I see there is the usual shock horror reaction to the suggestion by the European Commission (the Commission can only propose and not decide) that minimum penalties should be set across all EU countries for certain types of offence against agreed EU rules. In particular, they are suggesting that for environmental crimes of a trans-boundary nature, such as dumping of dangerous waste, minimum agreed punishments should be set. This will stop, for instance, companies facing the same standards across Europe, but different penalties, dumping waste material in countries that merely impose a small fine.

There is indeed little purpose in agreeing Europe-wide standards if member states do not treat the law seriously across Europe. If EU countries agree, for instance, to outlaw the dumping of radioactive materials or dangerous, highly toxic chemicals on waste sites, but one or another country, whilst making it illegal, merely says that the company will have a 100 euro fine, whereas in Britain they would be sent to jail, then a highly unsatisfactory situation emerges.

It is therefore perfectly sensible for the Commission to propose to do something about this - though the decision on whether or not to follow their suggestion remains with the Council of Ministers. That is why it is totally ludicrous for Tim Kirkhope, Leader of the British Conservatives in the European Parliament, to claim that "it is a significant transfer of power to the Commission" and that "the decision on whether or not to criminalise offences in Britain should be a matter for Britain, not for the EU".

If he really believes that, then he should never again complain about laxity in other EU member states in living up to the agreements we have reached with them.