eurealist.co.uk

We do not understand why the former Home Secretary should have apparently agreed with other G6 ministers to press forward with the "availability" principle and disregard data protection issues. This is contrary to the decision of the Member States in the Hague Programme, contrary to the advice of independent data protection authorities, inconsistent with what the Home Office Ministers had told us, and against the views of the Finnish Presidency. The exchange of information between the law enforcement authorities is important, but not so important that civil rights can be eroded.

Hous of Lord Report on the EU Ministers secret meetings

Sir - Dr Charles Tannock’s defence of the Conservatives’ spavined refusal to leave the EPP raises some interesting points (Letters, July 17). Leaving on one side the pleasures of what he refers to as "advantageous separate whipping" (which sounds kinda fun - may we be allowed some in the Lords?) could he explain why he would find it more distasteful to sit next to Robert Kilroy-Silk and Jean-Marie Le Pen than with the present gaggle of federal socialists?

He goes on to state that the British MEPs would be unable to defend British national interests outside the EPP. On the day that Peter Mandelson has banned Britain from importing butter from New Zealand, perhaps Dr Tannock could explain precisely what British interests have been so assiduously protected by our MEPs.

Have they protected us from the Working Time Directive, from the various damaging financial services directives, from the Working Height Directive, from the Horse Passport Directive, the Takeover Directive, the Water Framework Directive or the Waste Incineration Directive, to name but a few?

If not, perhaps Dr Tannock could justify the £1.2 million cost of running each and every of our MEPs. What are they for?

Lord Willoughby de Broke, Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos

Telegraph Letters