DIRECT LINE

I need someone high up in the European Commission to bang heads together, so I go to the top. On Thursday I write an e-mail requesting a discussion with Catherine Day, the Secretary-General of the European Commission, the Brussels’ bureaucrats’ Number One. I get a reply saying that she is tied up in meetings till late Friday.

Last thing I do before leaving my Stockport office at 5.30pm on Friday is to call her office. I can’t remember the number so I look it up on the European Commission website. There are half a dozen numbers listed under the ‘Secretariat General’ heading, and I dial the first. The telephone is quickly answered.

"Hello,” I say, “this is Chris Davies, I wonder if Catherine Day is available?" "This is Catherine Day," came the reply. “I’ve got your e-mail, but I shall have to make some enquiries before I can respond.” (I get a full reply a few days later).

NOW THAT IS IMPRESSIVE.

I looked up a number on a website just as any person can, and within 60 seconds I was speaking directly to the most senior person in the European Commission administration. Of course I hit lucky, and maybe she was the last person left in the Berlaymont building on a Friday evening, but if that’s not a good example of openness and transparency in Brussels then I don’t know what is.

Here’s a challenge. Catherine Day’s opposite number in the UK is the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, “Britain’s most senior civil servant”. Look up the number of his office and see how long it takes you to get through to speak to him!

THE LAP OF LUXURY

The Parliament is meeting in Strasbourg and I have an evening meeting with the Energy Commissioner, Andris Piebalgs, to talk about carbon capture and storage.

Strasbourg is a good place to meet with European Commissioners. A meeting of 'the college' takes place whenever the Parliament is in session here, and they often have a bit of time on their hands as they wait around to take part in a debate.

His office is five floors above my own, and I am there in 2 minutes. As usual with Commissioner's offices here it is stark, furnished only with a desk, a table and a few chairs. The walls are bare, there is nothing to give it any sense of being 'lived in', it feels unused. Of course, Commissioners just pass through here briefly each month so it would be a waste to spend on furnishing. Even so, it is not what most people would imagine.

People complain about the waste of time and money incurred because the European Parliament meets in two places. If a poll of European Commissioners was conducted I bet a huge majority would vote to say goodbye to Strasbourg.

THE EU AND PALESTINE

Sweden takes the EU Presidency in July, and at a private meeting in Stockholm I had the chance to put questions about Palestine and the nature of the incoming Israeli government to Carl Bildt, the foreign minister (and former prime minister).

"There are two pieces of good news," he said. "The Gaza situation has helped ensure that the EU is more united in its policy than ever before. And the Obama approach with the appointment of George Mitchell has brought us even closer to the US administration.

"There is no more good news. I think it was a mistake for Israel not to do a deal with Hamas over the release of prisoners. The Gaza blockade continues. There is no reconstruction. The Israelis say they are concerned about arms smuggling but no arms will pass through Israeli checkpoints.

"Our policy has to be to insist on the Palestinians' right to a separate state."

No commitments were made. A wait-and-see approach continues. But the way Bildt spoke was a great deal more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause than anything I have heard from the current Czech Presidency.

MY GREATEST MISTAKE

I have been making political speeches for nearly 35 years. Tonight I own up to the occasion when telling the truth became my greatest mistake.

I'm in Saddleworth, at the Delph Methodist Hall, speaking to an audience of Liberal Democrat members and friends at a 'pizza and politics' evening. The faces are very familiar, many I have known since 1985 when I became parliamentary candidate for the Littleborough and Saddleworth constituency.

These people supported me through two unsuccessful general election campaigns and a triumphant by-election.

"The year was 2000," I said, "the anniversary of my election to the European Parliament. I was speaking in this constituency at a celebratory dinner, and reflecting on my 1997 failure to hold my seat in the House of Commons and win the new Oldham East & Saddleworth constituency."

With hindsight," I recall saying, "I am not sorry I lost."

It was a slap in the face to all those people who had worked so hard to get me re-elected in 1997, and who had been proud of having a local Liberal Democrat MP.

In truth I am still local to them, and stories about my work still appear regularly in the local papers, but being an MEP is not the same thing.The reasons I gave reflected my true opinion, but at the time they hurt.

I use tonight's occasion to apologise, but then repeat the reasons I gave.

"I like working in the European Parliament with people of so many different nationalities and different political cultures. I like the fact that the issues so often seem of a bigger order than at Westminster. I like the fact that as an ordinary MEP I have a much greater opportunity to influence the shape of legislation than I would have at Westminster, and it is legislation binding on 27 nations not just one."

The reason for this greater influence is the separation of powers between the EU institutions; the European Parliament is not subject to control by a government and MEPs are much less accountable to party whips.

At Westminster, opposition MPs seek to exploit political differences in order to score political points; in Brussels, MEPs explore the common ground between members in order to build up the majorities necessary for their power to be exerted.

"Very often, it feels like more grown up politics," I conclude.

My audience appreciate the apology for my past mistake, but this time they also seem to enjoy the reasons.

Lib Dems like the idea of "grown up" politics.

BLOGGING FROM INSIDE PALESTINE - WHY ARE WE PAYING ISRAEL'S BILLS?

My telephone lights up with a new message: "Jawwal welcomes you to Palestine. Smell the jasmine and taste the olives." Sounds great.

I'm in Ramallah, with the European Parliament's Palestine Delegation, specifically to explore the possibilities for recreating some kind of government of national unity. It's the day after the Israeli elections.

The Palestinian Negotiations Support Unit brings us up to date with the latest details of the dismemberment of what so many in the world want to become a Palestinian state. The Israeli land grab proceeds apace with the expansion of settlements, house demolitions, extension of the Wall, building of new roads for Jewish settlers, and growth of military areas. On current Israeli plans the 22pc of original land left for Palestinians before 1967 will now be reduced to 14pc. The system of identity cards means that no-one, including the Prime Minister, has a right to exist outside Israeli control.

Meanwhile in Gaza 4,000 homes have been completely destroyed and 17,000 partially so - along with 1,314 killed (412 children) and 5,300 injured (1,815 children).

In Jerusalem we meet with representatives of the European Commission. They know it all but can't say it all. Even so they succeed in only half hiding their frustration with EU policy. They want Israel's blockade of Gaza to end. Only 15 items are being allowed in, everything else is banned: concrete, glass, paper, nappies, water purifying tablets, spare parts for hospital equipment, plastic bags for dividing up sacks of basic food - all banned. 500 lorry loads a day are needed but only a third of that number are being allowed through.

We talk of the EU funding priority, which is to support the development of Palestinian institutions (paying wages) that could provide the basis for statehood. We talk of the cost of Gaza reconstruction.

"Tell me," I ask, "why is EU taxpayers' money being used to support institutions when Palestine is under military occupation, is being dismembered by the occupiers, and when the occupiers refuse to state what the limits are of their expansionist plans? It's like pouring water into a bath with no plug." The Commission confirms that under the Geneva Convention the occupier should provide humanitarian assistance.

The situation is mad. Israel will never change its behaviour until we make it responsible for its actions, and that means making it foot the bill.

STAND FOR THE ANTHEM

Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas arrives to address MEPs in the vast debating chamber of the European Parliament in Strasbourg. Our own president, Hans Gert Poettering, stands besides him. The European anthem from Beethoven's ninth is played. MEPs stand - well, most of them, some UKIP members and fellow travellers stay seated at the back of the classroom (sorry, chamber), giggling and chatting.

The notion of a European anthem was included in the Constitutional Treaty (not adopted), dropped by the Lisbon Treaty (not yet adopted), but adopted by the European Parliament. This is the first time I have heard it used.

Standing for an anthem is an unusual experience for a Brit these days. I have no objection, and will do so happily in the UK as well as here, but I do feel a touch embarrassed.

The ceremony might be more solemn if the music coming over the PA system didn't have the tinny sound of someone holding a microphone to a transistor radio. It comes over fine on TV I am told.

EUROPEAN JOBS FOR EUROPEAN WORKERS

“British workers need protecting from foreign labour, and British industry needs protecting from foreign imports....The country has been plunged into a full scale depression precisely because of globalisation and the government’s refusal to protect British interests. We say that protectionism is the only solution."

These are the words of Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party. Translated into deeds they would spell calamity.

Hundreds of thousands of British citizens are working elsewhere within the European Union. They benefit from one of the EU's core principles, the freedom we all have to live and work in any one of the 27 member states.

Bringing down the barriers, opening up opportunities to trade, and allowing the movement of people has brought huge benefits to Britain, not least through broadening experience and boosting economic prosperity in ways not simply fed by house price speculation and artificial banking booms.

Think of the miserable alternative. Shut the doors. Raise the barriers. Close down trade. Try and protect our own interests in a world where the majority of major private sector employers are not British companies. Watch us shoot ourselves in the foot.

My sentiments are reinforced by my party leader, Nick Clegg, who has refused to play a populist card: "pulling out of the labour rules in Europe would be a huge, self-defeating step too far," he has declared.

There are said to be up to 1.5 million people from the UK working in other EU countries. Maybe the same number of other EU citizens working here. Many more Brits, often retired, live in other member states. Maybe there is a tendency for people from Britain to work abroad in higher paying jobs, while a higher percentage of others working here will be in low paid agricultural or hotel jobs that have not been in demand.

Given that a total of 29 million people are employed in the UK the row about jobs at the Lindsey oil refinery might not be regarded as very significant. Here is a plant owned by a French company that let a contract won by a South African company that has subcontracted to an Italian business - all at a site where many employees are working for contractors of different kinds. This is the world in which we now live. But despite the corporate and Mandelsonian reassurances I doubt if the Italian workers living on a barge in Grimsby dock are being paid just as indigenous workers would expect.

European law was never intended to prevent there being a level playing field. It expects jobs to be advertised and be available for local people with the necessary skills. It is weaker on ensuring that local agreements about pay and conditions negotiated through collective bargaining should be respected. The pendulum has swung too far and needs to be corrected.

The publicity of recent days may have sent a warning shot over the bows of international companies that seek to circumvent local terms. If this ensures that in future they avoid giving reason for dispute that will be good. In the longer term UK employment law may need to be strengthened to ensure that greater respect is paid to collective agreements, and the EU Posted Workers Directive needs to be reviewed and clarified to strengthen the level playing field requirements.

But don't expect anything too soon. The wheels of EU law-making turn very slowly. There is no certainty that 26 other Member States feel the same about the need for some change (although it is certain that a good many will do so), and a very high probability that others will point the finger at the UK and say "but it was you who wanted to keep employment rules weak in the first place!"

The man from Du Pont, he says yes!

9am, and a man from Du Pont (which I think is the world's biggest chemical company) knocks on my door. I had forgotten he was coming and had just returned from the parliament's gym. He stood in his suit for our conversation while I stood, dripping sweat, in my shorts (but after 40 years as a runner I bet my naked leg muscles were better than his covered ones).

The topic was HFCs, hydrofluorocarbons, which are used as refrigerants in supermarket chill chests, in air conditioning, and in foam insulation. Those in use today have an average global warming potential many times greater than CO2.

My Du Pont man proposes the creation of a trading system to discourage their use as an alternative to taxes or an outright ban. No doubt corporate self interest prevails but the idea has merits.

But I was interested to hear the latest on car air conditioning systems because I was involved in shaping the current legislation a few years ago (often pointing out that my car, a Nissan Micra, did not have an air conditioning system).

The refrigerant most often used is HFC134a, made in Runcorn by Ineos Fluor (ex ICI) which has a global warming potential of 1,500. The law we passed says that no new car from 2011 can use HFCs with a GWP greater than 150. This was set because there is an HFC with a GWP of this amount, although many in the car industry plan in future to use CO2 as a refrigerant which has a GWP of just 1 - but it has a few design problems, if it were to leak into the vehicle the driver might fall asleep.

What was interesting was to learn that Du Pont has now developed an HFC refrigerant suitable for car air conditioning with a GWP not of 1,500 but of just 4.

It's a text book example of how european environmental regulation drives forward innovation and brings products to the market.

Let's have more!

BUILDING ON THE RUINS

The messages are mixed and yet there is hope that progress can be made in the Middle East. Obama plays the right mood music. The appointment of George Mitchell is to be welcomed hugely; the man's independence and track record speaks for itself. But then there is Hilary Clinton giving words of support for Israeli actions that most across the world condemn. Maybe she has to - good cop, bad cop - but her business-as-usual signals suggest that the hope could prove forlorn.

I don't think the majority of Israelis have the slightest desire to create a genuinely viable and independent Palestinian state. At most I imagine they foresee some kind of economic colony, which may explain the destruction of factories, flour mills and food processing businesses in Gaza. There will have to be a huge change in Israeli perceptions if Palestinian ideas are to be realised and selling a deal that involved this would go far beyond the ability of Israeli politicians alone. Nothing is possible without Obama, certainly don't waste your time looking to the EU for leadership (I despair!).

How do you even start to address the racist fact that too many Israelis seem to believe that a Palestinian life is not as important as one of their own?

Francis Wurtz, the French leader of the GUE (left) group in the European Parliament, has just returned from Gaza. Read his account here, and demand to know why European leaders have not demanded an immediate suspension of the EU-Israel association agreement.

PESTICIDE PROBLEMS

'Normal' politics, what a relief. The European Parliament votes for controversial compromise proposals for new laws on pesticides that represent the last stage of two years of discussion.

One part has become almost non-controversial: each EU member state should draw up plans to use less pesticides. There is good evidence that we really don't need to use the quantities we do.

But then there is the issue which arouses so much angst, the 'banning' of certain pesticides (actually the refusal to renew authorisation of some existing products when the time comes, which is rarely before 2013).

The lobbying, stimulated by pesticide manufacturers and backed by some farmers, has been intense, outrageous and ridiculous: I have had many letters claiming that the "EU" plans to ban 85% of pesticides. By this morning this had been reduced to farmers on TV this morning saying that they would be prevented from producing unblemished apples, and that potatoes and pea production could be severely damaged in damp Britain.

In fact the package we voted through today will result in the withdrawal of no more than 25 pesticides, some 4% of those on the market. These are the really nasty ones, those that pose risks to human health and the environment because they are mutagenic, carcinogenic, toxic to reproduction, or persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic - substances that, like DDT a generation ago, can lead to an accumulation of chemicals in the bodies of humans, birds and insects.

Could this make things difficult for farmers? My West Midlands colleague Liz Lynne claims it could do them "untold damage", and yes, an early run of bad weather conditions would make things tough. But there is an exemption if any crop is under special short term threat, and the new requirements will create an incentive for manufacturers to come up with safer alternatives that do the same job.

The big picture is this: we have got to stop treating our world like a giant chemistry set. Insect numbers are falling rapidly, and if insects go so does a lot else. We don't know all the reasons but it would be surprising if our excessive use of chemicals on land did not play some part.

Of course 'insects' in general are not particularly popular, so those of us who like the new legislation have pointed to the special concerns expressed in the new law for the most 'cuddly' type, the honey bees, the future of which is a matter of great concern.

If the price for a better world and a happy bee is the occasional blemished apple, well, so be it!

MEETING THE BRUSSELS BUREAUCRATS´ BUREAUCRAT

They´re a shadowy lot, these faceless, unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. I know they must be because the Daily Mail says so. Maybe I should have worn a cloak and carried a dagger when I stepped into a lift in the Berlaymont - European Commission HQ - on my way to meet with the boss, the Secretary-General, Catherine Day.

But close up, Brussels bureaucrats usually seem like ordinary human beings. Catherine is striking - Irish, tall, and formidably on top of her brief (or if not she is a class act at bluffing). She is a former head of DG Environment and I´ve come across her a few times in the past. Nick Clegg was a colleague with her in Leon Brittain´s Cabinet some 13 years ago and tells me her capacity for work then was awesome.

I had emailed her before Christmas, fresh from the success of having secured funding of up to €9 billion, to ask for a meeting to discuss the development of the programme to construct up to 12 carbon capture and storage demonstration projects. A meeting was arranged for the first week of the New Year. Sitting with her now are Jos Delbeke, the Deputy Director of DG Environment, Piotr Tulej from the same department, and Jan Panek from DG TREN (Energy) who has to do most of the real work.

My concern is to ensure that implementation starts to happen quickly now that money is available, and as more than one Commission department will be involved I want assurance from the top that turf wars will not be allowed to get in the way.

It proves a happy meeting with everyone singing from the same hymn sheet. Catherine emphasises that developing CCS is regarded as a priority. Jos agrees emphatically. Jan explains that there are some 30 potential projects in the pipeline and that firm declarations of intent will now be sought. The Commission will be looking for match support funding from member states and wants to get construction of the first few schemes underway as soon as possible.

They say nice things about my CCS work and hope that I will maintain my involvement. I indicate that this is my intent and invite the Commission to take part in a public workshop I shall be organising on the subject before the end of the parliamentary term, to which they assent.

I depart, ego duly flattered. Maybe the faceless ones have deceived me, but the bureaucrats have won another battle.

NICK CLEGG TALKS SENSE ON GAZA

The double standards are nauseating.

The EU makes demands of Palestinians and backs them up by refusing to recognise their elected representatives and by cutting off financial support. We make requests to the Israelis (lift the economic blockade, stop the expansion of settlements, etc) and when they are ignored we reward them by strengthening our partnership.

Tzipi Livni says that Israel can not accept terrorism. Well just exactly who is doing the terrorising now?

Nick Clegg is the first of the main political leaders to demand that we back our words with some deeds. His call today for suspension of the enhancements to the EU-Israel agreement, and for an arms embargo, is hugely welcome. It draws a line in the sand and sends out a message that we should no longer accept that Israeli government actions are those of a 'normal' democratic partner.

Israel has rights but it has also has responsibilities that it must start to exercise. Let's no longer make demand of Palestinians and Hamas without making equivalent demands of Israel. Let's have an end to the double standards.

THE MORNING AFTER

The barbed wire around the Council of Ministers' building has been taken away and the nerves of yesterday have been replaced by a pleasurable sense of achievement.

Europe's prime ministers yesterday agreed a series of measures known as the climate change and energy package, intended to reduce CO2 emissions by 20% by 2020 (30% if international agreement is secured) through energy saving, increased renewable energy provision, and investment decisions shaped by the EU's emissions trading scheme.

Messy compromises were needed to win the support necessary, yet the deal still represents the most advanced series of measures agreed anywhere in the world.

But the only thing I was interested in was whether the Council would back the proposals I had succeeded in putting on the table. These were to use 'spare' carbon allowances to fund investment in the development of carbon capture and storage technology.

Snippets of information leaked out from contacts inside the building. At 1pm, news was that the draft summit conclusions called for the use of 200 million allowances, enough to raise €4-5 billion, with each billion estimated to be enough to support one CCS commercial demonstration project somewhere in Europe.

NOT ENOUGH! Better than nothing, of course, but insufficient to take forward the minimum number of projects needed to test and develop the full range of potential technologies. Rude words of despair mixed with consolation were exchanged over mobile phones.

The end-of-summit press conference began. Sarkozy saying the deal was great for Europe (and thereby for French leadership!).

Then a call from the Reuters correspondent in the Council's press room. One diplomat has just said the number had gone up to 300. Story needed to be confirmed. Apparently some detailed negotiations were still going on.

Half an hour later another call. Three sources had now confirmed, would I like to give a quote? "This should raise €6-7 billion," I said, "it's the bare minimum needed but it's enough to do the job."

Inside the meeting, I learnt later, Gordon Brown, pushed hard by John Ashton, the Foreign Secretary's special adviser on climate change and the man who got me involved with CCS in the first place, had insisted that 200 was not enough. Britain was supported by the Netherlands, but these positions were well rehearsed and the intervention of others was needed to break the logjam. Astonishingly it came from Italy (Berlusconi had left by this time). Merkel of Germany came out in favour. Sweden, Romania, and others indicated that 300 at least was acceptable. If the French had put 350 on the table, as the European Parliament had sought, we could well have got it.

So all credit to Gordon Brown. I may have put the ball on the spot, but he kicked it into the goal.

Congratulations filtered through as the news got out. "This is a huge step forward," said John. "It's comparable to the Apollo programme. It makes possible the idea of zero carbon power production using fossil fuels. As a step towards fighting climate change its importance is incalculable."

"Get your daughter, and tell her what her father has done," said Jules Kortenhorst of the European Climate Foundation, bringing tears to my eyes.

I feel choked about some of this. I know that the only reason this financial package has been put in place is because I became the CCS rapporteur in the Parliament last February and I made it my priority to find a way forward on the issue of funding the technology. I didn't have to do it, it wasn't part of the legislative brief, and someone else probably would not have been interested in the challenge.

The result is without any question the greatest political achievement of my life.