When someone eventually publishes the definitive list of Euromyths, the recent tabloid headlines and story claiming the EU intends to force Bombay Mix to be renamed Mumbai Mix should be somewhere near the top.

According to both the Sun and the Mirror, the reason for this was to avoid offending the people of India. So far, so ordinary, but what makes this myth stand out so much is its brazen disregard for even a smidgen of truth.

Many myths originate from either extreme exaggeration (health and safety legislation exists but it has never threatened the careers of busty barmaids wearing low cut tops) or a manipulation of the facts (excessively bent bananas have never been banned they are merely not sold as Class A produce).

But as revealed by David Rennie, the European correspondent of the Daily Telegraph (hardly a paper with a pro-Europe bias!), a short investigation found the Bombay Mix story to be a complete and utter fabrication. It was originally concocted by a news agency in the south of England, looking for business from the tabloids, and subsequently published by the Sun and the Mirror (and while the Yorkshire Post did not make such a gaffe by publishing the story as news, it did let itself down by publishing a letter on the issue which purported it to be fact). The press agency played the story down and for many it will be a minor issue, swiftly forgotten, but it provides an illuminating insight into just how easy a Euromyth is created, spread and believed.

There will no doubt be people quick to suggest that the reason people will readily believe these myths is the EU’s propensity for regulation but this is an argument that does not hold true. The obsession with excessive regulations many people link to Brussels is a consequence of the myths created by the media to ridicule the EU. When the EU legislates it is normally for a very good and very obvious reason, and only when this assessment is actually agreed by MEPs and by ministers from Member States in the EU Council. Hence there are stringent laws about food labeling so that, for instance, allergy sufferers can be confident about what they are eating.

Perhaps the most interesting issue which has arisen from the Bombay Mix myth is the standard of journalism the very existence of the story implies and which David Rennie’s account so well illustrates.

I thought press agencies based their reputation on providing copy the rest of the media can rely on, but it seems that the ability to spin a good yarn is more important, at least for this particular agency. And, did anyone at the Sun and the Mirror bother to check whether the story was real? Or worse still did they discover it to be rubbish but publish it regardless? Either way, it says very little about the quality of either newspaper. (Now there’s a surprise!)

Will either paper bother to print a correction? Judging by the Sun’s website, no. The story remains online! It is unfortunately indicative of the Eurosceptic agenda against the EU: avoid a sensible debate by obscuring the real issues with a series of increasingly preposterous things “Brussels” plans to do.

A few weeks ago I blogged on Newcastle City Council being forced to take down the EU flag because it required planning permission to be flown.

Despite their apparent abhorrence to bureaucratic nonsense, UKIP were positively revelling in the decision.

But angry fist waving in UKIP’s north east offices will be back on the agenda after it was confirmed that the outdated laws on flying flags will be abandoned next spring.

The current law means flying a national (or EU) flag is illegal unless it is fluttering from a vertical flag pole, meaning much of the country spent the entire World Cup breaching planning laws.

New regulations, which come into force in April 2007 will mean any flag, can be flown in any manner, by anyone.

So, Newcastle City Council better dust off their EU flag ready to fly in the face of the Eurosceptics.

One of the Independent European Review of Football’s main objectives was to find ways to help restore competitive balance in domestic leagues and UEFA competitions.

Pleasingly the back pages are carrying stories which show that some of the review’s recommendations and the initiatives it supported are being taken on board.

The review was strongly in favour of UEFA’s limits on squads sizes, which is behind Chelsea’s sale of Damien Duff to Newcastle for just £5million.

In order to stop clubs like Chelsea hoarding players in their squad (Winston Bogarde, who earned £40,000 a week and made 12 appearances in four years, springs to mind!), teams playing in the UEFA Cup or Champions League must, from this year, name a squad of 25 players at the start of the competition.

With Duff unlikely to make the cut he decided there was very little point in staying at Stamford Bridge and was allowed to move on for a cut-down price.

Believe it or not more good news emanates from Italy. With World Cup glory running parallel to a corruption scandal, it’s been a rollercoaster of a summer for Italian football but it looks to be ending on a high after the Prodi government decided to reintroduce the collective sale of television rights in Serie A.

Previously, clubs were left to sell their own TV rights which left Juventus, AC Milan, Internazionale, Roma and Lazio to scoop 80 per cent of the 500million euros the rights earned. The smaller clubs were left with the scraps and little hope of realistically challenging the big five.

The English Premier League led the way with the collective sale of TV rights, and it is something the review wanted to see implemented across all European and domestic competitions.

The desire to restore competitive balance in Italy is to be applauded and, if you can take a positive from a corruption scandal, the relegation of Juventus and points deductions from Milan, Lazio and Fiorentina will give Serie A’s smaller clubs a real opportunity to challenge for honours in the forthcoming season.

So, what is the line of the chameleon Cameron Conservatives on reform of the CAP? I was interested to read the piece by James Paice, their Shadow Agricultural Minister in the Parliament on it which reads as follows:

"Does the CAP need to be scrapped? No, but further reform is necessary to reduce the overall cost of the CAP to the taxpayer, help producers in the developing world and maintain environmental payments to farmers."

In other words, they support the direction that the CAP has been moving over the last few years and can only be pleased with the recent reforms. But you wouldn't guess that from the Eurosceptic rhetoric that surrounds most Tory pronouncements on the subject!

As any policeman will tell you, those who change their story repeatedly will probably be lying. It’s no different in politics.

The percentage of our laws decided at a European level, causes such confusion amongst Eurosceptics. UKIP’s David Bannerman thinks it is 60%, Nigel Farage prefers 70% whilst Mike Nattrass, bizarrely, suggests it is 90%!

The Tories are slightly more reserved, with their spokespeople hopping arbitrarily between “just over half” (David Sumberg MEP) and around 80% (Dan Hannan MEP).

Surely the figure is a factual one, not a subjective one, because it is a figure borne out of actual statistics. That statistic is actually 9% (stated in an answer to a Parliamentary Question by John Redwood MP).

So, where have they got these figures from? Have they just randomly plucked them out of the air? Well, quite possibly, for some of them at least. One or two, I would suggest, are a little more sneaky.

If you look at the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ figures, around 57% of the secondary legislation that has come from this department, has actually been agreed upon with our European neighbours. I would suggest that those who say “60% of our laws come from the EU” are working from this DEFRA figure and, of course, deliberately misinterpreting them as being representative of all subjects, whereas in fact, the environment and agriculture are, for good reasons, atypically high.

Notice that they fail to mention how 0% of our primary health, defence, education and culture/media/sport laws have come from the EU. This is hardly the “handing over of sovereignty” that they suggest!

There is little doubt the summer is well and truly here. The sun is swelteringly hot here in Yorkshire and along with school children, the Parliament has broken up for recess.

I have yet to take a holiday and have so far used the break from Brussels to get around Yorkshire and see some of my constituents, including a very hot day campaigning for a Calderdale Council by-election.

With the vast majority of Britons taking their holidays within the EU (74 per cent of British holidays abroad are taken in just eight EU countries) the summer provides a timely reminder of the benefits membership brings.

Most recently the EU has made moves to reduce the cost of using a mobile phone in other member states, while it has helped ensure sun lovers know whether their suncream protects them from skin cancer as well as sunburn.

It is also important to remember that European legislation gives every worker in the EU, including temporary and part-time employees, 20 days paid holiday each year.

The EU’s blue flag quality standard has driven up the standard of beach cleanliness across the continent and means the majority of resorts, particularly in Britain, are now safe and a pleasure to swim in.

The European Health Insurance Card means all EU citizens are eligible for free emergency health care within member states. In also means we no longer have to fill in an E111 form every time we wish to travel within the EU.

Providing they meet strict health and safety criteria, pet passports mean dogs, cats, guinea pigs, rabbits, chinchillas and hamsters can all join you on your holiday in the EU without the need for quarantine.

What’s more, freedom of movement laws mean that if you like where you’ve been in the EU you are free to stay!

The latest edition of Private Eye (No 1163) carries a story about a development of houses built above a former paint factory in east London.

Potentially carcinogenic chemicals used in the manufacture of paints have contaminated some of the houses, with the worst-affected residents found to have a series of industrial chemicals in their blood stream. The magazine goes on to reveal how the victims have also suffered from a variety of illnesses including asthma, kidney problems, food intolerance and trouble with their memory.

This is a prime example of just how important the EU’s forthcoming legislation on chemicals, REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) will be.

As the story in Private Eye illustrates, large amounts of chemicals are used in everyday materials without us knowing exactly the effects they can have on us, though it is strongly suspected they are a cause behind the rise in cases of asthma, allergies and the drop in sperm counts.

REACH legislation will require all producers and importers to register the chemicals used in their products and make clear how they are to be used safely.

An intended consequence of the legislation is to increase competition within the chemical industry by encouraging companies to produce safer and safer chemicals.

Testing the vast majority of chemicals used in Europe will obviously be a costly exercise but this is where the EU comes into its own. With the cost split between 25 countries this necessary task becomes affordable and brings priceless health benefits to Europe and beyond.

The second reading of REACH goes before Parliament in autumn and, if as expected goes through, will be a monumental step in preventing cases like the one in Private Eye from occurring.

To read more about REACH I suggest visiting the following websites:

Commission's guide to REACH: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm

Women's Institute lobby page: http://www.womens-institute.co.uk/campaigns/chemicals-c.shtml

A recent survey revealed 85 per cent of UK citizens admitted they know little or nothing about the EU. With this in mind I highly recommended people take a look at the Britain in the EU website and pass it on to their friends.

It offers a simple explanation of how the EU works and the benefits it brings to Britain and even offers a one-minute guide to those who only want to know the very basics.

Also, by clicking here you can access details of the Europe Direct information centre for Yorkshire, based in Leeds. The purpose of this is to offer a platform for citizens to make enquiries about the EU and raise issues with the Commission.

I will also take this opportunity to plug my website which also provides plenty of information on how the EU, and in particular the Parliament, works.

Britain in Europe: www.europe.org.uk

EU attitudes in the UK survey: www.europe.org.uk/info/documents/1063.pdf

Europe Direct, Leeds: www.europe.org.uk/regions/contact/-/id/21345/

My website: www.richardcorbett.org.uk

Another euromyth has hit the headlines, namely that the EU is banning New Zealand butter, such as the famous Anchor brand.

This is not the case. There has been a temporary halt in imports of the goods due to a ruling by the Court of Justice that the current trading arrangements were illegal. These arrangements are being sorted out as a matter of priority and consumers shouldn’t notice a big hole in the supermarket’s butter aisle.

You can rest assured that, if Anchor is your thing, there will still be the usual 77,402 tonnes of New Zealand butter arriving in the EU in 2006.

It is interesting, however, that papers such as the Express, who often denigrate other Europeans as “foreigners”, were so outraged by the thought of New Zealand farmers missing out. It seems that only European foreigners are the object of their wrath!

I welcome the discussion, brought forward by the European Commission, to investigate false advertising by airlines, notably (but not only!) “low cost” airlines.

The EC has recognised that many airlines advertise flights at extremely low prices, when in fact the actual price paid is much more expensive.

I’ve just done a quick search on the internet for a flight between Leeds/Bradford and Plymouth – having been attracted by initial offers of around £8 each way. As it turns out, once they have added the hidden costs of various taxes and surcharges, the round trip was almost £90, that’s almost 6 times the price of the initial offer!

One common wheeze is to add to your bill a fee for paying by credit card or debit card – the only two ways you can pay when buying online!

It is absolutely right that the consumer should be protected from these practices and I will support proportionate legislation put forward to that end.

You'll have heard about David Cameron’s baffling ides for a new "Bill of Rights", with an attack on the European Convention as being "foreign", despite being devised almost exclusively by the British!

Click here for an interesting discussion of the issue.

The predictable reactions are coming in on Cameron’s climb-down on pulling the Tories out of the Christian Democratic EPP Group in the European Parliament. The Eurosceptic right are incensed, although a few of them are trying to put a brave face on it, hoping for something in 2009. The majority of Conservative MEPs are relieved to be staying in the EPP and are walking around Parliament with an “I told you so” grin on their faces. I just wonder what the mainstream EPP make of it: to paraphrase one of the Conservative MEPs, it’s a bit like saying you want a divorce, but, despite trying, you haven’t found a suitable new partner, so you’ve announced that you’ll stay at home for the next three years and then look again!

But how did Cameron get into such a “lose-lose” situation in the first place? I noticed that The Economist rightly drew attention to the role of Dan Hannan, an arch Eurosceptic who wants Britain to actually leave both the EU and NATO. The Bagehot column in the Economist (15 July) commented:

"The last thing that Mr Cameron wanted was to look like a Euro-obsessive: he knew the damage which that impression of his party had done in successive elections, and anyway it is just not his style. But the deal he was offered [by the Eurosceptic right] seemed harmless enough; the kind of thing that only the most dedicated political anoraks would give a hoot about.(…) Chief among the siren voices was Daniel Hannan, not only an MEP but also a Daily Telegraph leader-writer and an indefatigable critic of the European Union and all its works. Mr Hannan convinced Mr Cameron that in the new Europe of 25 member countries there were staunchly Atlanticist and free-market eastern Europeans queuing up to be part of a dynamic new anti-integrationist, centre-right group led by British Conservatives. With a knowledge of European politics that even his admirers admit is patchy, Mr Cameron decided to believe Mr Hannan. He also made the mistake of failing to discuss the matter with Mr Hannan's fellow Tories in the European Parliament. This was unwise since a large majority of Mr Hannan's colleagues disagree strongly with him about almost everything."

One can only add that if it was unwise to assume that Hannan spoke for the Tory MEPs, it was even more unwise to assume he spoke for the “staunchly Atlanticist and free market eastern Europeans”, most of whom are perfectly happy in the EPP (which includes both federalist and anti-federalist centre-right parties).

As to the small centre-right/right parties that are not in the EPP, this is usually for a reason: they are often homophobic (the Polish PiS), extreme right, or have some other feature that clashes with Cameron’s professed domestic agenda, such as not allowing women to stand for election (a Dutch Calvinist party). And quite what the traditional Tory supporter made of the suggestion that they should sit with Irish Republicans or the party that emerged from the Italian Fascists (which allegedly turned down the offer on the ground that the Tories are far too right wing for them!), heaven only knows.

There has been much mirth over David Cameron's tendency to ignore serious political issues with a recent Dead Ringers show featuring a sketch in which the Tory leader announced policies on coat hangers and conveyor belt etiquette in supermarkets.

The latest leaked emails also report that Tory backbenchers are tired with Cameron’s propensity to make policy “on the hoof”.

His latest plans, to "hug a hoodie", have left many mocking him for reversing Conservative Party policy from "flog 'em" to "snog 'em".

The Daily Express in Scotland today leads with a grumble about the cost of interpreters in the European Parliament.

Now, I don’t expect much from the Express, and certainly not anything even vaguely pro-European, but this particular article was one of those that leaves you shaking your head.

They suggest the Parliament should abandon all but four or five languages to save tax-payers money. Good grief, imagine the headlines if the Parliament did suggest jettisoning a few languages, especially English.

The Express would be up in arms. You wouldn’t be able to nip into your local newsagents for all the blazing headlines about “Evil EU outlaws English”, “Unelected totalitarian bureaucrats annihilate our beautiful language” and “Diana death linked to EU’s ban on English”.

Many MEPs are capable of speaking English, French, Spanish or German but this is simply not the point. The European Parliament is democratic and as such, citizens should be able to vote for people who reflect their views, irrespective of the linguistic abilities of the candidates. They should also be able to follow the debates, if they so wish, in a language they understand. It may be a (relatively)costly procedure but the interpreters are indispensable for communication and democracy.

Right-wing papers like the Express often (wrongly) accuse the EU of being undemocratic and elitist. If speaking a foreign language to a level of making public speeches and conducting legal arguments in that language were to be a prerequisite of becoming an MEP then Parliament would become exactly what these papers rally against.

An angry-sounding mumble of “federalists” or a shrill scream about “constitution by the back door” are the normal Eurosceptic responses to Europe-wide measures.

So it was with some surprise that I learned Chris Heaton-Harris, an arch-Eurosceptic Tory MEP, has called for Europe-wide measures to protect people against identity fraud.

He usually opposes European-wide measures of any sort, so I was curious to know what provoked this commendable U-turn. It turns out that he has himself been a victim of identity fraud, to the tune of £3,000.

Nothing like a dose of reality to change the mind of a self-styled "Euro-realist".

A series of leaked emails from one of David Cameron's closest aides, Desmond Swayne MP, have revealed backbiting, impending sackings and a widespread discontent with the party leadership throughout the ranks of the Conservative Party.

The emails from the Tory leader's parliamentary private secretary also refer to using the Make Poverty History Campaign as 'a diversion' tactic from conflicts over the Tory policy towards the EU.

Confirming what I have already posted on this blog, Swayne described a 'feeling of frustration and impotence' over Conservative policy towards Europe with much of the criticism reserved for both David Cameron and William Hague.

Cameron's disastrous leadership pledge to pull the Conservatives out of the European Parliament's centre-right European Peoples Party (EPP) and create a new party further to the right is looking very fragile. The emails confirm that pro-European Tory MEPs are 'furious' and 'angry' about Cameron's pledge whilst conversely the anti-European Tory MEPs might defect to UKIP if the project is 'blown off course.'

Cameron's promise on the EPP has plagued his leadership from the start and with senior colleagues in the European Parliament digging their heels in it the EPP issue shows no sign of going away soon - eight months after Cameron made his announcement. Those of us who thougt that a decision would be announced during the world cup while the public's attention was focussed elsewhere have been proved wrong!

The Sunday Times has made the leaked emails available to read on the net. To read them click here.

After months of negotiating on behalf of Parliament with the Council of Ministers I, along with French MEP Joseph Daul, have managed to win an important victory for the European Parliament by agreeing on a reform of the comitology system. You will almost certainly be wondering what an earth comitology is, so I shall attempt to explain.

Every legislature has a system of delegating powers to the executive. In national parliaments that is typically legislation that confers on the government powers to adopt further measures, like the statutory instrument in the UK. The systems change slightly, but it is quite normal to confer powers on the executive, not least to deal with technical details and complex matters once the main legislation has laid down the general principles.

What is unusual in our system in the European Union is that, when we confer such powers on the Commission, we oblige it to act in conjunction with a committee of national civil servants. In many cases those committees have the power to block the Commission and refer the matter back to the Council. The Parliament has always found this objectionable: firstly because only the committees of national civil servants and not Parliament have the right to refer questions back; secondly because matters are referred back only to one branch of the legislative authority – the Council – even when the basic act has been adopted by both Parliament and the Council. We also found the system to be untransparent and complex with the numerous committees that give rise to the name of comitology.

Our reform, which went through on Thursday, means Parliament is now able to say no to any implementing measure adopted through the comitology system, and if we say no the measure cannot be enacted. While this is hardly the stuff of beach reading it is an important step forward in the maturity of the Parliament. The reform gives the Parliament parity with the Council on this issue and ensures greater scrutiny, democracy and accountability.

In the aftermath of the May local elections, I wrote about the
interesting, if that is the correct word, relationship between UKIP and
the British National Party, and how it appeared that a deal had been
done between them to keep out of each other’s way.

Nationally, there were very few occasions of the two right wing parties
going against each other in a battle for council seats – in fact, UKIP
fielded very few candidates at all. This deal, it appears, was
reciprocated in the Bromley & Chislehurst, and Blaenau Gwent by-elections.

The facts are that UKIP stood, and the BNP did not – the BNP chose not
to field a candidate because it “did not want to split the anti-EU
vote”, choosing instead to actively encourage people to vote UKIP.

So watch out to see how explicit UKIP will be in encouraging people to
vote BNP in next year’s round of local elections.

David Cameron and the Tories are no closer to escaping their quandary over Europe.

The Telegraph reported last week that Cameron had to make a flying visit to the Czech Republic in order to meet with Mirek Topolanek amid rumours that the Czech Civic Democrats (who use the amusing/unfortunate acronym ODS) were getting increasingly cold feet over a departure from the EPP and their proposed new alliance.

Topolanek has already damaged the Tories’ hopes of forming a new group after upsetting the Polish Law and Justice Party (with the even more unfortunate acronym PiS) so much that they will now have no part in any new alliance.

Now, both Europhile and Eurosceptic halves of the party are flinging ultimatums about like a bad game of frisbee, with Cameron the piggy in the middle.

Eight Eurosceptic MEPs, led by the H brigade of Hannan and Heaton-Harris (Helmer has lost the Tory whip, don’t forget) are demanding Cameron pulls the Tories out of the EPP by September or risk seeing them walking out on their own accord.

On the other side of a seismic divide are six Europhile MEPs who intend to remain in the EPP for the duration of the current parliament, not least because it is Conservative Party manifesto and they, at least, want to stick to what they pledged to the electorate.

To exacerbate things further the 92 Group, made up of right-wing Tory MPs, have sent a letter to Cameron urging him to pull the party’s MEPs out of the EPP regardless of whether the Conservatives manage to form a new group or not.

The letter, drafted by Gerald Howarth, said: "We do not regard the creation of an alterative group as a necessary precondition to our leaving the EPP,"

If Cameron were to heed this suggestion it would leave the Tory party in Europe with all the influence, power and respect UKIP have ingloriouly garnered.

So with that all in mind it is perhaps not surprising that Cameron has gone quiet on the issue.

Many predicted that the Conservatives would use the media focus on the World Cup to bury their decision but with nothing being sneaked out from Tory HQ during England’s latest penalty shootout defeat it seems they have missed their chance. Though at their current rate of ineffective dwadling and squabbling maybe they could sneak their verdict out in the next World Cup. Or even the London Olympics.

Click here and here for more news on the issue from the Telegraph's website.

Added on July 6th:

The Guardian today carries a story on Europhile MEPs, which you can read here while the paper's Simon Hoggart provides an amusing sketch on the issue which I have reproduced below.

"Labour backbenchers were given the job of asking about David Cameron's plans to pull the Tories out of a mainstream grouping in the European parliament and join a new hodge-podge of minor parties, racists, homophobes and loonies. This is like someone deciding they didn't like the food at the Savoy Grill, so joining the winos, bag ladies and beggars outside for McDonald's leftovers - you may like them and the food better, but it's a curious choice."

To read Hoggart's full column click here.

“Immigrants boost the economy”, is a line from which newspaper’s editorial today?

How many of you guessed the Sun?

Admittedly the "Sun Says" column does go on to complain about the odd person allegedly dodging taxes or working for less than the minimum wage (which is surely the employer’s fault) but is it a sign that Rebecca Wade’s paper is prepared to start embracing immigration?

Maybe not. Turn to page 11 and the main headline of John Gaunt’s (or “Gaunty” as he urges us to call him) column is “Sorry: Fully Up”.

He writes: “Britain is full and it’s time to secure our borders and halt all immigration until we know exactly how many people are living here and where they’ve come from.”

Gaunt, sorry “Gaunty”, is particularly critical of Britain’s decision to allow workers from the EU’s newest member states to work here. To be fair, he also acknowledged that immigration does have its advantages but he then goes on to suggest we should follow France and Germany by now barring EU citizens from eastern Europe from working here.

He should argue the reverse - that France and Germany should lift now their temporary restrictions. Had they and the rest of the EU followed the example of Britain, Ireland and Sweden – the three countries which originally took down their labour barriers – then there would have been a far more even distribution of job-seeking Poles and others in the first place.

In fact, three more countries are now lifting their restrictions, and all Member States have agreed to do so within the next few years. To advocate that we should renege on our commitments and start a stampede in the opposite direction is either ill-informed or wilfully malicious.

Anyway, other than the sheer numbers of immigrants the right-wing newspapers have had very little to complain about - the expansion of the EU has been a success. People have arrived, found jobs, started businesses, made friends, gone to school and contributed significantly to their local economies.

Perhaps an even more significant contribution being made is to Britain’s perceptions of migrants. The EU’s freedom of movement rules allow (afer a transitional period) people from any member state to work in any other member state. This has usually promoted tolerance, understanding and started eroding xenophobia.

There is still much to do but when a Sun editorial gives a nod of approval, however reticently, to freedom of movement in the EU there is hope yet.

I have received an interesting letter from solicitors acting on behalf of European City Guide, saying that a press release I put out last year (click here to view) was inaccurate and wanting me to change it. Now, I can't change it retroactively, but did say I would be happy to elaborate on the point they raised.

The solicitors claim their client "European City Guide" was not fined by the Spanish authorities for misleading advertising practices.

Hmmm! That will be news to the Advertising Standards Authority and to the European Advertising Standards Alliance, both of whom have articles on their websites
about ECG.

Briefly, the complaints about ECG refer to a form they send unsolicited to companies, offering to advertise their services. There is a section on the form called "request order" which appears to be a request to find out more about the offer and ECG services. However, the devil is in the detail - the mailing gives the impression that the directory entries are free and did not make clear that signing and returning the mailing, even merely to correct an address or give the information about the type of business activity, would commit recipients to paying for three entries and a copy of the advertisers' directory, totalling hundreds of pounds.

As to the solicitor's complaint, let me just point out:

1999 - Catalan authorities (Generalitat) open a file against ECG

2001 - Generalitat rule ECG form misleading and impose fine. ECG appeal against fine.

2002 - Court of First Instance in Barcelona rejects appeal and confirms the previous administrative decision. ECG appeals against this decision.

2003 - the Superior Court in Catalonia rules a new sentence, fully confirming the previous one. ECG appeals against this decision.

The aforementioned rulings and judicial sentances refer to the first ECG form, circulated in 1998 and 1999. It was slightly different to the one circulated in 2000 and 2001. The Catalan authorities opened a new file relating to the 2000/2001 form and in 2002 issued a decision in which this new form was also considered to be misleading. ECG appealed against this decision before the Barcelona Courts and a new sentence was issued.

September 2003 the Court of First Instance in Barcelona issued a ruling confirming the second ruling of the Catalan statutory authorities.

The court also confirmed the fine of nearly 30,000 euro imposed on ECG by the Generalitat.

Finally, the Catalan authorities investigated a third ECG form which was circulated in 2001-2, launching an investigation on the basis of more than 1,500 complaints.

September 2003 saw the Catalan authorities (Generalitat) issued its decision that this ECG form too was misleading, and imposing two sanctions on ECG: a fine of 300,000 euro and an order to cease trading for one year.

ECG have appealed this decision. This means that both sanctions are temporarily suspended until the courts have heard the appeal. Although this appeal will have to be considered by the courts, there have beenthree administrative decisions and three judicial rulings on this case, all of them finding that ECG has acted in such a way as to intentionally mislead companies. So now we will wait and see whether this latest appeal produces a different result from all the previous ones.

Meanwhile, I would not recommend anyone to respond to their mailings, let alone give them any money.

Click here for my speech in the European Parliament on this matter.