Some interesting links

I took part in this week's Record Europe in which we discuss the relationship between sport and the European law. You can catch in on the BBC Parliament's channel or watch it on the internet here. The debate starts just under five minutes into the programme.

Another link well worth taking a look at is Nosemonkey's EUtopia post on the media and why he thinks that he was shortlisted for UACES-Reuters Reporting Europe Award for his blog on the EU. Far from being chuffed with being up for the award Nosemonkey worries he was shortlisted because of the distinct lack of any journalism from the major papers on the EU. It's a thoughtful piece that all too easily highlights the UK media's weakness of reporting the EU and the ignorence this then leads to.

Two other bloggers, Jon Worth and Jan Seifert, have set up a website which is campaigning for just one president of the EU, called Who Do I Call, in tribute to Henry Kissinger's infamous question "Who do I call if I want to call Europe?". It's online at www.whodoicall.eu and argues that appointing the same person to be President of the Commission and President of the European Council would offer greater democracy and efficiency while obviously offering one clear figurehead of the EU to the rest of the world.

The likes of Wise mean reform of expenses is essential

Anyone who flicked through the News of the World on Sunday will have seen the report on various MEPs - none of them Labour - who allegedly abuse their expenses.

The one who featured the most prominently was UKIP MEP Tom Wise, who was even caught bragging to an undercover reporter about the amount of money he says he makes from his expenses. You can read the story here but perhaps what is most embarrassing is his attitude which, for a man who remains under investigation by the anti-fraud office OLAF, is one of breathtaking arrogance.

The News of the World highlights a loophole in the European Parliament’s rules which is exploited by some people who claim the maximum amount they can for plane tickets (which is fully flexible economy tickets) but actually travel on a budget airline to Charleroi airport 50 miles from Brussels, pocketing the difference. Wise told the reporter: "When I fly Ryanair I say 'Thank you very much!' I could actually put the Ryanair ticket in and just get that back— but that would be denying me a legally, well I say legally, a genuinely available funding."

So despite appearing to acknowledge what he is doing is wrong he boasts about the amount of money he is claiming while admitting he doesn’t have a clue what he is supposed to do as an MEP. What a shower!

The good news is that the particular loophole Tom Wise is so fond of will be closed shortly but this is not enough. Rarely do I find myself nodding in agreement with the News of the World but their demand that "every member should provide receipts for everything they claim" is a must.

Of course, the News of the World did not mention that every Labour MEP is already required to have their office and staff expenses audited and approved by an independent auditor each year and I can see no reason why this isn’t replicated by UKIP and other parties.

It is a simple measure that would go some way to repairing the damage caused by the greedy minority like Wise.

Flood-hit areas should recieve all £110million

The decision of the Treasury to pocket nearly £80million of the £110million allocated to Britain from the EU’s Solidarity Fund following last summer’s floods, is regretable.

Unfortunately the issue is further clouded by Conservative attempts to blame Tony Blair and some newspapers proclaiming a “Brussels snatch”.

As the press release from Local Government Minister John Healey explains, the reason only £31million will go to the areas hit by last year’s flooding is to do with the way the UK rebate works.

The rebate refunds to Britain roughly two-thirds of the deficit between the annual total of EU monies raised in the UK and of EU expenditure in the UK. As a result, any extra sums spent in Britain, such as the solidarity fund grant, reduce the UK's deficit. This in turn reduces the size of the eventual rebate by a sum equivalent to two thirds of the extra expenditure in question.

So in short, the Treasury is retaining such a huge chunk of money meant for the flood-hit areas so that it will not lose out when Britain's rebate is calculated.

Throughout the year there will be many issues that effect the amount Britain receives in the rebate and this is of course inevitable but I find it astonishing that the Treasury is guarding against a dip in Britain’s rebate at the expense of hard-hit flood victims and their devestated towns. After all, when extra money comes to farmers through agricultural spending or to poorer regions through structural funding, it does not retain the money in this way.

In our region Hull, Doncaster and Sheffield amongst others all suffered severely from the flooding and I voted for this money in the European Parliament to help them recover. The full £110million should be spent on the areas affected, not hoarded by a mandarin in the Treasury.

You can read my letter to John Healey by clicking here.

Working to build a bright future for sport

The Mavrommatis report, which is Parliament's response to the European Commission’s White Paper on Sport, was debated and voted through in the European Parliament today.

It’s a relatively tame report, in response to an equally tame White Paper but following the May Day rubbish some of the more excitable tabloids printed about a couple of transnational maps being an EU plot to abolish Britain, the likes of Chris Heaton Harris and Tom Wise lined up to accuse the EU of trying to hijack the governance of sport and describe it as “another Brussels power grab” courtesy of the Lisbon Treaty.

What the Lisbon Treaty does is precisely the opposite as it recognises the specificity of sport, i.e. that existing laws on employment, copyright, media rights and so on, which unavoidably affect professional sport, should be interpreted and applied in a way which takes account of the needs of sport. The most obvious example of this is the collective sale of television rights could be thought to contradict EU competition policy, but is clearly in the interest of fair sporting competition.

Indeed, the collective sale of television rights is one measure that the report does recommend. As this football season has once again proved leagues across Europe are dominated by one, two or maybe three teams and the problem will only get worse without the collective sale of television rights. The next few years should prove interesting (or a lot less so as the case will probably be) as the consequences of Barcelona and Real Madrid securing their own massive television deal becomes clear. Compared to the Premier League, Spain has been relatively exciting over the last 15 years, with Atletico Madrid, Deportivo and Valencia all winning a title while a host of others competed strongly against the dominance of Barca and Real Madrid. Whether it will continue to be so remains to be seen but, with the balance now so heavily weighted in favour of the two wealthiest clubs, it seems highly unlikely.

Staying on the subject of television, the report also calls on EU countries to draw together a list of sporting events which should be shown on free-to-air television. In Britain events like the World Cup, European Championship (in football) and the Olympics are protected but other events like Test matches and the Ryder Cup are only available on subscription television.

While the money that is paid for these events is important to the respective sports, there is a bigger issue of making them available to all. Viewing figures hit an extraordinary 8million during the last Ashes series in England and no matter how exciting they are in 2009 there is simply no chance that the same number of people will be able to enjoy the next series.

Finally, the report endorses UEFA's rules on home-grown players which will require clubs competing in the Champions League and UEFA cup next season to have at least eight home-grown players (trained either by the club or in the same league) in their 25-man squads. This is a realistic measure that will force clubs to invest in and develop talent in youth academies rather than just outspending their rivals in the transfer market, whilst also respecting EU employment law (unlike FIFA's six plus five proposals).

In short, getting away from the usual hyperbole spouted by Eurosceptics, the Mavrommatis report is a useful contribution to the debate on the future of sport and the way that we as MEPs can interpret and frame EU law in a way that safeguards the future of sport.

CBI should stand up for Europe at home and abroad

In the British debates on Europe, the CBI often keeps its head below the parapet. For example, during the debate surrounding the Lisbon Treaty, they were happy with the UK protocol relating to the Charter of Rights but refused to publicly endorse the treaty despite getting what they wanted.

But at European level, with its sister organisations from across Europe, it's less reticent. Their recent publication, "Successful companies for a successful Europe", comments that "ratification of the Lisbon Treaty is important to ensure it [the EU] remains operational".

It goes on to state that European companies, "want to convey a political vision to strengthen Europe by pursuing its integration process" adding that "Europe is the right dimension for addressing tomorrow's big challenges in trade, energy, environment or immigration, and for creating the best conditions for economic growth".

It also points out that:

*In 1957 the six founding countries of the EEC represented 15% of global GDP. Today, even with the rapid economic growth in India and China, the EU accounts for 20% of total GDP.

*The EU is the largest economic market in the world and the largest exporter.

*The EU-27 is characterised by "wealth creation created by European companies, high level social protection, political stability and strong democratic institutions".

Let's hope the CBI breaks its vow of silence on Europe by saying this more loudly at home, not just abroad.

Cameron talks up the importance of Europe

Having spent the first 18 months of his leadership appeasing his Eurosceptic wing by pledging to withdraw from the centre-right European People's Party and being the only non-fascist right-wing party to oppose the Lisbon Treaty, David Cameron appears to have had a road to Damascus style conversion.

In the words of Cameron, during an interview for the Yorkshire Post:

"I don’t want to leave the European Union and I'll tell you why. This is a trading nation. Yorkshire relies on traded goods and on businesses which can trade all over the world and particularly in Europe. We export more per head of the population than America, Japan or other countries. We are a trading nation and Europe is a very important market for us. If we are not in the European Union, we would not be able to have a say over what the rules of the single market are. That is the primary reason for being a member of the European Union."

All pretty sensible stuff, and light years away from the reactionary nonsense and baseless scare-stories trotted out by himself and his front-bench colleagues over the Lisbon Treaty. However, it is unlikely that such an approach will find favour with the likes of John Redwood, Bill Cash and David Heathcoat-Amory.

When I give talks about the reasons for our EU membership to constituents and visitors to the Parliament, I often point to three sets of reasons: the idealistic, pragmatic and selfish. Cameron has at least taken up the latter. Though, even that will be too much for his right-wing MPs.

Local elections

Parts of Yorkshire bucked the national trend in last week's local elections. There were no Labour losses in Leeds, for instance. But there is no doubt that it was a bad result for Labour. Of course, local elections, like European elections, tend to be dominated by national issues, and in this case the abolition of the 10p tax band featured prominently.

Although there is some logic to abolishing this band (the lower rate applies to a proportion of the income of all income tax payers, meaning that 85% of its value accrues to taxpayers of higher bands - money which could be better used to allieviate poverty by targeting it directly at lower incomes through tax credits and benefits), the policy was not thought through enough in terms of how it would be perceived. Perception is political reality, and a highly visible reduction in take-home pay for lower band taxpayers does not match the sometimes less visible compensations - and not all losers were compensated anyway.

Of course, Labour can point to its record over eleven years which has boosted low incomes through steady economic growth, near full employment, the minimum wage, tax credits, fuel allowances and so on, which far outweigh the effect of the 10p rate. But the opposition were bound to make the most of the headline without looking at the wider context. This should have been spotted and rectified earlier, but at least the government has promised to do so now, refreshingly admitting that (like all governments) it made a mistake. Interestingly, none of the opposition parties are calling for a reintroduction of the 10p rate, but they have certainly managed to exploit the change to the full.

Encouraging news in the battle against directory scams

Some good bits of news about the battle against the European City Guide and its various dubious guises.

The European Commissioner for consumer protection, Meglena Kuneva, has written to me stating that should the number of complaints against directory scams not decline then she will step-up her investigation into possible actions the Commission can take. So, any people who have been victims of the directory scams, anywhere in Europe, should make the effort to register their complaints to the Commission (as well as any national authorities) so the extent of the problem is made clear. Letters should be addressed to Commissioner Kuneva, European Commission, Rue de la Loi 200, B-1049 Brussels.

My Labour colleague Arlene McCarthy, who chairs Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee, has also joined the campaign and is asking to extend consumer protection law to business-to-business transactions, something which would help protect victims of the scams.

I have also heard today that the European Parliament’s Petitions Committee has now started on its report into directory scams and, beacause of the delays, they are keen to press on quickly with their investigation, with a meeting with victims and campaigners against the scams set for May. Simon Busutil MEP is still the rapporteur and evidence against directory scams and any suggestions for action should also be sent to him at the European Parliament, Brussels.

Realistically the problem of directory scams is not likely to be solved soon but there is now at least a consensus building that the scams are a blight on small businesses across Europe and it is an issue that the EU can help deal with

Tories align themselves with an unlikely bunch

Now that national parliaments across Europe are debating the Treaty of Lisbon, the unholy alliances of hard left and far right that are attempting to block it stands revealed.

The motley crew includes Jorg Häider's Freedom Party in Austria, the Flemish separatists Vlaams Belang, the Northern League in Italy and the Bulgarian Attak party.. These parties all fall into various shades of the extreme right - xenophobic, ultra-nationalist and/or anti-immigration.

On the other extreme, the remaining Communist parties across Europe have voted 'No', while the German Die Linke partei made up of Oskar Lafontaine's defectors from the SPD and the remnants of the communist PDS party (still enjoying electoral success in parts of East Germany) has also opposed ratification. Interestingly enough, Sinn Fein is the only major Irish party to oppose the treaty. I never thought that Sinn Fein and the Tory party would line up as close allies!

Despite Cameron's attempts to position himself as a moderate conservative, the Tories are the only main centre-right party in Europe to be opposed to the treaty. Every main social democrat, Christian democrat, liberal and green party across the EU has supported the Lisbon Treaty.

All of which highlights just how out of touch Cameron is with mainstream thinking and how isolated Britain would be if the Tories were to win the next election. As Philip Stephen's put it in today's Financial Times,

"As far as abroad is concerned, as things stand Mr Cameron's first act would be to start an acrimonious and unwinnable fight to overturn the treaty of Lisbon and withdraw Britain from the European Union's social chapter. That, not to put too fine a point on it, would be barmy."

BBC's report on MEP's expenses unbalanced

Many of you will have seen the lead item on the BBC news Tuesday night on the subject of MEP's expenses. I and most of my colleagues didn't, as we were in Strasbourg at the time.

The BBC interviewed me for this item, because I have published a comparative table of all the expenses and allowances provided to MPs and MEPs. The BBC's Mark Mardell asked me to describe the system, respond to questions on it and cover also the issue of governments obliging the Parliament to meet once a month in Strasbourg.

In the end, they didn't use one second of this interview, presumably because I was boringly factual and didn't reveal any salacious gossip or make any wild claims about abuse. I gather they took a instead a Conservative and a Lib Dem MEP (and Dan Hannan and Chris Davies are not even regarded by their party colleagues as representing mainstream opinion in their parties) denouncing the system and calling for further reforms, and my Labour colleague Gary Titley defending the right of MEPs to employ their spouses provided they are doing a proper job, for which they are qualified, that the pay is commensurate and that it is declared and transparent.

This, of course, made it look as though the Lib Dems and Conservatives were for further reform and Labour was against it. Yet the employment of spouses was not an issue dividing the three parties, who all accept it under correct conditions, and anyway is not the most important issue in the reform debate.

Nowhere did they point out that up to now Labour is the only one of the three parties to require its MEPs to have their accounts audited annually by an independent auditor to ensure that all monies have been spent properly and in accordance with the rules. In other words, Labour MEPs can claim to have more, not less, propriety than the others - the opposite of the impression given by the news item, according to people who saw it.

Nor did they point out that the Parliament has not chosen to sit in Strasbourg once a month - most members heartily agree that this is silly - but the national governments who oblige it to do so.

The report featured a decision not to publish an internal auditors report, again without mentioning that all three British parties voted for such publication.

Shame that the BBC was, tabloid-style, seduced by the attractions of sensationalism. Their journalists - Mark Mardell and his colleagues - had gone out of the way to get a range of material, including the boring facts, but the producers in London chose to use only that which would titillate rather than inform.