European Commission President Barroso today urged the head of the IPCC, Rajenda Pachouri, to sue UKIP MEP Paul Nuttall for raising questions over Pachouri's financial links to Tata Steel of India.

Tata, the owners of Corus, stand to benefit from the Carbon Credits scheme which has been pushed by the IPCC. It is expected that the closure of the Corus plant on Teeside will bring windfall benefits of almost $1bn by selling the defunct plant's carbon credits.

Mr Nuttall had simply asked "qui bono?" when raising wider questions about the use of British taxpayers money to export British jobs in the steel industry.

In his speech, he said, "The real gain to Corus/Tata from stopping production on Teeside is the saving it will make on its carbon allowances, allocated by the EU and worth up to £600m over the next 3 years. Surprise, surprise, the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachouri, is the head of the Tata Foundation, so one must ask 'qui bono', as Tata of India owns Corus."

In response, President Barroso urged Mr Pachouri to take Mr Nuttall to court, before admitting that the closure of the Corus plant was a direct consequence of EU legislation.

Full text of Paul Nuttall's speech:

Mr. Barroso,

Recently we have heard that there is to be a closure of the Corus Steel Works in Teeside, in North East England. This is due to the EU target of a reduction of 20% of Carbon emissions. Thanks to "Carbon Credits", Corus can no longer afford to employ over 5,000 Steel workers including suppliers. We also have the spectacle of the British government admitting that its hands are tied on this issue by punitive EU Competition Law.

The real gain to Corus from stopping production on Teeside is the saving it will make on its carbon allowances, allocated by the EU under its Emissions Trading Scheme which will be worth up to £600 million over the next three years. As the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachouri, is the head of the Tata foundation, one must ask "qui bono?" Needless to say, Tata of India owns Corus.

Is it now official EU policy to offer incentives to companies to close plants, such as Teeside, so that they can out-source their business to countries such as India, or is there a more personal interest at stake here?