealt with this month was in fact chemicals, where the draft law is known as “REACH” for short, since it covers the Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of Chemicals. After struggles lasting many months we gave this a first reading in the November session, voting over 1000 amendments through in 4 hours. REACH is designed to ensure the registration, testing and authorisation of the 100,000 or so chemicals put on the market before 1981 and not covered by current laws. A new European Chemicals Agency will oversee the process. Conservatives and our allies secured an important change here by ensuring that registration data requirements, which can be very expensive to put together especially for small businesses, will be more closely related to the potential risk than the European Commission, in its broad-brush approach, had suggested. We know enough already to give priority to all carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic substances, and to persistent bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals.

 

There is however still work to be done to make the law workable at the second reading. The Socialists, Liberals and Greens put through an amendment limiting the authorisation period to a maximum of 5 years. This would be an unnecessary and commercially damaging limitation, which we shall want to change. Many people are worried about the potential increase in animal testing. Here we have amended the text to make the sharing of data from animal tests mandatory, which should minimise the use of animals in the new system.

 

The President of the Court of Auditors came to the Parliament this month to tell MEPs that, for the 11^th successive year, the Court could not sign off the accounts. The President directed his criticisms at the member states, who are responsible for 80 % of EU spending through various national and regional authorities, like the South West Regional Development Agency. He said: “The improvement in systems and controls at the level of the Commission has not been reflected in the Member States”. The dilemma is how to establish better control in the member states without giving the EU federal budgetary system a closer grip on national authorities.

 

More news on the Equitable Life issue: MEPs have now signed up in sufficient numbers for the request for a temporary committee of enquiry to go to the governing body of the Parliament. If it agrees to the request, MEPs will vote on the proposal in the January session.