Expenses, fringe parties and the Euro elections

For three weeks, the news has been dominated by the MP expenses debacle. This sombre chapter in UK political life seems likely to continue for some time. Analysis of its implications and how our political systems should be reformed is now starting to emerge.

As a result, the elections to the European Parliament on 4th June risk becoming an ‘anti-election’ – a rejection of all political parties. Some, like Lord Tebbit, the former Conservative minister, seem to relish this, urging voters to use their European vote to express their disgust at the mainstream political parties. So MEPs look set to become the collateral damage of this sorry national affair.

There is, to say the least, some irony in this. For many years, the only stories written about MEPs and the Parliament itself were the vitriolic and frequently inaccurate accounts of the “gravy train”.

These stories successfully obscured the fact that Parliament had become a serious player in EU lawmaking, voting through the pan-European laws that have, to name a few examples, set various targets for the fight against climate change, developed a Europe-wide energy policy, and created a framework for the use of chemicals that ensures health and safety across Europe.

But behind the scenes and unreported, Labour MEPs decided, as early as 2000, to set an example in how they handled their finances. We took the decision to introduce their own measures to ensure that their expenditure was beyond reproach, by deciding to voluntarily send every item of expenditure from both their office and staff accounts to an independent qualilfied accountant for review.

Furthermore, Labour MEPs elected in the new Parliament on June 4th are committed to publishing a breakdown of expenditure, with receipts, from their European Parliament office allowances every six months on the European Parliamentary Labour Party’s website as well as on their own sites.

No other party in the European Parliament made these reforms so early and so comprehensively.

By contrast, eight years after the Labour MEPs introduced their own measures in addition to those of the European Parliament, the Leader of the Conservative MEPs resigned and the Chief Whip was forced to resign after they were found to have been abusing and misusing their allowances for years, leading to them being required by the EP to pay back sizeable sums.

Most notably, the flash in the pan success of UKIP in the last European election was quickly marred by the behavious of its MEPs. One UKIP MEP Ashley Mote was found guilty of housing benefit fraud in the UK and was sent to prison for nine months, while fellow UKIP Member Tom Wise has recently been charged with counts of money laundering and false accounting following an account by the EU fraud office. Yet, UKIP Members still have no reporting or auditing of their expenditure.

Lord Tebbit could be forgiven for not knowing the details of Mr Mote’s conviction or of Tom Wise’s alleged financial mismanagement. But his exhortation to the electorate to boycott the mainstream parties is careless and unforgiveable. Perhaps it doesn’t really matter to Lord Tebbit if Conservative voters choose more extreme right-wing options such as the BNP.

In the end, efforts to marginalise the UK’s role in Europe are politically irreponsible. However indifferent many may feel, the European Parliament will make decisions over the next five years that will affect us all. No-one should opt-out and allow these decisions to be made by extremists.

The reality is that we live in a global society with opportunities and challenges unrecognisable from those we faced a generation ago. Responding to these needs progressive policies at local, national and European level. To undermine or opt-out of any of these levels is to undermine our British interests.

Europe is not about back room deals and treaty changes, it is about how we work together the improve the lives of our citizens. It is about working together, where possible, to pull out of this recession; it is about making the air we breath cleaner; securing our borders and preventing global warming. To think that any of these major issues can be tackled solely at national level is, at the very least, misguided and naïve.

Eurovision at St Oswald's in Guiseley

I had a very entertaining afternoon away from the hurly burly of campaigning last Friday when I judged a Eurovision song contest at St Oswald’s junior school in Guiseley.

The children were split into eight teams representing different countries and all performed superbly. The Swedish team’s singing was magnificent, Greece’s perfomance gave everyone a surprise while Portugal’s modern effort was also a hit. There was also the very poetic Irish entry while Italy’s was accompanied by some superb music, nessun dorma.

Unlike the real Eurovision song contest, there was no tatcical voting so hopefully we produced a fair result! Germany claimed third with a brilliant team effort while Spain’s energetic performance won them second which left Albania to take first place. Their fantastic dancing is what clinched it for me.

It was a wondeful afternoon and all the children, teachers and parents at St Oswald’s should be very proud!

The truth about EU regulation

An argument I’ve always taken on with eurosceptics is the effects on business of EU regulation. Open Europe took umbrage at an article I wrote in the Yorkshire Post a few weeks ago, which questioned their wild assertions that EU regulation was out of control and crushing British business, in particular their claim that EU regulations will cost the UK £356 billion by 2018, the equivalent of £14,300 per household.

However, new analysis by the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) indicates that EU regulation actually accounts for a tiny proportion of regulatory costs on business (0.1% in 2007-8). Indeed, according to the BCC, who should know a thing or two about how regulation affects businesses, the net cost to business of EU regulation was only £1.9bn, i.e. about £31 per person.

The BCC research also indicates that the ‘better regulation’ drive by both the European Commission and Government have, although derided by the Tories, had an effect. Having analysed 246 impact assessments on regulation affecting business in 2007-8, the BCC research states that the Government managed to cut more than £1bn in administrative costs on business.

Even hese figures, of course, don’t factor in the massive benefits to business and consumers of the European single market, estimated by the European Commission to be as much as 2% of national GDP.

The point is that, to misquote Stephen Fry’s General Melchett in TV’s BlackAdder, regulation isn’t a dirty word. Firstly, having one single set of common rules, instead of 27 different sets of national regulation, can actually cut red tape for business. Moreover, a sizeable proportion of EU regulation on matters ranging from water quality to vehicle licensing would exist at national level if the EU did not exist. The other point is that some regulation saves lives (such as banning the use of asbestos in buildings) or, in the case of the Temporary Agency Workers Directive, provides extra rights and social protection for workers,

As legislators, we don’t always get it right, and there are many ways in which the European Parliament, Government and our national parliament could improve the scrutiny and development of European law – from the initial Commission proposal to the final legislation. But research by such an authoritative business voice as the BCC (which, incidentally, also shows that EU regulation accounts for about 20% of regulation on British business, a far cry from David Cameron’s comment that “almost half of all regulations imposed on our businesses come from Brussels”) should certainly knock eurosceptic scare stories on the head.

Nonetheless, it would great to think that, faced with the evidence, the Tories, Open Europe, and Taxpayers’ Alliance will now admit that they were talking nonsense. Forgive me if I don’t hold my breath, though.

Gloomy weather on the campaign trail

I usually enjoy being out campaigning, putting arguments to people, entering into discussions, countering euromyths and arguing my case. This time, however, the mood is somewhat dampened by the weather: soaked in Sheffield, drenched in Dewsbury and even hailstones in Hull!

Of course, there is also another matter that has put a dampener on the elections – the question of the expenses of our Westminster colleagues. Public opinion has been rightly outraged by some of the revelations.

Clearly, the House of Commons system of allowing members to meet the cost of running a second home by claiming seemingly any household expenditure – without a tight definition of what qualifies – needs radical reform. Clearly, the judgement of many MPs in making claims within this system has to be questioned. It is also clear that those – from all parties – who have broken the rules or made inappropriate claims must be dealt with visibly and severely - as the Labour party has by immediately suspending certain MPs.

The system must be corrected and higher standards applied if public confidence in our elected representatives is to be restored. No doubt there are also rotten apples in the European Parliament too – and let us not forget that Ashley Mote, elected as one of the 12 UKIP MEPs at the last elections, actually went to jail for fraud during his term of office while another, Tom Wise, is currently facing prosecution. Last year, the Tories lost both their leader and Chief Whip in the European Parliament following allegations of financial misconduct.

But when all is said and done, when all the parties have cleaned their stables – as they must – there are still stark differences between them in what they stand for, in what they would do in government, or what they would do with their seats in the European Parliament. It is to be hoped that people will not lose sight of what elections are about: choice between competing policy options for the future – and not focus exclusively on the rotten apples, as long as the latter are being dealt with and if the system is being reformed.

Above all, a rush towards minor parties without duly checking what they stand for could subsequently be a cause for regret among many voters. Voting for the BNP is not voting for a squeaky clean, moderate alternative – it is voting for a Nazi party, which is no better demonstrated by their top candidate in Yorkshire, whose history of involvement in the extreme right and with neo-Nazis is clear for all to see. Voting for UKIP is voting for a party that is almost as extreme and would seek to tear Britain apart from its neighbouring countries and main export market (not to mention the MEPs elected for UKIP who have actually been jailed for fraud and charged with fiddling expenses). The Greens offer an apparently serious alternative, but their constant attempts to outdo every other party in terms of alleged “greenness” has often led to espousing some pretty untenable positions and, anyway, in most regions they do not have a chance of winning a seat. Certainly in Yorkshire & Humber, voting for them is a wasted vote in the battle to exclude the BNP.

I am finding on the doorsteps that once you get beyond the rightful indignation about some of the shenanigans in Westminster and come back to policy choices, the response to Labour’s message in the European elections becomes more positive. Not enthusiastic in all cases, but nonetheless, a recognition that it is clearly better than the alternatives.

Premier League sees sense on ‘home grown’ players system

A majority of the 20 clubs have agreed to introduce a rule modelled on UEFA’s system for European competitions which requires all clubs to have at least eight ‘homegrown’ players out of a squad of 25. It looks as though they may adopt the scheme used by the rest of the Football League, which requires clubs to include at least four ‘homegrown’ players in their matchday squad of 16.

This is a welcome change of heart by the Premier League. They are also right to follow the UEFA model and not the ‘6 + 5’ rule proposed by FIFA President Sepp Blatter.

Unlike the ‘6 + 5’ rule which would be illegal under European law and is, anyway, a rather extreme response to a small problem, a ‘homegrown’ scheme along the UEFA or Football League model is proportionate and legal. It will encourage clubs to put more emphasis on developing their youth academies, while some feel that encouraging young talent will help improve the performances of the England team. While ‘homegrown’ players do not have to be English (Fabregas being an obvious example), the majority of academy players are English.

The Premier League clubs will decide what system to adopt at their annual summer meeting. To my mind the most obvious and practical solution would be to follow the lead of the Football League.

EP reform package adopted

I was pleased that the European Parliament adopted virtually all my proposals to reform the Parliament's internal procedures yesterday, by an overwhelming majority.

Much of it is pretty technical (how committees deal with amendments from other committees, and such like), but some is aimed at making EP debates more lively.

Traditionally EP debates are a succession of monologues of successive speakers in a predetermined order, without much interaction. I had already introduced a reform to set aside a period at the end of each debate for members to "catch-the-eye-of-the-speaker" for short spontaneous interventions, not pre-allocated, and providing an opportunity for responding to points made by others. Now, I have gone a stage further and provided for all speeches to be subject to brief interruptions for short questions, a bit like what happens in the House of Commons, with the consent of the speaker.

Traditionally, speaking time is shared out proportionately among political groups according to their size. Groups choose themselves whether to have, for example, two speakers for ten minutes each or twenty for one minute each. UKIP often do the latter - and then complain that they have had only one minute each!

In any case, this reform is a small step towards more flexibility and spontaneity in Parliament debates (which exists already in its committees, where the detailed legislative work is done). I was therefore astonished to hear the extreme eurosceptic Tories Heaton Harris and Hannan describe it as dictatorial and an attempt to silence minority opinion. Our MEP colleagues from Eastern Europe, who know a thing or two about dictatorships, were aghast at this suggestion.

UKIP employees give up the ghost on their party

I was surprised to be sent an interesting paper by two former UKIP researchers looking, amongst other things, at the possible outcome of the European elections: John Petley, who worked for the UKIP delegation in Brussels before resigning in mysterious circumstances last years; and Gary Cartwright, who is Tom Wise's researcher in the European Parliament. 

If these UKIP researchers are right, then UKIPs chances are disappearing down the toilet. They accuse Farage of a "spectacular failure to seize the initiative in leading the opposition to Lisbon in the UK", and then add, with more than a little hyperbole, that this was "one of the most calamitous errors in recent political history."

Moreover, they claim that UKIPs credibility "is at rock bottom, except in their South-West stronghold, where many members try to avoid mentioning their leader by name if they can help it". They conclude by asserting that "this June is likely to be Farage's - and UKIP's - swansong".

This is explosive stuff. It seems that even professional UKIP workers think that their party is a busted flush.

Intriguingly, Cartwright and Petley are pretty kind to the fascist British National Party. In their words, (and totally wrong - just check out their Yorkshire top candidate Andrew Brons), the BNP has "shaken off its neo-Nazi trappings, and has struck a chord with its focus on the dangers of Islam and immigration". Although they predict that the number of europhobic MEPs will be few in number, they predict that the BNP will win more seats than UKIP.

All the more reason to get out on the campaign trail to stop both these vile parties.

Despite problems, a good response

Despite what has been going on in Westminster over the last week or so, out on the doorsteps and streets in Yorkshire we have been getting a remarkably good response from people.

After starting today door-knocking in Huddersfield, where I only encountered one Tory (who after a long chat, promised me to vote Labour for the first time in his life on June 4th) and a quick sandwich in the delightful Great White Beare pub in Norwood Green, I joined John Prescott and Alistair Campbell's "Go 4th" minibus tour for a rally in Keighley town centre.

Together with Ann Cryer MP, who is retiring at the next election, and her successor as Labour candidate, the popular and hard working Jane Thomas, and my fellow euro-candidates Linda McAvan, Emma Hoddinott and Mahroof Hussain, we attracted quite a crowd with soapbox style speeches and discussion.

Then on to Bradford, where I had the honour to speak at the opend day of the Ahmadiyya Mosque, whose youth wing is carrying out an explanation and outreach campaign with local communities to increase understanding and diminish prejudice and fear.

Finally to Leeds to re-join the Go4th team where Hilary Benn, myself, Alistair Campbell and John Prescott addressed an enthusiastic audience in Leeds Civic Centre.

There is no doubt that mistakes have been made at Westminster, whether the culprit is seen as the government (the Gurkha issue) or all parties (MPs' expenses). But the public is also aware that there are substantial policy differences between Labour and the Conservatives, who on Europe want to isolate Britain (and force their own MEPs to sit with extremist fringe parties) and on the domestic front want to let market forces run their course rather than intervene to make the recession shorter and shallower and help people through the recession. (Correction: they do want to help the richest 3,000 families in Britain through their proposed inheritance tax cut.) These differences do matter and people are becoming increasingly aware of them.