A Dutch television programme, in which a terminally ill patient chooses a contestant to receive her kidneys upon her death, has caused controversy across Europe but it has at least awakened the debate on an EU-wide organ donor card.

Whilst an opinion poll carried out by the European Commission in 2006 found that 81 per cent of EU citizens think that carrying a donor card is a good idea, the proportion of people that actually carry a card is much lower. As the BBC website highlights, 40,000 patients in the EU are on waiting lists for a transplant, with up to ten people a day dying waiting for an available donor.

As a result, the EU’s Health Commissioner yesterday put forward proposals to introduce a Europe wide organ donor card that would be valid in all member states. It is hoped that an EU donor card would help tackle transplant waiting lists and increase the number of organs available for transplant operations across all member states.

I was pleased to see that my website and blog has been nominated for a New Statesman New Media Award in the elected representative catergory.

It's nice to see people acknowledging the site as a lot of work goes into expanding and updating it. It is also an effective method of communicating with constituents and informing them of my activities.

With such a vast constituency it is impossible to see as many constituents as I would like but the website and blog attracts over 900 unique visitors a week. There is obviously no substitute for meeting people in person but I am able to communicate with far more people in the region through my website than I possible could only with visits, talks and meetings.

Constituents for their part are also embracing the use of the internet. The past couple of years has seen a considerable rise in email queries, with sites like www.writetothem.com making contacting a politician effortless. The internet has also made it far easier to organise a concerted campaign, with people able to publish a stock letter on their website which others can print off and send to their MEP or MP - though this is sometimes a problem when I get 600 identical emails!

With all the talk about wide spread apathy towards politics it is heartening to see the internet enable so many more people to be involved in democracy.

People (or at least certain newspapers) think EU laws are dreamt up by Brussels bureaucrats on an idle day. In fact, most of the proposals are in response to suggestions from Member States, MEPs and ordinary citizens.

An example was in the press last week. Police in this country have raised concerns over the driving habits of citizens of other countries when they come to the UK. Different road laws in other EU countries mean that other EU nationals may not be aware of our own driving laws, and be more likely to break them. Some even use it as an excuse to break our road laws according to the police, using ignorance to justify dangerous driving.

Because of these concerns, British police have called for road rules to be standardised across the EU. Eddy Greif, of the European Traffic Police Network said that, "I do not believe that drinking alcohol and driving is less dangerous in the United Kingdom than in other parts of the European Union, and I am very sceptical that a driver has more chance to survive a high speed crash on a German motorway than on similar well built roads in other Member States. It would certainly help drivers to know that traffic regulations applied all over Europe are the same, it is the first condition they must comply with."

Of course, to become law, a response from the Commission is not enough. Any proposal drafted by them must secure the agreement of the EU Council (of ministers of the national governments) and the European Parliament.

So an idea like this one, coming for our police, will only become a European law if they can obtain widespread support for it.

UKIP are constantly on the look-out for real or imagined cases of financial mismanagement in the EU, though their credibility in this field was recently undermined by the fraud office investigation into Tom Wise MEP, a UKIP member accused of misusing his parliamentary allowances.

Another instance has now arisen: UKIP member Mike Nattrass is one of only two MEPs who – some five months into 2007 – has still not updated his declaration of financial interests for 2006 which all MEPs are required to register. He was named and shamed in Parliament last month, but to no avail as Monday’s minutes – naming and shaming him again – testify.

Like many national parliaments, the European Parliament has rules that members may not vote on matters where they have a pecuniary personal interest. This is intended to stop, for instance, members who hold shares in a company that might be affected by a decision from benefitting from the way they vote.

In yesterday’s vote on capping mobile phone charges, two of the Eurosceptic Tory MEPs got up to say that they would not be voting because they stood to gain financially if phone charges went down, because they owned mobile phones. Following their logic, I suggested that the President find out if there was any member who did not possess a mobile phone and that member alone might decide on this particular piece of legislation!

Obviously, MEPs benefit from any consumer protection measure that protects the general public, since they are themselves also members of the general public. The attempt to make it impossible for any member possessing a mobile phone to vote on this measure was in fact no less than an attempt to sabotage it – though an amusing one!

The media is buzzing following today's decision by MEPs to adopt measures that will place caps on mobile phone roaming charges. Labour MEPs have spent the last two years campaigning on behalf of consumers for these rip-off charges to be capped, and today our hard work paid off as the new law was passed.

Currently when you use your mobile in another EU country you will be charged by your phone company extortionate fees not only for making calls, but also for receiving calls. Today’s decision will put a limit on those fees across the EU, so now when you make a call on holiday in another EU country, that fee will be capped at approximately 39p per minute (falling to approximately 34p per minute after two years) and when you receive a call, the fee will be capped at approximately 19p per minute (falling to approximately 15p per minute).

So one more of many victories for consumers thanks to European legislation applicable across the whole of the European market. But why then did Conservative MEPs oppose this? Tory MEPs voted against caps on mobile roaming charges, championing the cause of big businesses to charge their customers what they like – so no change there then from the Tories.

No change from UKIP leader Nigel Farage either, who unsurprisingly stated his opposition to the new law by saying it was merely a "giant publicity stunt" – presumably because the EU that introduced this law . Yet, it would not have been possible to introduce a law of this kind at all without the EU, but we can’t go around praising the EU can we Nigel?

Ahead of the Champions League final, it’s interesting to read Richard Williams’s article in the Guardian which repeats a point made to UEFA last year, about Milan’s participation in this season’s UEFA Cup.

Last August, I wrote to Lars-Christer Olsson (then Chief Executive of UEFA) asking why a team found guilty of trying to illegally influence referees was allowed to compete in the Champions League. Bizarrely, he admitted UEFA agreed with me but revealed there was little they could do as they did not have the power to over-rule the decision of a national association. In this case the Italian Football Association was happy to enter Milan in the competition, which is why Liverpool will face the Italian side in Athens.

In the article, UEFA’s Head of Communications, William Galliard, confirms this problem has now been addressed, meaning UEFA now have the power to exclude teams from European competition should an offence be deemed serious enough.

I would imagine that they, like I, will be hoping for a Liverpool win on Wednesday so they can avoid the embarrassment of the Champions League being won by a team they didn’t want in the competition in the first place.

The same article mentions the plight of Sheffield United, who have suffered risibly at the hands of another strange decision by the footballing authorities.

The Premierships's decision not to deduct points from West Ham for lying about the contract with a third party company in order to sign Carlos Tevez (the man who single-handedly kept them in the Premiership) meant that the Yorkshire club found themselves relegated to the Championship.

West Ham were fined £5.5million, a punishment their wealthy chairman was happy to accept. Yet, the points deduction many expected was rejected because it was deemed too late in the season for such a punishment to be given (despite the Premiership discovering this in January).

Consequently, Sheffield United are now heading for court.

In his Digger column, Paul Kelso, points out the whole affair gives further credence to the Independent Review of European Football, which called for stronger governing bodies, who would be able to cope with situations like this, rather than see contentious issues end up in court.

The unsatisfactory punishments of both Milan and West Ham demonstrate that wealthier clubs are now capable of riding roughshod over smaller teams in order to succeed, an issue the independent review made clear football’s governing bodies could not afford to do.

The BBC website carries a fascinating article on the Spanish municipal elections, which reveals the extent local politics is now being influenced by Brits and other EU immigrants.

The European Union grants foreign nationals living in another member state the right to vote and stand in local and European elections and with over 300,000 EU citizens already registered to vote in Spain, mostly in the south of the country, plenty of Brits are putting themselves forward as candidates.

Many are standing for small independent parties in the municipality of San Fulgencio, with some parties’ lists of candidates dominated by non-Spaniards, most of them British.

I was amused to read that one party, who are fielding 11 migrants in their list of 16 candidates, claims it has the answer to “massive, uncontrolled immigration”.

Other parties representing EU migrants are campaigning for bilingual schools (English and Spanish) and more accountability around planning issues, which appears to be one of the main catalysts behind this rise in participation.

The article begs some interesting questions.

What exactly would Britain make of parties created to specifically represent the interests of migrants? I can’t imagine the Mail or Express being sympathetic to a Polish Independent campaigning for bilingual schools!

We are also repeatedly told how more and more people in the UK are feeling disfranchised from politics but the reverse appears to be happening out in Spain. Why are people apparently less willing to campaign for change in their home country than when they move abroad? Is it perhaps because their interest are in fact represented and defended in Britain?

It’s also worth noting that the article only ever refers to expats and never migrants or immigrants. This implies there is some sort of difference, when clearly there isn’t.

How well the non-Spanish candidates will do remains to be seen but it will be interesting to see if the participation of EU-migrants in another country’s politics is replicated in Britain in the future.

Just a quick blog to make sure people are aware that they still have the opportunity to vote in Labour's Leadership and Deputy Leadership contests if they join or re-join the party by June 1st.

It is the first time in history Labour members will have the chance to choose the next Prime Minister (with immediate effect), and the party should be praised for encouraging lapsed and new members to take part in this important process.

If you want to join and vote, or know someone who does click here.

Right, I'm off to get my supporting nomination in for Gordon Brown.

How to switch sides when the facts don't match your line: The traditional Eurosceptic story is about small businesses being burdened by red tape from Brussels. Yet, when the Commission proposes to exempt small businesses from some of the regulations on food hygiene, the refrain switches to "an EU initiative that risks a dramatic rise in food poisoning". Instead of sticking to their usual line that it 'should be up to your own government to decide on how small cafes are run', the Times goes with the 'bash the EU' brigade for, this time, not being prescriptive enough!

So the EU is criticised for over-regulation and criticised when it exempts businesses from regulation!

The EU’s quest to make Europe’s roads the safest in the world received a huge boost on Wednesday as MEPs voted to support a law to improve the safety of cyclists and other road-users. The new regulation will require lorries registered since January 1st 2000 to have ‘blind spot’ mirrors to aid their vision when using the roads. The obligation to fit wide-angled and close-proximity mirrors would have a greater impact near ports where many lorries arrive from countries that drive on the other side of the road.

Although the mirrors will cost around £70 - £100 for each lorry, the plans are expected to save thousands of pounds in damage to vehicles and will save around 400 lives a year across Europe.

Subject to approval from EU Transport Ministers, lorry drivers will have until 31st March 2009 to comply.

Slowly but surely, pressure is growing on the European City Guide and the suspiciously similar array of other directory frauds, that use misleading forms to con people into signing up to a virtually worthless website or magazines for a fee of around 1000 euros a year, with scant opportunity to cancel the contract.

The number of complaints made to the European Parliament’s Petition’s Committee about the ECG last week resulted in a discussion about how best to combat the companies that send out these endless series of forms.

Jules Woodell, who runs the stopECG website, blog and support group, was invited to the meeting and explained how the companies worked. He made abundantly clear the trouble the ECG poses for small businesses and the bullying victims face if they refuse to pay.

I took the opportunity to make proposals to take matter further with the committee agreeing to draft a report that will look into ways and means of dealing with directory scams: whether a change in legislation is needed, how to co-ordinate national measures, mutual information on prosecutions and the results of court cases.

There is still a lot of work to do, particularly because the ECG is so quick at adapting to and bending regulations, but finally there is a real possibility that the EU can outlaw these scams or at least regulate them to the point where people can not be fooled.

Read Jules's account of his trip to Brussels by clicking here.

Am in Berlin to talk to the German government and MPs on the new EU treaty. Can the Germans (whose turn it is to chair) deliver a compromise between the 22 Member States which want to keep the Constitutional Treaty intact (18 of which have already ratified it) and the two that have rejected it, while also satisfying those like Britain which have not yet ratified?

The game plan is clear: make as few changes to the original package as possible, but as many as necessary to secure agreement.

Obviously, I (and a majority in Parliament) would prefer changes of symbol to substance, of wording to content, in order to preserve the main reforms contained in the Constitutional Treaty. So, if the treaty is to be an amendment to the current treaties, rather than a codifying replacement "constitution", so be it. But if some substance does have to be sacrificed, let us at least keep those reforms that make the EU system more efficient, capable of delivering on those policies that we agree should be conducted at European level, and those which enhance its democratic accountability.

This is clearly the approach of Chancellor Merkel and her Foreign Secretary, acting as presidency deal-brokers. Good luck to them! They still have to overcome considerable divergence on the scope of the changes needed, from Poland's demand to revise the voting strengths in the Council of Ministers to the Dutch request to change the nature of the reference to fundamental rights. But the Germans remain optimistic that a deal can be made.

Germany's own position is simpler. The President of the Bundestag told me that they are happy to transfer sovereignty to the European Union on matters where common European policies are beneficial, provided such powers are not given to ministers and commissioners alone, but to the European Parliament. Would that it were so simple!

So, Sarko beat Sego, as widely expected, despite her creditable perfomance in the campaign. Although the knives will now be out for her, her score compares well. Only one socialist candidate - Mitterrand - has ever won the French presidency since it bcame directly elected nearly half a century ago. In two out of the eight elections, (1969 and 2002) the Socialist candidate did not even reach the second round. Often, it has been the factionalism of the French left that has led to their downfall.

One important consequence at European level is on the debate on the Constitutional Treaty. Sarkozy supports a simpler treaty, avoiding the constitutional implications that could require a referendum. This puts him on a similar line to that of the Dutch government, supported recently by Tony Blair, as a way to salvage the key reforms contained in the constitutional treaty without raising the constitutional questions that some feared were raised by the Constitutional Treaty.

Of course, the overwhelming majority of Member States (including the two-thirds who have already ratified it) want to salvage the whole treaty, but the combination of Britain, France, Netherlands, and probably some others supporting a less controversial scaled-down text could prove decisive. Let's hope that it doesn't mean we'll lose the really useful reforms contained in the treaty, that Blair rightly hailed as a positive result for Britain and for the whole of Europe.

As expected, Labour took a mid-term hit in the local elections. However, they were not as bad as many expected, with Labour gaining a percentage point compared to last year, and again doing particularly well in West Yorkshire, gaining seats in Leeds, Bradford, Kirklees, Calderdale and taking North Lincolnshire Council.

Little press comment on how badly UKIP did. With a record number of candidates, this was supposed to be their breakthrough to be a national party, but they performed dismally....

Their Eurosceptic friends from the BNP were also disapppointed.