New crackdown on airline's hidden costs

Amid the Conservative's infighting and the adoption of my parliamentary rule change on groups, I haven't had time to mention the new regulations governing how air-fair prices are advertised, which was adopted by the European Parliament in Strasbourg this week.

Many people will have come across airline advertisements promising bargain flights only to find the price rising substantially as they go through their booking. The final cost then bares little resemblance to the price which encouraged you to travel with them in the first place. The European Commission's investigation into the phenomenon found that well over a quarter of air travel websites indulged in such practices.

The new rules will put an end to these false prices by ensuring that advertised prices include all airport taxes, fees and charges. In a further attempt to improve transparency, airlines must also make clear the cost of any optional extras (luggage, booking a particular seat etc) at the start of the booking process. This is of course good news for consumers who can now feel confident they are getting the best value for money and can make an informed choice without having to sift out hidden costs and extra charges.

The rules will come into force by the end of the year.

EU plans for health tourism

Health tourism has hit the headlines over the past week with the Commission unveiling their proposals designed to clarify the rules for people to get treatment in different EU countries, potentially making it easier for them to do so.

While there has been some concerns that the NHS would be weighted down with extra costs, the fact is only one percent of health care budget is currently spent across borders. One of the things the new measures intend to do is regulate the current system so people can be certain that the health care they will recieve will be of a certain standard.

The Daily Mail is surprising pleased with the news as it has discovered dental care will be included and this exactly the sort of reason these proposals are being introduced. Different countries have different areas with spare capacity and different shortages and, by allowing people to travel for care, Europe can share a far bigger pool of resources, whilst each health service remains in charge of its own system and in control how much is spent.

As the BBC explains, "If the cost of treatment abroad exceeds the cost of similar treatment at home, the patient will have to pay the difference, under the Commission's scheme."

And should a country not be able to afford funding a significant amount of patients travelling abroad then they will be able to apply an emergency break.

You can read more about the details of this in this article in the FT.

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

The return of Berlusconi

I was very disappointed to see the election (for a third time) of Silvio Berlusconi, this time with a sizeable majority in both Italian houses of parliament. In contrast to last month's successful re-election of Jose Zapatero's PSOE party in Spain, this is a serious setback, not just for the left, but for democrats in general.

Berlusconi uniquely combines economic power (reportedly Italy's richest man), media power (owning the main private national TV channels and several newspapers) and political power. He has unashamedly used the latter to help the former, adopting laws during his previous stint as Prime Minister to help his media, insurance and construction interests and to give himself immunity from some of the corruption charges he faced in the courts.

He even owns one of Italy's most successful football clubs, AC Milan, currently European Champions having been allowed in last year's Champions League against the wishes of UEFA who were powerless to ban them despite the fact that they had been found guilty of bribing referees - something Leeds United fans will have something to say about given the referee's role in AC Milan's victory over them in the 73 European Cup Winners' Cup final - as will Liverpool fans given the way the referee whistled an early end to last year's Champions League final when Liverpool were on the verge of equalising.

Berlusconi is often portrayed in the UK media as an almost lovable gaffe-prone buffoon, but his election does have serious consequences that could reverberate around Europe. Berlusconi's main allies include members of the xenophobic Northern League, which campaigns on an anti-immigration ticket and for independence for "Padania" (a name they coined for Northern Italy). Having gained 8% of the vote, the League is in a strong bargaining position and will have seats in government.

At EU level, Berlusconi also has form, notoriously comparing Socialist group leader Martin Schultz to a Nazi commandant during a debate in the European Parliament. In 2004, he attempted to impose Rocco Buttiglione as Italy's nominee for the Commission, where he was envisaged as Commissioner for Justice despite his views on the role of women and on homophobia, causing a major political row and his rejection by the European Parliament. He was replaced by Franco Frattini, who is now likely to return to Rome as foreign minister and the nomination of his successor will be highly politically sensitive, especially if Berlusconi expects him or her to succeed to Frattini's Justice and Home Affairs portfolio. Any nomination must be agreed by Commission President Barroso and must appear before the European Parliament for a confirmation hearing, so watch this space if there is a controversial nominee.

Commission set to propose ban on seal products

Following a lengthy campaign from animal welfare lobbyists, the European Commission has revealed it is planning to propose a ban on seal products within the EU.

EU Observer has reported that Environment Commissioner, Stavros Dimas, plans to propose a ban on fur if a country cannot prove it has been obtained in a humane way.

The proposal should fly through the parliament if the Written Directive calling for a ban on the import, export and sale of seal products is anything to go by. Back in September 2006 it was signed by a record number of MEPs and as such became the position of the parliament.

The article suggests that Dimas has no plans to call for an outright ban but wants to ensure that any seals culled are done so quickly and cleanly. His main intention, it would appear, is to help stop the practice of skinning seals while they are still alive.

Some will be disappointed that the plans do not go further but it is a start and, should it be approved, will help drive up standards and eliminate the very worst aspects of the cull.

It is also an example of how EU citizens can play a part in influencing legislation. The campaign for a ban on seal products came from animal welfare charities and lobbyists and was driven by the sheer weight of mail many MEPs received on the issue. With the European Parliament’s support the case for a ban was strengthened and the European Commission has now responded with these early proposals, which will hopefully improve the welfare of thousands of seals.

Regional funding has helped Yorkshire; now can the EU help our rhubarb farmers?

I spent this morning in Sheffield, which looks more impressive each time I visit, at the launch of the EU Regional Funding for Yorkshire up to 2013, with Commissionor Daunta Hübner and John Healey MP giving the key note speeches. South Yorkshire has benefitted the most due to its Objective One status over several years now and it has been key reason behind the area’s impressive economic regeneration. The level of funding Yorkshire will receive will now drop because of enlargement, but the region will still receive a substantial amount of money to help ensure its growth.

Following that I drove to Janet Oldroyd’s farm in Carlton to learn more about how Yorkshire rhubarb is produced. Huge, dark sheds contain thousands of stems of forced rhubarb, with the eerie silence inside only punctured by the popping of the stems through their pods.

As I have mentioned before, Janet and the other rhubarb growers are applying for Protected Designation of Origin status, which requires products to have features and characteristics which must be due to the geographical area.

Yorkshire rhubarb is so renown because the frost, soil and rainfall combine to create the perfect conditions for forced rhubarb, while the special techniques accrued by generations of growers ensure that it cannot be replicated.

Rising temperatures mean that it is becoming increasingly costly for growers to produce consistently large harvests, which makes it all the more important that Yorkshire rhubarb is awarded PDO status, so that growers can charge the price their product deserves and consumers can buy it, confident they are getting the real thing.

More good news for phone users

More good news for mobile phone users this week, as EU communications commissioner Viviane Reding set phone companies a July deadline for cutting the price of SMS and data transfer (which includes the internet and mobile email) charges in line with the drop in roaming call charges, which have fallen 60% since the EU introduced price caps for operators last year.

As it stands, operators charge up to 20 times more for roaming customers than domestic customers, with prices ranging widely throughout EU countries. Operators have been given until July 1st to reduce prices, at which point Reding says she will assess the situation again, with regulation being considered if necessary.

Mobile phone roaming is a clear example of an area where EU-wide action can really benefit the consumer – let’s hope that the phone companies listen to Viviane Reding’s concerns and act accordingly, making the ‘mobility’ of our phones a little less costly!

Following on from my Parliamentary Question on the subject of the illegal hunting of wild birds in Malta, it gives me great pleasure to inform you that the Commission has announced that it is sending its final warning to the Maltese authorities to order them to stop the illegal hunting of wild birds in spring in contravention of the EU Wild Birds Directive. Lax protection in Malta can undermine the efforts of the rest of Europe to protect migratory birds - a good example of where European legislation can do more than piecemeal national legislation.

Malta is located on an important bird migration route in the Mediterranean. The European Union’s Wild Birds Directive specifically protects birds during their perilous spring migration from Africa to their breeding grounds further north in Europe, including the UK.

Currently, laws in Malta allow the hunting of the birds during spring, but in issuing this warning, the Commission is asking Malta to bring its laws in line with the EU’s Wild Birds Directive. Commenting on the Commission’s action, Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said: "By taking these measures the Commission is seeking to ensure that rules for the convention of bird species are followed throughout the EU to help prevent biodiversity loss."

The RSPB has urged the Maltese authorities to issue a declaration confirming the end of spring hunting. This would allow the European Commission to apply directly to the European Court of Justice for an immediate order blocking spring hunting for 2008 and beyond. Should Malta fail to respond to the Commission’s warning, the RSPB expects the Commission to take the Maltese authorities to the European Court immediately.

Hopefully this will be the end to the devastating spring hunts in Malta that threaten birdlife across Europe.

Today my parliamentary committee held a public hearing on lobbying in the European Union. Brussels is, apparently, home to as many lobbyists as Washington DC - and we all know that in the latter, 22 Congressmen and staffers are currently in jail having been convicted or indicted on corruption charges related to the activities of lobbyists.

Fortunately, we do not have the American political system whereby election campaigns of Congressmen and Senators require vast amounts of money to pay for individualised advertisements on television. In most European countries, like Britain, there is guaranteed fair and free access for political parties to television coverage, ceilings on expenditure during election campaigns, and the bulk of campaigning activity is organised and paid for by parties rather than the individual MPs. Furthermore, we have permanent civil servants - and do not have whole departments whose staff change in function of the election results with a keen vested interests in helping the campaign of one side or another.

In most European countries, and in the European Union, lobbyists do not exercise influence by making campaign contributions in the American way but have to rely more on force of persuasion and argument. Fortunately, on any given issue, there are a variety of lobbyists: producers and consumers, employers and trade unionists, NGOs of all kinds from environmental campaigners to consumer protection activists. It is the job of the MEP to listen to the various points of view and then to exercise judgement, remembering that as elected representatives they are accountable to the electorate as a whole, not a particular sector or interest.

The European Parliament actually has stricter rules than many national parliaments as regards the access of lobbyists to the Parliament. Lobbyists must register with the Parliament, wear a special badge and accept to comply with a code of conduct, failing which their pass will be removed. MEPs are prohibited from accepting gifts and they must declare and register any material support in terms of staff or finance granted to them in connection with their political activities.

Discussions are now underway to see whether the Commission and the Parliament should have a common set of rules on these matters and whether they can oblige all lobbyists to declare and publish their own financial sources and list of people they have contacted. If adopted, such proposals would place the European institutions well ahead of the average in terms of transparency and regulation of interest groups and lobbyists. Parliament's rapporteur on this is the Finnish Conservative Alexander Stubb MEP who is a refreshing contrast to the British Conservatives.

The much heralded new roaming charges were introduced for all mobile phone users across Europe at the weekend.

The new tariffs, approved by the European Parliament in May this year, mean there are now caps in place which mean it will cost a maximum of 17p a minute to receive a call and 34p a minute to make a call when abroad, with the cost set to continue dropping over the next three years.

Perhaps the most important measure in the regulations are that mobile networks must now be transparent about the cost of making and receiving calls in another country.
Prior to the regulations few people were clear about the cost of using a mobile abroad and with many were left stunned to learn that it could cost over a pound a minute merely to receive a call abroad.

Networks will now have to inform mobile users about the costs of using their phones everytime they enter a new EU country.

However, there is still work to do, as text messages and data charges are currently not covered by the tariffs but MEPs and the Commission are already pressuring networks to change this before regulation is needed.

The BBC has followed the progress of the roaming charges from beginning to end. Click here for more.

Click here for questions and answers on the new tariffs.

Delighted to hear the metrication issue is finally dead! For too long the Eurosceptic right had made great play of the alleged EU plans to destroy imperial measures, despite the fact this was never in the pipeline.

I think we can all be grateful to Commissioner Verheugen for finally putting to bed a Euromyth that simply refused to go away.

Commissioner Verheugen said: "Let's get one thing straight from the off.

"Neither the European Commission nor any faceless 'Eurocrat' has or will ever be responsible for banning the great British pint, the mile, and weight measures in pounds and the ounces.

"These imperial measures form part of the traditions that are the very essence of the Britishness that all Europeans know and love.

"We at the Commission have decided the time has come to nail these myths once and for all by setting out in black and white what has always been our view: that Britain should continue to use imperial measures for as long as it likes.

"Much as it may dismay those who have peddled the metric myth for far too long, we have now proposed legislation enshrining Britain's right to retain pints of milk and beer, miles on road signs and dual indications of weights and measures from now until Kingdom come."

So hopefully everyone is now clear that: the pint lives, it was never going to die and that the European Union’s sole purpose is not to destroy British culture.

But what’s this in the Daily Mail? The "EU wants to get rid of the Queen from our passports"? Will Britain ever be safe?

It's nonsense of course and correctly spotted then thoroughly torn apart by none other than ultra-Eurosceptic blog EU Referendum who are fed up with "gullible Eurosceptics" who, "demonstrate only that, after all these years, they have learned nothing, and continue scoring 'own goals' with gay abandon".

And who's on the scoresheet for believing this poorly put together myth? Why, it's Devil's Kitchen who, having been taken in, unleashes a bilious rant which is potty-mouthed even by his standards, until he realises his mistake and backs down here.

Who would have thought it, one of the great Euromyths gone and another fiercely condemned by a leading Eurosceptic. I think I'll celebrate with 568ml of beer.

Headlines galore for the EU after the press saw the Commission's You Tube video promoting European cinema, which features a series of sex scenes from award-winning films with the tag line “Let's come together”.

Predictably the League of Polish Families is outraged (when are they not outraged?), while Godfrey Bloom, having made himself the Parliament's go-to man for sex-related stories, just as predictably responded with: “The EU has been screwing Britain for the past 30 years.”

Though if Godfrey, and everyone else advocating British withdrawal (ahem) from the EU, got their way the video would have featured a series of people sat on their bed on their own. Not so splendid isolation!

Some people have even suggested the video was a tad conservative. After all 27 countries are now in the EU and I couldn’t count more than two people in one scene at a time.

The video was posted on the EU’s own You Tube channel EUtube, available online at http://www.youtube.com/EUtube

Following on from this month’s earlier decision by the European Commission to take legal action against Apple’s iTunes brand for their discriminatory practices against British consumers, the EU has again this week demonstrated its relevance for consumer protection.

Last week, the EU released figures showing a large increase in the number of dangerous goods withdrawn from sale across Europe. Children’s toys now form the biggest category of banned products, the vast majority of which were made in China. Products banned thanks to ‘Rapex’, the EU’s new rapid alert system, include a Superman figure that contained poisonous high-lead paint, a teddy bear which a child could take apart and choke on the parts and a skin cream that contained a fungus which presents a serious bacteriological risk.

Elsewhere, the EU handed out fines to three brewers for breaking competition laws. Heineken and Grolsch, two brands popular in the UK, along with Bavaria were fined by the European Commission for stifling competition by colluding to fix prices. Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said the brewers had “carved up” the market between them, adding that such behaviour was “unacceptable.” Heineken has been fined €219m, Grolsch €31.7m and Bavaria €22.9m.

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.

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.

So it seems that the Conservatives are rediscovering the value of strong European institutions now that they are confronted with national protectionism in other EU countries. The rise of "economic patriotism" in France and elsewhere, threatening to exclude British businesses that compete with their national champions, has produced a flood of Conservative MEPs calling for stronger action by the Commission to enforce European Single Market rules. Sometimes they even go further. Thus, Phillip Bushill-Matthews tabled a question at question time to the Commission last week, asking:

"Does the Commission have sufficient powers to effectively challenge countries that unilaterally choose to label certain industrial sectors as off-limits because of a declared national interest that is self-defined? Should the EU be granted any further powers in order to take control of this situation and if so what should these be and how should they be advanced?"

It's not long ago that Tory MEPs were moaning about the over powerful Commission interfering in national life. Now they are rushing to strengthen it further.

Interestingly, the same point was made recently by the Daily Telegraph’s European correspondent, David Rennie, in his recent article in The Spectator (11 March, pp20-21). He wrote that “all the current threats to the single market pose a real political dilemma for British Eurosceptics and the Conservative party – indeed for anyone who claims to support free trade and business. There is one mechanism for defending the single market, and it lies with the supranational powers of the European Commission…”

I was delighted to see that Commissioner Margot Wallström, the Vice President of the European Commission who hails from Sweden, has responded vigorously to the criticism of Tory leader Timothy Kirkhope MEP.

Unbelievably, Kirkhope had actually objected to suggestions that, in the national curriculum, schools should be required to teach children how local government, national government and EU institutions work! Local and national information was fine, but the inclusion of the European Union was labelled "brainwashing".

We should stop and think - what have the eurosceptics got to be afraid of if they allow our children to be taught about how the EU works?

Anyway, Wallström replied:

"I find it absolutely appalling. What do they mean? Should we keep it a secret that these institutions actually exist and take decisions that affect the daily lives of all European citizens? We teach people about our national political systems and decision making structures, of course they have to know what happens at the European level."

She went on to point out that "if more people knew about the CAP, maybe then we could reform it quicker".

Well done Margot!

Interesting to see that Eurosceptics are focusing on a recent European Court of Justice judgement that confirmed that the EU is entitled to require member states to treat certain violations of European legislation as criminal offences. Needless to say, Eurosceptics have gone way over the top and referred to the European Commission being able to determine sentences, claiming that "Brussels" will determine criminal penalties.

If they thought a little bit further than the next tabloid headline, they might get involved in a sensible discussion about what this ruling actually means - and, who knows, they might even welcome it! Do they really think that, for instance, Spain should merely give token fines to fishermen who catch more than their quota in British waters? Or that people who put toxic substances into waterways, in violation of EU law, should not be subject to any criminal court proceedings in their country?

Essentially, the ruling confirms that member states can be required to get tough with those who violate the law. This is a good thing for everyone. When we agree common European laws with our neighbouring countries in the EU, surely it is our right to expect our partners to implement it properly, and to sanction those who violate the law in their country just as we would sanction those who violate it in our country? What would be the point in agreeing those common laws if our neighbours were free to leave violations unpunished?

Rather than welcome this positive feature of the EU - or even debate it - Eurosceptics would rather stir up unfounded fears that the European Commission, and not the national courts, will determine sentences or, at the very least, that we are going to have a "harmonised criminal law across the union" (to quote UKIP's press officer, Gawain Towler).

Mr Towler even berates a law firm for its supposed ignorance when they rightly say that "the European Court's ruling does not give the Commission powers to jail people…. Any laws involving criminal sanctions will have to be adopted and passed by the national Parliament's of each member state. All the Commission can do is to propose new laws for member states to adopt". Yet, the lawyers are exactly right and UKIP is completely wrong.

I met the European Commissioner for consumer protection yesterday to discuss the growing problem of the European City Guide family of scams (click here).

It was a productive meeting. Commissioner Kyprianou confirmed that he is indeed aware of the scams and takes them very seriously. The Commission is currently reviewing consumer protection legislation to see where it can be strengthened, but this review doesn't currently include business-to-business issues.

Therefore, Mr Kyprianou also agreed to set up a meeting within his department to discuss specifically how EU law for business-to-business transactions might be improved. This will take place as soon as next week and will specifically take the ECG scam into account. I have been given the contact details of the person who will be leading the discussion and will call him next week.

Obviously the above points relate to more long-term actions. But the Commission only has the power to draft new EU laws and to enforce those that already exist - it can't influence judicial or police matters in member states.

However, the Commissioner also reported on recent communication with the Spanish authorities, where the European City Guide is currently based. Apparently, the Valencian consumer protection directorate has received 700 complaints lodged against ECG since 2003. Of these, they have upheld 450, resulting in the contract being cancelled and all fees reimbursed to customers. 150 more are still outstanding. (Presumably, the remaining 100 were dismissed - I don't know.)

The directorate also met with ECG a year ago. They ordered them to revise their contract in order to make it less misleading, and to publish a code of conduct on their website. Both these have now been done, as far as the Commissioner is aware.

The Commissioner confirmed that laws are already in place to protect both consumers and businesses against misleading advertising. He understands that ECG does not ever take its victims to court, and only threatens to do so, but he urges anyone who thinks they have been duped to go to court themselves, where the laws exist to protect them. It is for national jurisdictions and national courts to enforce the European-level laws. (More details here.)

So I would once again urge everyone who's being harassed by ECG to write to their MEP and to ask him or her to write to Commissioner Kyprianou. I am also strengthening my advice to victims of the ECG scam:

• Do not pay.
• Write to the Valencian authorities and make the following points: (1) the contract is still misleading despite the changes; (2) demand action against ECG; (3) demand reimbursement of any sums already paid, if there are any.
• Write to your local MEP and make the following points: (1) the contract is still misleading; (2) the Commission should take cases like this into account in their current review of consumer protection legislation.
• Take legal advice and consider taking the matter to court. EU-wide laws exist and the fact that the scam is based in another EU country will not prevent UK courts from implementing those laws. UK courts have the power to cancel contracts.

I also intend to write to all my MEP colleagues, asking them to treat ECG-related complaints from their constituents very seriously and to consider sending them on to the Commissioner.

Here comes an astonishing admission from the Eurosceptics: the European Commission simply does what our national governments ask it to do!

We pro-Europeans have been making that point for a while, of course, but that doesn't make it any the less surprising when the rabidly anti-EU European Foundation confesses in a press release today (not yet available online):

"In the end, as with past trade rounds, successful completion of the Doha round is likely to require the close personal commitment of the heads of government of all the major countries. In the case of the EU, Stewart-Brown argues [in the European Foundation's journal], that will mean Chancellor Merkel and President Chirac. [Trade Commissioner] Mandelson, as it appeared at Hong Kong, is little more than a pawn in their hands."

Perhaps someone would be kind enough to remind the Foundation of that point next time they publish some politically-motivated diatribe or other about how the European Commission is always telling nation states what to do?

The National Farmers' Union has spoken up about the myths and misconceptions of the CAP and its effect on world poverty. Its President, Tim Bennett, said at a conference last week:

"The European Commission came under intense bombardment from many sides before Hong Kong: from European farmers, and some governments, who thought it had gone much too far, and from most British commentators and some governments who thought it had not gone far enough. I think the Commission did a very good job. There is no doubt that the 2003 CAP Reform puts us in a much better negotiating position. And the recent sugar reform contrasted starkly with American intransigence on their cotton subsidies.…

"I do understand and accept the principles behind trade liberalisation, but I am exasperated by the way some of the facts and arguments are often presented. Top of my list are those who present the CAP as an immoral attack on poor countries and Africa in particular. Opening our markets, the argument runs, would be the single greatest contribution to making poverty history.

There are several conspicuous flaws in this argument. First, it is normally put forward in ignorance of the fact that Europe already has, since 2001, opened up all its markets by allowing, through the Everything But Arms initiative, duty-free and quota-free market access to the poorest countries, including most of Africa. This is an initiative that other industrialised countries have only just promised -in Hong Kong- to match but have not yet achieved. In terms of the actual trade flows, the EU imports more farm products from developing countries than the US, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Canada put together and absorbs 70% of the imports from Least Developed Countries while the US only takes 17%."

This year, as every year, fishing ministers have announced their agreement on the following year’s quotas just before Christmas. This year, as every year, there is a reduction in quotas for many species. This year, as every year, it is a smaller reduction than proposed by the European Commission, which is itself less than recommended by scientists.

The big problem with fishing is declining stocks - due both to years of over-fishing and to new technologies able to pinpoint fish locations relatively easily. The only possible response is to limit fishing, giving stocks a chance to recover. This has to be a commonly agreed system: if each country set its own quota, there would be free-loading and the policy would be totally ineffectual. Fish have an unfortunate habit of swimming from one country’s waters to another, so efforts by one country will be wasted unless everyone takes part.

But in the process of reaching agreement, ministers all have the same objective: they want to minimise cuts to their own fishermen (because immediate cuts mean immediate job losses, instead of possible job losses next year). Each country's ministers wants to get other countries' quotas down while maintaining those of our own fishermen. In the end, the annual deal is always too lax, meaning that the following year there will be still more pain, and ultimately the whole industry is put in jeopardy.

This year, scientists recommended a total ban on cod fishing, arguing that there is a real danger of stocks falling to a level from which they will never recover, as happened in North America. In the end, ministers meeting in Brussels agreed only on a 15% cut in the catch levels for cod (and for herring and whiting, with a 13% cut in haddock).

Will this be enough?

Mike Park, vice-president of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, said that in political terms the deal was as good as could have been achieved, and he believed the industry had turned the corner:

"In reality, it does mean a reduction in the income of some sections of the fleet. But it's a balanced package and I think there are opportunities at the start of next year where we could maybe recover some ground. Cod is only one of the stocks and every other stock in the North Sea now is on the way up."

And indeed, ministers agreed a 30% increase in North Sea prawn quotas, a 5% rise in Irish Sea monkfish and a 3% increase in the catch level for hake in most fishing grounds.

But the long-term trends suggest we should be cautious about such optimism. I notice that the conservation group, WWF, said it made no sense to continue to allow targeted fishing on North Sea cod when it was on the brink of collapse. Their spokeswoman, Claire Pescod, said:

"In doing so, they are ensuring that this iconic British species has virtually no chance of survival or recovery."

For some, though, any cuts are an opportunity to make short term political capital out of the distress that reductions inevitably bring. For them, the long-term is of no interest if they can cash in on this distress.

Take, for instance, the Scottish National Party, whose fisheries spokesman Richard Lochhead railed against the "failure to stop Brussels imposing more damaging cuts on Scotland":

"On top of all the cuts of recent years, these latest cuts will impact on fishermen who only just managed to stay afloat in 2005. The Scots fleet achieved everything asked of it and met all its conservation targets yet has been handed down another unjust anti-Scottish deal.”

Note that the blame is on “Brussels” and, of course, any reduction is only targeted at “us”. No hint of any shared responsibility to protect our resources. No mention of the fact that over-fishing has brought about this situation in the first place. No recognition that a failure to act now will only cause further pain in the longer run. Could there possibly be any better example of an irresponsible political statement?

It's so unusual that it's worth a mention: a reasonably accurate portrayal of the EU's powers by a UK newspaper! So, newspapers can print things other than Eurosceptic scare stories…

"The EU's spectre is manifestly not haunting Europe

"In most areas of public life, acts of parliament are still passed in Westminster and Holyrood, without reference, or much reference, to Brussels. Most [EU] regulation is, however, directed to ensuring that the single market (essentially a British creation) works fairly and effectively.

"We have a European Parliament with less power than the Scottish Parliament - it can't make law on its own as Holyrood can; a European civil service (the Commission) which may have too great a power of initiative, but which again is not an autonomous law-making body; and the Council of Ministers. That body has real powers, but these are limited by the various treaties."

Amazingly, this comes three days after an FT leader said:

"Criticism of Europe's Central Bank is misplaced

"… The ECB'S institutional framework looks increasingly superior to the competing models in the UK, America and Japan."

Yet again the Eurosceptics raise the old chestnut of the EU Court of Auditors stating that "93.5% of the EU's accounts are subject to fraud and corruption" - a piece of eurosceptic nonsense which, through repetition, has become increasingly believed by many people.

In fact, if you look at the reports of the Court of Auditors then you will see that every year since 1994, which was the first year it had to produce such a statement, it found that the accounts are reliable, the revenues have been handled in a legal and regular way and the spending commitments are legal and in order. They also found no evidence of fraud anywhere in the budget.

Where, then, are the problems? They lie in spending handled by member states – not by the European Commission itself. This amounts to more than 80% of the budget and it is the responsibility of individual countries such as Britain. It is at that level - not at EU level - that there have been mistakes.

If anyone wishes to verify for themselves what the Court of Auditors have said they can visit its website.

As I've pointed out before, the debate about the type and extent of regulation we need in the EU is an important one - important enough that we should be careful to avoid scoring cheap party-political points, or over-simplifying arguments for rhetorical effect. We can get regulation right or wrong; it can be good or bad, restrictive or liberating. In an attempt to encourage some of my colleagues to recognise the positive side of regulation in our single European market, I recently put this question to the European Commission:

"What are the latest figures available to the Commission on the total economic benefits to European citizens of the existence of the European single market?"

The reply came back today:

"A comprehensive study on the total economic impact of the Internal Market was carried out in 1996 and published in 1998. It concluded that in 1994, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was between 1.1% and 1.5% higher than it would have been if the Internal Market did not exist. For the same year, the employment gain was estimated to have accounted for over 300,000 jobs.

"Since then, there have been partial assessments. Among the latest are:

• "The Communication on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Internal Market included a new round of macroeconomic estimates of the impact of the 1992 programme. According to these estimates, EU GDP in 2002 was 1.8 percentage points, or €164.5 billion, higher thanks to the Internal Market. In addition, about 2.5 million jobs had been created in the EU since 1992 as a result of the opening up of frontiers between Member States;


• "A study by Commission services based on accounting data of EU firms has found evidence of a significant impact of the Internal Market programme on productivity. Efficiency, as measured by the productivity of assets, increased by approximately 25% between 1993 and 2001;


• "In the field of Public Procurement, a study for the Commission estimated the economic benefits from the application of EU Directives. Results show that the application of the transparency procedures required by the Directives could reduce prices of goods, services and works contracts by approximately 30%. The study also showed that the success rates of foreign firms operating in other Member States to win contracts are actually comparable to those of domestic firms bidding in their home countries."

Football is the theme today in Brussels. First, MEPs join with disabled players in a mini-tournament next to Parliament to promote the Special Olympics.

Second, the FA Premier League are out to discuss the question of whether the way they sell their TV rights is in conflict with competition law. I have been involved with this issue despite the fact that Yorkshire & Humber has, sadly, no Premiership teams any more! The Premier League is having difficulty in convincing the European Commission that it's now in compliance with the law, having split its package into several bite-sized chunks for which different broadcasters can bid separately. I agree to help them.

Above all, it is crucial that TV rights remain a collectively marketed item - if each club were able to sell its own matches independently and keep all the revenue to itself, the domination of a few rich clubs would become even more acute than it is already.

There was a bit of a media frenzy this week on the European Court judgement which allegedly gives the Commission "power to legislate in the area of criminal law" (according to the BBC!). Predictably, the Daily Mail described this as a "sinister new judgement" and reported that:

"unelected bureaucrats, answerable to no-one, will be able to order British courts to fine or put people in prison for breaching EU laws".

Complete rubbish in every respect, of course. Other publications were only slightly less reactionary: compare coverage in the Times and the Guardian, not to mention the tabloids.

Rather than wearily pointing out for the millionth time that, with or without this judgement, the Commission has no power at all to legislate in any area (because it merely makes proposals and carries out what has been agreed), I decided to look into the detail and find out what the Court's judgement actually said. Here it is in full. And a quick glance at the Court's summary here also reveals that the headlines are, needless to say, grossly exaggerated.

Interestingly, there was no dispute at all about the actual content of the environmental legislation that gave rise to the court case. All parties agreed that it was necessary to classify certain infringements of environmental legislation as criminal offences in countries' domestic law. These offences are listed in a framework decision originally agreed jointly by national ministers, and include:

(a) the discharge, emission or introduction of a quantity of substances or ionising radiation into air, soil or water which causes death or serious injury to any person;

(b) the unlawful discharge, emission or introduction of a quantity of substances or ionising radiation into air, soil or water which causes or is likely to cause their lasting or substantial deterioration or death or serious injury to any person or substantial damage to protected monuments, other protected objects, property, animals or plants;

(c) the unlawful disposal, treatment, storage, transport, export or import of waste, including hazardous waste, which causes or is likely to cause death or serious injury to any person or substantial damage to the quality of air, soil, water, animals or plants;

(d) the unlawful operation of a plant in which a dangerous activity is carried out and which, outside the plant, causes or is likely to cause death or serious injury to any person or substantial damage to the quality of air, soil, water, animals or plants;

(e) the unlawful manufacture, treatment, storage, use, transport, export or import of nuclear materials or other hazardous radioactive substances which causes or is likely to cause death or serious injury to any person or substantial damage to the quality of air, soil, water, animals or plants;

(f) the unlawful possession, taking, damaging, killing or trading of or in protected wild fauna and flora species or parts thereof, at least where they are threatened with extinction as defined under national law;

(g) the unlawful trade in ozone-depleting substances;

when committed intentionally.

The Court case simply turned on which treaty article should be used for the adoption of such agreements. The Court ruled that, as it concerned the protection of the environment, it was appropriate to use the environmental articles of the treaties. The definition of the offence, and the severity of the penalty that would apply, remain a matter for member states to decide individually as they see fit.

The losing side in the case agreed that joint European-level action was necessary and that the offences listed should be classified as criminal offences - but they argued for a different treaty article to be used in order to enact such legislation. Using this article would simply have sidestepped the need for parliamentary approval while leaving the content of the legislation intact.

The Court's judgement therefore didn't touch the question of whether the principle of member states laying down criminal penalties could be agreed at European level - since this principle was already agreed by all parties (pace the UK's eurosceptic media). Instead, the net effect of the judgement is to rule that parliamentary scrutiny is required for these decisions, so the Council of Ministers is not allowed to adopt them unilaterally. Surely this is a valuable democratic safeguard worth having - for any legislation?

The buzz of hyperbole once again fills the air in the debate over what the tabloids have dubbed ‘the bra wars’. As usual, politicians on all sides have been quick to leap on the bandwagon, with Tory MEPs trying to pin the blame entirely on Peter Mandelson and the Telegraph pretending that it’s all the fault of “the EU’s protectionist camp”, an invented conglomeration of countries that apparently “compelled the European Commission” to impose this “botched policy” on the rest of us.

While it’s nice to see the hideously Eurosceptic Telegraph admit that the Commission can be “compelled” to do anything by EU member states — it usually likes to paint the Commission as a maveric dictatorship bullying governments into submission — unfortunately it’s still managed to get it wrong. In fact, I was astonished to find that it’s the Daily Mail (admittedly via Reuters) that gets closest to the truth of what’s really going on here:

“The June deal, which capped growth in 10 lines of Chinese textile exports at 8-12 percent a year, was hailed at the time as a sensible response to a deluge of low-cost clothes from China following the scrapping of global textile quotas on January 1.”

The essence of the problem is this. With the end of the so-called multi-fibre agreement this year, we all knew that China would quickly come to dominate the world textiles market with a big rise in its exports. To address these fears, the EU agreed a transitional system of quotas, increasing gradually year-on-year, which would make these changes manageable. The system was neither particularly protectionist nor ultra-liberal, but was agreed by all and sundry, including by EU countries and by China itself.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can indeed debate whether the levels agreed were too strict or too lax. But that has little to do with the problem which has now landed in Peter Mandelson’s lap. This problem arises primarily from the problem of what to do with stock which was ordered from China before the new quota came into force but wasn’t delivered until afterwards.

With Mr Mandelson promising to sort this out by the end of the week, I’m doing my best to keep concerned constituents up-to-date on the situation.

The debate about the type and extent of regulation we need in the EU is an important one - important enough that we should be careful to avoid scoring cheap party-political points, or over-simplifying arguments for rhetorical effect. We can get regulation right or wrong; it can be good or bad, restrictive or liberating – at European level just as at national or local level.

Yet Eurosceptics portray EU level legislation as Brussels bureaucrats imposing burdens on businesses. This is wrong on two counts.

Firstly, on the “bureaucrats”. The European Commission does not decide on EU laws – it merely makes proposals. All European legislation has to be approved both by the Council and the European Parliament. The Council consists of national ministers from each Member State, members of their national government - and these are not people with a vested interest in limiting their own margin of manoeuvre through commonly-agreed rules! No European legislation can be adopted without persuading a hefty majority of them of its necessity: even a qualified majority is well over two-thirds of the votes in the Council. European legislation simply is not adopted against the will of the member states.

Second, on the “burden”. When we get it right, European legislation is an exercise in cutting red tape. One patent instead of twenty-five; one trademark and registration form and fee instead of twenty-five; one administrative document for our lorries at frontiers instead of the forty-something there used to be; one single set of standards for the single market instead of having to adapt production lines to twenty-five divergent ones.

Of course, as at every level of governance, mistakes can be made - and, as with all mistakes, the response should be to correct them. The idea that Britain (for example) should withdraw from the EU because you don't like a particular EU agreement is as silly as saying that, say, Yorkshire should withdraw from the UK because you don’t like the Education Bill.

Besides, it's important to look at the big picture. The total economic benefits to European citizens of the existence of the European common market, created by having common regulations for that market in many fields, is (according to pre-enlargement studies in 2002) some extra €164.5 billion to our collective GDP – approaching €2000 per family every year.

So let us unite on getting EU regulations right. Let's focus on the reality, not the theology - and certainy not on the fantasies conjured up by Eurosceptics!

It must have been a painful dilemma for Eurosceptic newspaper editors when they were faced with a choice between having a go at the EU and having a go at Tony Blair. When the Prime Minister made a slip in an otherwise excellent speech and said that a seesaw had been dismantled because of spurious EU regulations, there was no clear line from the right-wing press about how to report the error.

The Evening Standard went one way, sacrificing accuracy at the altar of reactionary Euroscepticism:

"Tony Blair today launched an unprecedented attack on Brussels… [Mr Blair] raised the case of a Cotswold village required to pull up a seesaw because it was judged a danger under an EU directive on outside playgrounds."

Meanwhile, you can almost hear the teeth grinding in the editor's office as the Telegraph decides to point the mistake:

"Tony Blair was caught out yesterday for falsely claiming that a European Union directive had forced a Cotswolds village to rip out its playground seesaw - when no such directive exists. Playgrounds are, in fact, not regulated by the EU."

Fortunately, the European Commission is on hand to break the deadlock.

"This little tale first surfaced in 2000 and found a home in a number of newspapers willing to peddle it. Now the Evening Standard has jumped on the merry-go-round [boom, boom] of blaming non-existent EU rules for depriving children of their seesaws, while the prime minister appears to have, albeit unintentionally, recycled an old euromyth.

"There is no EU Directive on Playground Equipment for Outside Use. No village in the Cotswolds has been forced to take down its seesaws, or swings or slides.

"The prime minister may have been referring to European Standard EN 1176-5, drawn up by the European Committee for Standardisation. This is a non-EU body made up of standards institutions from 28 European countries, including the British Standards Institution. It sets guidelines for products in order to improve consumer safety. But these guidelines are entirely voluntary."