European Commission
united-kingdom

Dear Editor

The alleged “EU rule imposed on Britain” concerning playground safety was not set by the EU, nor has it been imposed on anyone (“Now EU puts speed limit on children’s roundabouts”, 28 October 2004). The measure in question is entirely voluntary, and was adopted as long ago as 1998 by the European Committee for Standardization. This is a non-EU body made up of organisations from 28 European countries, including the British Standards Institution. It sets voluntary technical standards to promote free trade and consumer safety across Europe.

Yours faithfully,

Ian Barber
Acting Head of Representation

Dear Editor

The EU has not banned butchers from giving customers bones for their dogs ("Woof Justice" 27 May). Following the BSE crisis, strict rules were introduced on the safe and traceable disposal of animal by-products (a major source of the disease's outbreak). These do not stop a butcher from supplying bones over the counter to pet owners, so long as the bone has not already been thrown away.

Yours faithfully,

Jim Dougal
Head of Representation

Dear Editor

Warning signs on mountains telling climbers they are high up are not required under EU regulations ("Twit Peaks", 24 March). New rules to protect builders and other people working at height have been agreed by the EU - including the UK - but they contain no mention of mountains or activity centres. The rules aim to make sure people using, for example, scaffolding are as safe as possible, and are now being put into national laws across Europe. In the UK, the Health and Safety Executive is the body responsible, but there is absolutely nothing in their draft plans requiring height warning signs on mountains.

Yours faithfully,

Jim Dougal
Head of Representation

Dear Editor

Employers will not have to consult their workers on which brand of teabags to use, nor will they have to ask permission to buy a carpet ("What do you EU think?" 11 January).

It is important that all employees are properly informed about what is going on in their workplace and important that managers consult their employees.

European laws on employee consultation will provide workers with the right to be informed about the financial situation of the business they work for and about decisions that are likely to affect their contract of employment - they say nothing about teabags or carpets!

Yours faithfully

Jim Dougal
Head of Representation

Dear Editor

New standards to improve the safety of children playing with rocking horses have been put forward, but not by the EU ("Off their rockers", 28 November). The measures, which are voluntary, have been drawn up by the European Committee for Standardisation. This is an independent organisation made up of 22 national safety agencies from across Europe, including one from Britain. The European Commission has no involvement in drawing up such standards.

Existing EU rules on toy safety recognises these measures as ensuring a product is safe for children to use. However, it does not ban products that fall outside these guidelines.

Yours faithfully,

Jim Dougal
Head of Representation

Dear Sir

EU proposals to combat unfair commercial practices will not ban perks "such as supermarkets offering free bus rides to entice shoppers" (Bus ride ban in store? 11 November). The purpose of the legislation is to give consumers the same protection against rogue traders whether they buy from a shop around the corner or purchase goods on a website in another European country.

It seeks to combat misleading practices, such as shops advertising a closing down sale when they are not in fact closing down, and aggressive practices, such as door-to-door salesmen who fail to take a hint.

Offering customers a trip to their local supermarket, especially to the elderly and disabled, is not under threat. Indeed, the European Commission welcomes any scheme that would improve these groups' access to everyday goods and services.

Yours faithfully,

Jim Dougal
Head of Representation

Dear Sir

In his somewhat opaque charge that I "take the support of a compliant press for granted" ("Her Majesty’s Press provides a sterling service", 11 June), is Simon Jenkins really suggesting that half of Fleet Street is unfailingly europhile!? Anyone who has dealt with these papers on a professional basis would recognise the absurdity of this claim – and I suspect the papers themselves would concur.

My recent Guardian article made it transparently clear that the EU, like all political institutions, should be held to account via constructive, considered journalism. However, inaccurate and misleading stories concerning the EU do still abound in the UK press, and these are not confined to what Mr. Jenkins would no doubt describe as incompliant papers – for example, The Guardian led the pack on a recent story concerning a supposed EU ban on islands. More often than not containing hackneyed terminology, as exemplified by Mr Jenkins’ "eurocrat", it is articles of this nature which are so objectionable.

Yours faithfully,

Jim Dougal
Head of Representation

Dear Sir,

Your article concerning the welfare of pigs (‘Real Happiness is a pig in a toy shop’, 29 January) was entirely misleading. There is no EU legislation that requires farmers to place toys in pigsties.

Two recently adopted directives, set to be implemented into UK law, require that pigs have access to materials such as straw, hay, wood, and sawdust to improve their welfare, but there is categorically no mention of toys anywhere in the legislation. If the UK government, via its implementing measures, wishes to impose such a rule on farmers it is entirely up to them.

Yours faithfully,

Jim Dougal
Head of Representation

Dear Sir,

The supposed ‘EU regulation’ you refer to in your article (‘Children pushed off swings by EU’, 21 January 2003) has nothing whatsoever to do with the European Union, but is an entirely voluntary measure adopted by the European Standardisation Committee (CEN). This is an independent body made up of representative agencies and affiliated consumer groups from 22 European countries, and counts the British Standards Institution (BSI) amongst its members.

The CEN is not an institution of the EU, but in your haste to attack this measure - aimed at improving child safety - you overlooked this fact. The BSI has stated that playgrounds in non-compliance with the standard may have greater difficulty attaining insurance, but they are certainly not ‘under threat’ from the EU.

Yours faithfully,

Jim Dougal
Head of Representation

Dear Editor,

Christopher Booker’s latest article on fridges (Fridge Furore, 23 June) was, as usual, selective and wilfully misleading.

It was environment minister Michael Meacher who signed up to the legislation in June 2000 and the recent House of Commons Report into the affair criticised DEFRA for their collective paucity of foresight and planning. But, as has been the case in numerous instances over the years, Mr Booker, blinkered by europhobia, rushed to lay the blame at the door of the EU.

Mr Booker’s comments about disused fridges have obscured what many people would regard as eminently sensible legislation, the aims of which are the reduction of CFCs emitted into the atmosphere and the prevention of hazardous old technology being dumped on developing countries – are these objectives with which he disagrees?

Yours faithfully,

Geoffrey Martin
Head of Representation

Dear Mr Morgan,

It was disappointing to read your leader column in today’s paper on the possible introduction of a uniform system of clothes sizes (Metre Maids, 15 March).

While it is true that a standardised system of clothes sizes across Europe is being discussed, this has nothing to do with the European Commission or the EU. The proposal has come from the independent European Committee for Standardisation. Standards are developed on the basis of voluntary agreement between individual countries and other interested parties. The committee is made up of national standards bodies, not countries. The representative from the UK is the British Standards Institution.

The reflex reaction that it must be the fault of the European Commission is more worthy of your Eurosceptic rivals.

Yours sincerely,

Geoffrey Martin
Head of Representation

Dear Ms Weaver,

In "Truckers’ bacon butties banned" (20 January 2002) Chris McLaughlin reports that a new EU directive could result in unhealthy lorry drivers losing their licences. Unfortunately, the story is not accurate, exclusive or new. Equally inaccurate versions of it were published some months ago by your rivals and the Commission issued a rebuttal at the time. A simple call to our office by your reporter would have confirmed this. I enclose a copy of the current "Press Watch" for your information.

Yours sincerely,

Geoffrey Martin
Head of Representation

Dear Sir,

Your Money Correspondent makes a number of misleading comments about the impact of the euro if it were introduced in the UK ("A raw deal for pensioners", Lorna Bourke’s Money Surgery, 25 November 2001). Her comments are of particular concern as they appear not in an opinion column, but as advice to readers with financial queries.

Ms Bourke wrongly claims that joining the euro "would inevitably mean a common rate of income tax throughout Europe". She maintains that "if we join the euro, he (Gordon Brown) will have to harmonise VAT, which will mean a 3 per cent increase".

UK tax levels and the issue of membership of the single currency are completely separate and totally unrelated. The United Kingdom retains a veto on tax issues in the Council of Ministers.

Yours faithfully,

Geoffrey Martin
Head of Representation

Dear Editor

Your claim that the EU is wasting money on schemes to protect wildlife and landscapes (‘£1bn ‘wasted’ on protecting plants and animals’, 18 October 2001) is inaccurate and one-sided.

The study whose conclusions you cite evaluated only two specific Dutch projects, out of hundreds of schemes applied throughout Europe covering a broad range of environment objectives. Calling the whole project a waste of money on such evidence is hardly fair. In fact, many very successful schemes have been identified by other research. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, for instance, has recently reported on programmes introduced in Britain that have proved very successful in increasing the bird population in certain regions.

However, the Commission fully agrees that the success of such schemes depends on proper implementation and scientific evaluation. Therefore, we appreciate the work done by the Dutch scientists and we will follow up their findings with the Dutch authorities, in order to help improve programme design for the future.

Yours faithfully,

Geoffrey Martin
Head of Representation

Dear Editor

There is no EU plan to ban lorry drivers’ British breakfast, "Truckers face EU ban on fry-ups" (21 September 2001). This proposal is about more professionalism in the cab and will give truckers advanced training in safe driving together with information about health and safety.

The suggestion that the EU will ban the British breakfast is completely wrong. So too is the claim that eating muesli and croissants will be compulsory.

Yours faithfully

Geoffrey Martin
Head of Representation

Dear Editor

SUN readers can rest assured that they will not have to brush up on their Latin before their next trip to their local chippy. Claims in today’s paper "Hippoglossus hippoglossus & chips twice please, luv" (5 September 2001) that the EU is planning to ban the English names of fish and force takeaways, restaurants and fishmongers to replace them with Latin names on food packaging are completely untrue.

The European Commission has proposed clearer labelling on the packaging of fish products so that people know exactly what they are buying. Labels would include the exact name of the fish, how it was produced, and where it was caught.

These proposals will be discussed next Tuesday (11 September) in the Fisheries Management Committee of the European Commission. Three Member States (France, Portugal and Sweden) have also proposed putting Latin names on labels in addition to the original national name. This is not supported by the Commission or by the majority of EU Member States.

Yours faithfully,

Geoffrey Martin
Head of Representation

Dear Editor

Today you reported a Europe-wide poll (‘Britons ignorant about the EU’) which underlined the widespread lack of knowledge in Britain about matters European.

Britain has more local-level outlets for information than any other EU country. Almost all public libraries in the UK (204 of the 208 public library authorities) are now able to provide comprehensive information about the EU. And if some questions are too complicated to be answered immediately, a back-up service is in place. So if people want to find out more, they can – easily.

Local bodies, including, for example, Chambers of Commerce, as well as libraries, have decided for themselves that information about the EU can be provided more effectively at a local or regional level than at a national one. This arises partly because of the absence at national level of leadership on the EU issue – other than negative and ill-informed speculation.

As for the European Commission, it has in recent years decided that it is more appropriate for it to offer support to such information providers than for its representative offices in the UK to engage themselves as leaders in this field.

The poll reports complaints about the public not receiving information about the euro. But the euro is a separate issue. Whether Britain will wish to take part at a later date remains to be seen, but the Commission will play no part in the decision. We take the view that this is exclusively a matter for the people, parliament and Government of the United Kingdom.

Yours sincerely,

Geoffrey Martin
Head of Representation

Dear Editor

It is surprising that you choose to criticise moves to protect the health of consumers ("Bombay Duck is back on the menu", 12 December 2000, page 3).

Several years ago cholera was discovered in some fisheries products and a later inspection revealed poor hygiene levels and processing procedures. The "compromise deal" you cite was achieved back in 1997 and hardly qualifies as news. The advisability of obtaining health certificates from recognised processing plants is clear, as the current BSE crisis shows in the beef market.

Though one man's fight against bureaucracy makes an interesting 'human' story, it does nothing to draw attention to the serious health issues at stake.

Yours sincerely,

Geoffrey Martin
Head of Representation

Dear Editor

Contrary to your article ('Snooping risk for employers as EU brings in new laws', 2 October 2000), the UK's new Human Rights Act has nothing whatever to do with the European Union.

Neither the European Convention on Human Rights nor the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg are EU institutions. They are, rather, instruments of the Council of Europe, an entirely separate organisation.

Yours faithfully

Geoffrey Martin
Head of Representation

Dear Editor

There is no "Brussels plot" to introduce a tax on phones. Your curiously out-of-date article ('EC plans poll tax on phones', 10 September) has no foundation whatsoever and is riddled with inaccuracies.

The document you refer to is, in fact, more than two years old. It was a study that the Commission was obliged to undertake into the possibility of finding new sources of funding, so-called 'Own Resources', for the EU's budget.

An Annex to the report reviewed existing literature on several possibilities, one of which was indeed a 'Communications Tax', previously mooted in a 1997 report commissioned by the European Parliament.

At no point did the Commission advocate introducing any such tax. Like most of the other possibilities examined it found the idea flawed. It remains the case that there is no current need for any new Own Resources - existing resources are sufficient to finance EU expenditure plans. Contrary to your article, no such proposal will be discussed at the Nice European Council in December.

Had your journalist read the report properly, or even checked his facts with the Commission's Press Office, rather than jumping to conclusions, your readers might not have been so badly misled.

Yours faithfully

Geoffrey Martin
Head of Representation

Dear Editor

It is surprising that you choose to ridicule moves to reduce the number of accidents at work ("How to climb a ladder…Euro style", 5.9.00).

In 1996, across the EU, there were 4.8 million accidents involving absences from work of more than three days. More significantly, it is estimated that one in ten falls at work results in permanent invalidity or death.

As labour mobility increases, it is vital that workers should be confident that the same high safety levels are observed regardless of which Member State they are working in.

Yours faithfully

Geoffrey Martin
Head of Representation

Dear Editor

The new anti-Euro "No" campaign claims to provide "killer facts" on its website. They allege that they are "up against the Government and the European Commission's multi-million pound euro propaganda, funded from our taxes". The Democracy Movement make similar claims (Letters, 28.8.00). The public interest would be better served if this was not a distortion of the actual situation.

The position of the European Commission on whether the United Kingdom should pursue joining the Euro is that this is a matter to be decided upon exclusively by the British people.

No funds have been spent by the Commission in the United Kingdom or in Denmark for the purpose of campaigning in favour of entry and there is no intention of doing so in future. Nor does the European Movement here or its junior partner The Young European Movement any longer receive funds from Brussels, whether for campaigning or other purposes.

Funds are available from the Commission for the purpose of drawing public attention to policies and programmes agreed by Ministers, who remain the policy masters of the European Union. These are expended in the Member States in ways which are intended to bring the benefit of deeper knowledge.

There have been many attempts by those whose attitude towards the European Union is prejudiced to try to entice the public into the belief that Brussels is funding propaganda in Britain. The examples usually given by these zealots are always the same and continue to be wrong. Contrary to the claims by the Democracy Movement "The Raspberry Icecream War" was not distributed in schools either in Britain or Denmark.

The Commission has been able to support thousands of public and private bodies in Britain not only in cash but also in kind in order to provide a more and more comprehensive and factual description of the European Union. This has been widely welcomed. There is and will remain a clear distinction between propaganda such as the direct mail shots from the "No" campaign and information which is at present in great demand. We will continue to try to meet this rising tide.

Yours faithfully

Geoffrey Martin
Head of Representation

Dear Editor

Metrication in the UK is not the EU's doing, as Sir Ray Whitney MP is right to point out (Letters, 26 July).

Much of the press pack and their political fellow-travellers have been baying for blood over this matter for weeks. Trading standards officers have been labelled over-zealous jobsworths, but the onslaught has been reserved for the alleged diktats being imposed by Brussels.

But the thrill of the hunt has blinkered them to the facts. These tell a different story, and it is one from which any sceptic doubting the ability of Britain to control its own destiny ought, in fact, to take encouragement.

It was the Wilson Government that made the decision in principle and initiated the UK's metrication programme in 1965, eight years before even joining the Community. This was in response to global moves in this direction - Ireland and all Commonwealth countries already having adopted the metric system.

The transition has been a gradual one but for almost three decades now, children in British schools have enjoyed a metric-only education.

Furthermore, it was the Thatcher Government which committed itself in 1980 and 1989 to the final timetable for the shift to metric as a crucial element in bringing down barriers to trade within the Single European Market. This included permanent derogations for measures such as the pint and the mile, but also the recent deadline of 1 January 2000 for an end to the sale of loose produce in imperial pounds and ounces.

If anything has forced Britain's hand it has been the weight of the argument in favour of metrication – a direction in which even the United States is moving. Blaming Europe is tendentious and a denial of the decisive role played by successive British governments in determining its own policy.

Yours faithfully

Geoffrey Martin
Head of Representation

Dear Editor

Stephen Pollard's comment on so-called European Commission 'propaganda' (12 July 2000), is so inaccurate that I can only conclude it is yet another attempt to mislead the public on Europe.

The Commission's proposal is intended to refine existing provisions concerning political parties at the European level, as agreed by Member State governments in the Maastricht Treaty of 1993.

The notion that it will lead to the allocation of taxpayers money to European parties which support a 'federalist agenda' is nonsense. On the contrary - the Commission's intention is to ensure greater transparency and accountable funding of these political parties.

The agreement of Member State governments will, as ever, be necessary before new legislation can be introduced in this field.

Yours faithfully

Geoffrey Martin
Head of Representation