More on MEPs' expenses

The media focus on Tory MEPs' expenses has continued unabated since I last blogged on the subject a week ago.

Following the resignation of the Conservative leader in the European Parliament, their Chief Whip has also resigned. They can hardly claim it is a case of a few small rotten apples, when it is their leadership team itself that has had to resign!

As I said, the Tories might have avoided this humiliation if they had done what we Labour MEPs have done for the last eight years, namely have our spending reviewed annually by an independent accountant to certify that all has been used properly. They are now belatedly on board for that, as are - equally belatedly - the LibDems.

Some have suggested that this has all come out now because of in-fighting among the Tories who remain bitterly divided on Europe, but even at the best of times have a reputation for ruthless backstabbing. Certainly, some of the stories in the press appear to come from internal leaks. Some have suggested that Cameron will use the opportunity, not just to deal with wrong-doers, but to purge those who are not solidly behind his own leadership. Maybe. That is an interesting dimension to their troubles, but it should not distract us from the the fundamentals. The setting up of companies run by family members to siphon off public money for private gain is a serious allegation and if true should be punished.

Meanwhile, they are determined to do whatever they can to tar other parties with the same brush. They are distraught that, despite trying, they have not been able to find equivalent cases among Labour MEPs.

We are now being bombarded with letters and calls from journalists, and queries from various campaign groups. Fortunately, we can reassure people quite easily thanks to our auditing rule and the fact that we all fill in our Declaration of Members' Interests, which includes whether any family member is employed. We publish the guidelines given to our auditors and we publish the resultant certificates on our websites. We also publish how we make use of the staff allowance in terms of employing staff in our constituency and parliamentary offices.

Despite all this information being publicly available, the anti-Europe campaign group Open Europe, which masquerades as a think tank, has now appointed itself as the policeman-cum-prosecutor of MEPs, has sent each Labour MEP a questionnaire, and denounces all those who fail to fill it in. Too lazy to read the published information on our websites, they expect MEPs to spend their time co-operating with an organisation that has no interest in improving the system, and certainly makes no distinction between genuine problems and invented ones, but simply in promoting Euroscepticism by means fair or foul. We'd rather spend our time, given that we are in order with our spending, on doing our job on behalf of our constituents.

For anyone who is interested in my expenses I suggest they look at the relevant page on my website.

Tories and Lib Dems follow our lead

Interesting to see the Conservatives and the Lib Dems have finally followed Labour’s lead and demanded that their MEPs produce receipts for all their office expenses.

Labour MEPs have had to provide receipts for their expenses and have their accounts approved by an independent auditor for nearly a decade. It’s a simple enough measure but I’m stunned its taken the Tories and Lib Dems this long. Hopefully more parties across in the European Parliament will now demand the same standards.

The party which have been under the most scrutiny for their MEPs expenses, UKIP, have not. Should we really be surprised?

Finally, real progress for agency workers

I was delighted to hear today that the Government has reached an agreement with the TUC and the CBI on equal treatment for agency workers. This agreement, which would give agency workers equal treatment with permanent workers after 12 weeks, breaks a six year deadlock.

This proposed European directive has caused a great deal of controversy between Government, unions and industry. Of course, temporary agency work contributes to a dynamic and flexible modern economy and can often be a bridge for long term unemployed to get back in the labour market. But agency workers should not be treated as second-class workers and agencies should not be able to distort the labour market by undercutting the wages and conditions of other workers.

Indeed, support for the Temporary Agency Workers directive was one of the key planks of the 2004 Warwick Agreement between Government and unions and the impasse in resolving its future has caused great frustration for unions.

However, this agreement at UK level is not the end of the story. A further agreement will have to be reached in the Council of Ministers, hopefully at the next meeting of Employment ministers on the 9th and 10th of June. The directive will then return to the European Parliament (which had supported equal treatment for day one at first reading) for second reading, with a view to hitting the statute book in advance of next year’s European elections.

EU legislation on agency workers will establish one common set of rules for the common market and remove the possibility of having a multitude of divergent legislation from different Member States that would still leave the problem of transnational agencies undercutting wages as well as creating legal uncertainty. Domestic legislation would create as many problems as it would solve and today’s announcement demonstrates that Government’s priority is, rightly, to agree a compromise at European level.

Moreover, the debate on agency workers has demonstrated that will be clear dividing lines on European social legislation between Labour and the Conservatives at the next election. The Conservatives have already promised to restore Britain’s opt-out from the Social Chapter and bitterly oppose this directive which will protect some of the most vulnerable workers in the labour market. In contrast, today’s agreement shows that the Government is committed to a social Europe in which workers rights and social protection stand alongside economic growth and enterpreneurship.

BBC's report on MEP's expenses unbalanced

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miliband builds on government's increasingly pro-European stance

Patrick Wintour focused on David Miliband's Mansion House speech in yesterday's Guardian, suggesting the government is entering into a new pro-European era, following the Lisbon Treaty’s smooth path through the Commons.

Miliband is arguing that rather than being a threat to the UK's foreign policy or economy, a strong EU will enhance both as it increases our links with countries within and outside the EU.

Wintour is right to assert that the government is becoming increasingly braver with regards to actually talking about Europe, something it has sometimes been reluctant to do in the past. Wintour mentions Gordon Brown's recent visit to Brussels but at Labour's Spring Conference he also made it clear that it is only within the EU that Britain can achieve its objectives on climate change, development, trade and security – all areas where he noted Europe was leading the way.

As Denis MacShane has said before all this suggests that Europe has once again become a major dividing line between the parties, and crucially it is one that works to Labour’s advantage.

Murphy ends Commons debate in good humour

The Commons debate on the Lisbon Treaty finally concluded last night with MPs voting by a large majority to adopt the text, which means just the Lords’ approval is required for Britain to ratify the treaty.

Europe Minister Jim Murphy’s final speech was an amusing one, and included some some weird and wonderful facts, such as "the great unreformed instiution", Bill Cash, made 214 interventions (swiftly up 215), a fifth of all those made in the entire debate!

There were also amusing digs at the strange trend of MPs quoting themselves, quoting other MPs who had quoted them, and even quoting themselves from a speech they never actually made!

Murphy pointed out: "The hon. Member for Stone (Bill Cash) quoted an historic parliamentary debate and a speech—by himself—as a source of reference. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) did the same thing by proxy, quoting the right hon. Member for Wells quoting him. This evening we had another passionate speech by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Peter Lilley), who went one step further in our proceedings. Not only did he quote himself, which has become the new fashion — a fashion that I have not yet bought into — but, in a remarkable innovation, to make his specific point he did not quote himself from an earlier speech, saying,

‘I can demonstrate that by referring to a speech that I did not give’

when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. A remarkable constitutional innovation! It is a first, and perhaps many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will take their lead from it in future debates."

Murphy also took time to list the other parties that support the Conservative's absurd position on the treaty – or "the 'not letting the matter rest' coalition" as he called them. It now includes, he said: "Sinn Fein, Marianne Thieme — who, as we all know, leads the Dutch party for the animals in its opposition to the treaty — and the now infamous Philippe de Villiers, part of the leadership of the French hunting party, we have three allies to fill this great chamber of Europe. That still leaves 23 empty seats for the great European coalition of international Governments.”

Labour's team for 2009

Delighted with the result of our ballot of all Labour party members in Yorkshire & Humber to choose Labour's team of candidates for the 2009 European elections. Linda McAvan and I are honoured to be the top two candidates again, as we were in 2004.

Several thousand members returned their ballots, which were counted yesterday, giving us, in a very close result, the following team, listed in ranking order:

1 Linda McAvan MEP
2 Richard Corbett MEP
3 Emma Hoddinott
4 David Bowe
5 Melanie Onn
6 Maroof Hussain MBE
Reserves: Chris Williams and Paul Blanchard

This gives us a good balance in terms of gender, different parts of the region, age, ethnicity, and experience. All are enthusiastic and raring to go.

Red lines beat red herrings, as Commons votes against referendum

I was delighted to see the House of Commons reject the Tory proposal that Britain should start ratifying international treaties by means of a referendum. The vote, which finished 311 to 248, is a victory for parliamentary democracy.

While it was disappointing to see 29 Labour MPs vote against the Government, this number was far fewer than the 120 that Labour Europhobe Ian Davidson had predicted would follow him into the division lobby to vote for a referendum.

Credit should also be given to Kenneth Clarke, John Gummer and David Curry, who showed that there are still a few moderate Tories on Europe by voting with the Government.

As for the Liberal Democrats, their bizarre approach to the vote, in taking a three-line whip ordering their MPs to abstain, backfired, with a quarter of the parliamentary party voting with the Tories and four MPs resigning from their front-bench. The Lib Dems should have had the courage of their convictions. By using their (familiar) tactic of trying to be all things to all people, their opportunism has been exposed.

This country has a proud history of parliamentary democracy and an issue like the Lisbon Treaty is where MPs earn their salt. Britain has never ratified an international treaty by referendum and the House of Commons has rightly acknowledged that it would have been absurd to start doing so now. It is right that the Commons has dedicated so long to analysing and discussing the treaty, something most people simply don’t have the time to do.

Above all, this detailed scrutiny has revealed that this is a treaty which will make the EU more efficient, more democratic and more accountable and respects the British government’s red lines. The pathetic glut of Eurosceptic red herrings, including claims that the treaty would delete the Queen from our passports and allow armed French police to patrol British streets, has been exposed as nonsense by the Commons.

Labour's Spring Conference very positive on Europe

Strikingly positive and upbeat atmosphere on Europe at Labour's Spring Conference!

The various workshops, seminars and fringe meetings on Europe have been very well attended - indeed, I'm told the best of all. Certainly, the one that Foreign Secrtary David Miliband and I addressed on the subject of the Lisbon Treaty was packed, and positively enthusiastic.

Why? A combination of the vehemence of the Tory attacks on the EU, the pedagogic spin-off of the long Commons debate on the treaty, and the fact that Labour party members are currently voting on the choice of candidates for the next European elections has led to heightened awareness about Europe in general and the treaty in particular.

Gordon Brown too spoke at the conference of how Europe is vital to our objectives on climate change, development, trade and security, all areas where Europe is leading the way. He also said that the Tories are making a strategic error in turning their backs on Europe and focussing on the past, not the future. As Gordon has sometimes been accused of being luke-warm about Europe, this strong message reinforced the sense that Europe is now one of the major dividing lines between the two parties, and one which will work to Labour's advantage.

Lisbon Treaty overwhelmingly adopted by European Parliament

My report on the Lisbon Treaty, which I co-authored with Íñigo Méndez de Vigo MEP, pleasingly sailed through the European Parliament today, with 525 votes in favour and just 115 against.

Every single party that is in government in the EU’s member states and almost every single one of the principal opposition parties in every member state – except the British Conservatives - showed their support for the treaty in today’s vote.

All the main Christian Democrat parties, all the Socialist parties and the Liberal parties in each of the 27 member states supported the treaty. The same is true for the majority of the Green parties and even Conservative parties, except, of course, the Tories.

Opposition to the treaty came mainly from the far-right and some on the extreme left of the political spectrum. It was, though, curious to see a new political alliance being forged between Sinn Féin and the British Conservatives in opposing this treaty!

Bizarely, some opponents of the treaty argued that it was being adopted without them having access to the consolidated treaties (i.e. the treaties as they will be after being amended by the Lisbon Treaty) and the poor souls find it too hard work to cross reference the amendments. But in any case, consolidated treaties have been published by several member states. Frankly, any Member of the European Parliament who says he or she has not been able to study the texts is not doing the job which they are paid to do. It is pure laziness.

There were also some strange calls for the European Parliament to demand referendums in each member state to ratify the treaty. I find it quite amusing that those who oppose the European Union now want the European Parliament to tell sovereign member states what their internal procedures should be to ratify an international treaty. That is hypocrisy in the extreme!

Finally, I suppose I couldn’t blog on today’s events without mentioning UKIP’s chicken stunt. There were rumours every UKIP MEP was going to dress as a chicken during today’s vote but sadly the sight of Godfrey Bloom in a chicken suit was not to be and in the end they settled on wearing yellow t-shirts with a chicken print. At least they didn't try to disrupt the Parliament this time, but they didn't half look silly!

However, they spent so long parading outside the chamber for the benefit of the press that it became clear to everyone that what they were really "chicken" about, was taking part in the debate - presumably because they can't stand hearing views they disagree with. They simply dislike democratic parliamentary debate.

For my speech opening the debate click here and for my speech winding it up click here.

Labour's team for Yorkshire & Humber

I spent the weekend at the Labour Party's Yorkshire & Humber regional conference, listening to a whole host of ministers, MPs, councillors and party members talk about a wide range of issues.

One of the debates was about the EU’s responsibilty to regulate the free market so it works for Europe’s citizens and protects the most vulnerable, in terms of consumer protection, social legislation, the environment, fair trade, health and safety rules, and so on. The discussion once again showed the importance of such European legislation and the need for Britain to take a central role in shaping it.

After our discussion, the four people who, following lengthy internal parocedures in the region, will join myself and my colleague MEP Linda McAvan to make up Yorkshire & Humber’s Labour team for the 2009 European elections were revealed. While the order has yet to be determined (it will be by a one-member-one-vote ballot, which should drop through Labour Party members’ letterboxes later this week), Emma Hoddinott, Mahroof Hussain, David Bowe and Melanie Onn will join me and Linda as part of Labour’s team of six candidates. It will be a good team.

The debate begins!

The first hurdle to the parliamentary ratification of the Lisbon Treaty was easily cleared in the House of Commons last night. Despite extravagant claims in some newspapers that up to 100 Labour MPs would defy the government by voting against the treaty, the bill's second reading was passed by 362 to 224, with 19 rebel Labour MPs, (a small group with a history of being Eurosceptic), voting with the Conservatives.

Let us be clear - leaving aside the hyperbole, the Lisbon Treaty amounts to a set of modest adjustments to the EU's institutional framework such as replacing the rotating six-month presidency with a full-time one on a 30 month term, reducing the number of Commissioners to 18, altering the voting system in the Council to be based on population and increasing the role of elected parliaments in EU law-making. But in terms of what the EU can and cannot do, it changes little. Unlike the Single European Act or Maastricht, there are no new subjects added to the EU's field of responsibility - put bluntly; the Lisbon Treaty is about reform, not new powers.

The Tories' opposition to this treaty is nakedly opportunistic and lacks credibility. As David Miliband put it: "Left of centre parties in all 27 European countries support the treaty; liberal parties in all 27 countries support the treaty; and Conservative parties in 26 countries support the treaty. Only in Britain do we have a major party opposed to the contents of the treaty."

Indeed, William Hague's speech for the Conservatives was long on jokes (no one can accuse Mr Hague of lacking a rhetorical flourish) but fell short on substance. At one point, he defended his party's opposition of the treaty on the grounds that it would "weaken democracy" by taking "more decision making away from democratic control". This argument simply does not stand up. In fact, the Lisbon Treaty, by making virtually all EU legislation subject to the prior scrutiny of national parliaments (with the power to object to a proposal) and to approval by both the Council of Ministers (representing national governments) and directly elected MEPs in the European Parliament. This would amount to a level of parliamentary scrutiny and democratic accountability that exists in no other international structure. To claim that this is a diminution of parliamentary democracy is no more than intellectual laziness.

My analogy that, just as the Lisbon Treaty is estimated to be 90% the same as the Constitutional Treaty, human beings and mice are 90% the same in terms of their DNA but the difference is pretty important, also made an appearance in Hansard, being quoted approvingly (and with acknowledgent) by the new Lib Dem Foreign Affairs spokesman Ed Davey, who also made a fine speech. It was also cheering to hear Nick Clegg's interview on Radio 4 this morning, during which he appeared to state that the Liberal Democrats would not support any Tory attempts to defeat the Government in demanding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Although the Lib Dems have a reputation for saying different things to please different people, voting in favour of a treaty that they support rather than voting against it in a bid to embarrass and score points against the Government, would be an honourable approach.

The June 2009 European elections will be upon us soon (whether or not there is a General Election at or near that time). Yorkshire Labour party's European Regional Policy Forum focused on this on Saturday.

Linda McAvan and I reported back to around 100 Labour Party members on our work in the European Parliament over the past year.

In discussion many people were keen to build a positive campaign based on the benefits that joint action at European can provide and on Labour MEP successes in defining and adopting common rules for the common market that protect consumers, workers’ rights and the environment.

In the afternoon Julian Scuola and Alexandra Pardal, from the Party of the European Socialists, spoke of the early work - which all party members are invited to contribute to - in preparing the PES election manifesto, which will eventually provide a common platform for all the Labour parties across the EU in the 2009 election.

Surprising as it may seem I barely mentioned the new treaty in my introductory speech, leaving it to my old friend and former Secretary General of the European Parliament, Sir Julian Priestley, one of the most articulate advocates of the case for Europe. He produced a very thorough explanation of what it contains, and why we should not have a referendum, managing as well to squeeze in an attack on the Eurosceptic lies and distortions.

Former Europe Minister Denis MacShane also made a cameo appearance, making the point that Europe was a wedge issue between Labour and the Tories and one that should be exploited.

Yesterday's Commons debate on the European Council was marked by the pompous and unconstructive Euroscepticism of every Conservative that took part in the debate, with the sole exception of David Curry. David Cameron's speech made absolutely no reference to the future agenda of the EU - in stark contrast to Gordon Brown's presentation of a paper looking at the way that the EU can contribute to economic prosperity, security, job creation and tackling climate change. This paper serves as Britain's agenda for the future of the EU in the 21st century. Indeed, as Gordon put it, "it is right that Europe now focuses not on more institutional change, but on the reforms that are needed to meet the challenges of the global era".

It was interesting to hear Michael Connarty's contribution to the debate. The Conservatives have made much of the report by the European Scrutiny Committee (chaired by Mr Connarty) on the treaty, citing a passage in the report stating that "the new Treaty is substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty", conveniently forgetting to include the previous half of the sentence which states that this is only the case for countries that "have not requested derogations or opt-outs from the full range of agreements in the Treaty". This is yet another example of the way Eurosceptics use selective quotation to mislead and distort debate on the EU.

Indeed, as Michael Connarty pointed out, Britain does have derogations and opt-outs which mean that, as far as Britain as concerned, the Lisbon Treaty is significantly different from the Constitution.

I was particularly struck by David Winnick's comment that most of the Tory objections to the treaty "amount to little more than xenophobia". It is a sad indictment of the Conservative leadership that, even though they have quietly drafted an "Alternative Treaty" that is very similar to the Reform Treaty, they none the less give free reign to the obsessive Eurosceptics in their party, An example of how they are losing control of their extremist wing is the Early Day Motion tabled by Bill Cash and John Redwood. It calls for the Government to reject the Reform Treaty and for a referendum to be held on it either before or AFTER ratification.

This implies that, in the (albeit unlikely) event of the Tories winning the next election, they would hold a referendum after the treaty entered into force, and campaign for a 'no' vote. If they won it, the other 26 EU countries would almost certainly refuse to agree to re-open the treaty and completely re-write it. Britain would be offered a simple choice - are you in or out of the EU. This, of course, is what Messrs Cash and Redwood know and want. It will certainly be interesting to see which Tories sign this EDM.

I was delighted to speak, along with David Miliband, Gary and Mary Creagh (with an impromptu contribution from Neil Kinnock) at a packed LME meeting at Labour Party Conference yesterday.

The thrust of the debate was on how Europe could help achieve environmental targets, fight climate change, amplify the effectiveness of development policy, boost economic growth, help combat trans-national crime and so on. The proposed Reform Treaty was also mentioned, but aroused little controversy, with no-one opposing it or calling for a referendum. The Sun's bus, spouting fumes and causing traffic jams as it drives up and down the road outside the conference centre, and displaying posters predicting the end of the world as we know it if the treaty is approved, has not impressed delegates.

I wonder how much The Sun has spent on its attempt to sabotage the reform of the EU. Double decker advertising hoardings, thousands of leaflets and the first six pages of today's issue, must constitute one of the most blatent attempts ever to bounce a government into following the agenda of a media baron.

Last night I went head to head with Graham Stringer on BBC Radio 4, debating the proposed EU treaty.

You can listen to the whole discussion by clicking on the link on the Westminster Hour webpage here.

Another useful link:

John Redwood's latest return from the wilderness won him extensive headlines with his deregulation, red tape-cutting policy proposals. Many people couldn't believe the Conservatives returned to Redwood, though many of his ideas went down well with the right-wing press.

The TUC has produced a paper on what Tory deregulation, including the Working Time Directive, would mean. It's also a useful guide to what the EU's Social Chapter actually is. Click here to read.

The Telegraph published a bizarre insight into the world of Euroscepticism recently in this article by Ruth Lea.

She wondered "who will raise the alarm" about Brussels "being out to clobber the City". Perhaps the reason no-one has, is that there is nothing to be alarmed about.

"Brussels", after all, is simply where we meet our fellow members of the EU to negotiate on common rules for our common market. The idea that the rest of them are out to get us is uttertly ridiculous, especially as they all benefit from a well-performing City!

By all means, work hard to get the details of the Financial Services Action Plan right. If we do, the City will reap substantial benefits. But to brand the whole idea as a "Brussels" plot on the basis of figures from "Open Europe" - an anti-EU campaign group - and to dismiss the constructive approach of the government as biased is standing the world on its head!

Labour is not given much credit for its environmental policies. Yet, in its 10 years in power, it has introduced, to name just the main measures,:

* The climate change levy
* The renewable energy obligation
* The energy efficiency commitment, subsidising energy efficiency projects and home insulation
* Differential car tax
* Company car tax based on emissions, not mileage
* Zero stamp-duty on carbon-neutral homes
* Measures to green government procurement

As a result, the 28 percent increase in Britain’s GDP since Labour came to power has been accompanied by a fall in greenhouse gas emissions of eight percent and in CO2 of one percent, breaking the link – for the first time since the industrial revolution – between economic growth and pollution. An important turn-around, even if much more remains to be done.

Labour, indeed, has taken the lead in getting the whole of Europe to sign up to the target of reducing CO2 emissions by 20 percent over the next 12 years. The plans also include the ambitious target of generating 20 percent of the EU's fuel from renewable sources while increasing the use of bio-fuels up to 10 percent.

Shame that a couple of Labour MPs, who lost their ministerial jobs several years ago and are no doubt disappointed at not returning to ministerial office under Gordon Brown, have sought to embarrass him by calling for a referendum on the proposed EU Reform Treaty.

They made their calls in the Eurosceptic Tory press (Frank Field in the Sun and Gisela Stuart in the Sunday Telegraph), knowing that, there at least, they would obtain a headline or two. I somehow doubt Gordon will be impressed by such disloyal tactics, but there is always a danger that it might influence the odd party member, especially if they believe the nonsense that they wrote on the subject, which could well have been drafted for them by Bill Cash or UKIP. Frank Field even tells the outright lie that the new treaty would mean Britain giving up its seat at the UN Security Council.

It's now been several days since the outline of an EU Reform Treaty was agreed at the European Council summit, and the Open Europe/Tory/UKIP campaign against it has got off to a bad start. Despite being loud and shrill it is clearly not convincing many people.

Although Open Europe are fond of claiming that British businesses are sceptical about the EU and the benefits of the internal market, this is not borne out by the evidence. A poll released by Business for New Europe showed that 52% of business leaders supported the new Treaty with just 31% opposed. The Confederation of European Business (Business Europe), which includes the CBI, is the latest organisation to welcome the proposed new treaty, saying that "the European Union comes out reinforced and reinvigorated".

Meanwhile, in the House of Commons, Tony Blair used his penultimate appearance as Prime Minister to demolish David Cameron in a debate over the new treaty. While the usual suspects on the Tory benches, led by Bill Cash and David Heathcoat-Amory, made their outlandish claims about 'Brussels' taking over Britain, Ken Clarke pointed out to his hapless 'leader' that the provision in the new treaty to increase the role of national parliaments in EU legislation was one of the recommendations made by the Conservative party's "Democracy Taskforce". Cameron could not produce a single substantive reason why a referendum should be held on the treaty and was, as Blair pointed out, just "going through the motions".

The surprise defection of Quentin Davies from the Tory benches to Labour was a huge shock to Cameron and marked the end of a very successful final week for Tony Blair. Davies, who was the Chairman of the Conservative Group on Europe, denounced his leader in an incendiary letter saying that the Tory party had "ceased to believe in anything" and that "a sense of mission had been replaced by a PR agenda". He added that he could not remain in the Conservative party if it sought to leave the European People's Party.

Quentin Davies is the thirteenth MP or MEP to leave the Conservatives to join Labour or the Lib Dems since 1992. During this time, just two Conservative peers have joined UKIP. Mr Davies' defection underlines how Europhile Tories have been marginalised by successive party leaders and that after fifteen years of vicious infighting, the pro-Europeans are still being pushed out.

Have just seen an utterly ridiculous press release from the Conservative leader Tim Kirkhope MEP, accusing Labour MEPs of being “in chaos” and contradicting the government’s position on the Constitutional Treaty in today’s vote in the European Parliament.

The Tories desperately cobbled together a press release with some outrageously selective editing of the report; once the report is read in full it is quite clear the press release is complete tosh.

The Conservative press release reads: “17 Labour MEPs voted in favour of the Brok report which committed the European Parliament to ‘reaffirm its commitment to achieving a settlement of the ongoing constitutional process of the European Union which is based on the content of the Constitutional Treaty, possibly under a different presentation’"

A quick glance at the actual report shows that the paragraph above (paragraph six) is cut off mid-sentence. It actually finishes “but taking account of the difficulties that have arisen in some Member States" – the key point which they deliberately cut out.

The Tories also conveniently ignored any mention of the following paragraph (paragraph seven unsurprisingly), which is also the exact position of the Labour government, namely to have an inter-governmental conference this autumn to negotiate a new treaty.

It will be interesting to see if this weak concoction actually makes the papers. Hopefully not, but if it does it will not have been the first time an absurd Tory press release from Europe has made column inches in some of the right-wing rags.

I had the pleasure today of attending the launch of the Centre for Women in Democracy - a new organisation based in the North of England working to increase the representation of women at all levels of public life. The Centre for Women in Democracy is the first think tank of its kind to be based in the North of England, whereas such things are traditionally based in London.

The event began with a fascinating speech by Jill Liddington, whose recent book, Rebel Girls: Their Fight for the Vote, tells of the struggle women from the Yorkshire region faced in their fight for suffrage in the beginning of the twentieth century. Next to talk was the Centre for Women in Democracy’s director Nan Sloane. Nan highlighted just how under-represented women still are at all levels of government and public life, quoting some very disturbing figures. Only 19.5% of MPs are female, 25.6% of UK MEPs are female, 27% of local councillors are female and perhaps more worryingly, just 2% of councillors are black and ethnic minority women. Last up was Hilary Armstrong MP, Minister for Social Exclusion, who spoke of the importance of women in politics and the barriers they face.

The European Parliament, which has over 30% female MEPs, is at least better than Westminster. Labour is well above average with 42% female MEPs. Unfortunately, the UK is let down by the Conservatives, who have just one female MEP (who has just announced her retirement), and UKIP who have none at all, together bringing the UK average down to just 25.6%.

For further information on the Centre For Women & Democracy please click here.

Well done to Calderdale's newest councillor, Judith Gannon, and everybody who helped Labour hold the Illingworth and Mixenden ward in Thursday's by-election.

With the two other seats in the ward held by the BNP it was imperative Labour held on to the seat which was long held by Tom McElroy, who
sadly died in December.

Judith picked up 1104 votes with the BNP beating the Conservatives and Lib Dems into second, though thankfully the far-right party did concede a swing of fiver percent to Labour.

Hopefully we can keep this momentum going in Halifax and unseat the BNP Councillors come May.

I was greatly amused to see the results of last week's council by-election in Croydon.

The Conservatives' campaign slogan for the Bensham Manor ward was "Send a message to Mr Blair!", which the locals promptly did by voting in Labour candidate Alison Butler by over a thousand votes, a swing of 10% to Labour!

You can view all the results here which reveal a couple more interesting issues. The UKIP candidate stood as a UKIP candidate and not as an Independence Party candidate and registered 40 votes; that's just 25 more than the Monster Raving Loony Party. There was also no BNP candidate which will not help UKIP fight the allegations that the parties have a deal not to stand for the same seat.

On a lighter note, I couldn't help but feel sorry for the People's Choice candidate who was anything but after managing just nine votes.

Going up in the lift in Strasbourg with Nigel Farage, he tells me that the Labour Party should be delighted with him and the inroads UKIP is making into the Tory party. I concured that even the darkest of clouds (UKIP) can have a silver lining.

Last week's defection of two Tory peers to UKIP, the revelation that nine Tory MPs have signed up to UKIP's 'Better Off Out!' manifesto and the announcement that two huge party donors (Stanley Kalms & Stuart Wheeler) may now throw their support behind UKIP, do indeed seem to be causing Cameron to panic.

He has told the Telegraph that he's the heir to Thatcher and promised to resist any European integration, to opt out from the Social Chapter, Keep the Pound, and oppose any new EU Constitution

So much for what he said in Brussels scarcely a month ago (see here.

But of course, he's caught in a cleft stick. Appear too reasonable on Europe, and lose some of his rabid eurosceptics to UKIP. Appear too eurosceptic, and lose credibility as a serious leader and lose votes to Labour or the Lib Dems.

That's why Cameron hopes Europe will go away as an issue, allowing him to ignore it. Unfortunately for him, the debate on the Constitutional Treaty, with the large majority of European countries having now ratified it and wanting to salvage as many as possible of the reforms it contains, will ensure that European issues will not go away.

And Farage is right to say that, in electoral terms, it is Labour that stands to gain.

The Royal Institute for Foreign Affairs (Chatham House) has published an interesting paper written by its outgoing director Professor Victor Bulmer-Thomas, which reviews Tony Blair's record on Foreign and European Affairs.

The paper argues that Labour’s first term, but not so much its second, should be judged as a success. A key factor in this was Blair’s first term ability to demonstrate Britain’s European credentials while forging a close working relationship with President Clinton. By contrast, the second term decision to invade a Iraq was a ‘terrible mistake’.

One of Labour's first acts in government was to sign the Amsterdam Treaty. Prof Bulmer-Thomas cites this as demonstrating that Britain was prepared to play a ‘constructive role in the European Union’ (and, I would add, in reforming it) while simultaneously offering the prospect of Britain joining the single currency. Similarly, he describes the decision in 1998 to incorporate the European Charter of Human Rights (albeit non-EU) into UK law as a positive step in showing that Britain was ‘at the heart of Europe’, and he comments favourably on Blair’s role in the St Malo summit with President Chirac, which put the foundations of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) on the basis of Anglo-French military cooperation.

The intervention alongside the USA in Iraq, just when Britain shied away from joining the Eurozone, turned the tide, with ‘Brussels’ sometimes 'portrayed as part of the problem rather than as part of the solution’.

Although he praises Blair’s empathy with the US, he describes Blair’s ‘failure to try to coordinate a European response’ in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks as ‘regrettable’. This, he contends, led to divisions within the EU over policy towards the US and gave the impression that Europe was:

‘Incapable of forming a geo-strategic view, that bilateral relations were the only ones that counted and that the Bush administration could count on British support no matter what policy it adopted’.

The European dimension of Blair’s foreign policy has also been effected by the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty, which Britain supported, by France and the Netherlands. This, together with the decline in public support for enlargement, the placing on hold of British accession to the euro, and a failure to persuade European leaders to take the ESDP seriously has, he says, put Blair’s European policy on the defensive, with the 2005 British Presidency of the EU Council being ‘essentially.... damage limitation’.

He adds that while Blair can taken credit for the fact that Britain is no longer the European ‘outsider’, its influence is limited while the ‘British public is still uncomfortable in its European skin’.

For the future, Bulmer-Thomas calls for a closer relationship with the rest of Europe, arguing that it is a requirement of British foreign policy and is likely to be urged on Britain by the next US president. He opines that a governing party such as Law and Justice in Poland does not help the US by ‘combining a strong Atlanticist streak with Europhobia’.

Furthermore, he claims that:

‘What US governments want is a European Union that can make a real contribution to the international political and security agenda, and any European government with the diplomatic skills to deliver EU support will be hugely appreciated’.

In the light of this, he says that for Britain to play this role as a power broker with the US, and to be taken seriously by its European partners, it must ‘revisit its opposition to joining both the Schengen agreement and the Eurozone’.

He worries that the most likely candidates to replace Blair are 'strongly Atlanticist’, uncomfortable with a closer relationship with the EU, whereas what Britain needs is less unconditional support for US foreign policy initiatives and better balance of UK foreign policy between Europe and the US.

The government is about to take a position on the issue of switching to QMV (qualified majority voting, where the EU Council of Ministers can take decisions by over 71% of the votes) instead of unanimity (100% of the votes) for some types of EU decisions in the field of judicial co-operation. This would be a possibility if the so-called "Passarelle" (bridge) clause of the current treaties were used to transfer matters from the EU’s “Third pillar” to the “Community Pillar”. Under the latter, governments have the option of changing from a procedure requiring unanimity in the Council of Ministers and no parliamentary approval to one allowing QMV with parliamentary approval. It should also be pointed out that Britain anyway has the right to opt-in or stay out of measures adopted in this field of policy.

The House of Lords EU Committee has pointed out that there is a problem in resisting change to QMV in fields where, under the protocol for Britain and Ireland, we anyway have the right to opt-in or out of the decisions taken. The Lords report on this matter said that as “the UK would not have to participate in proposals brought forward, the Government will need to consider carefully whether the UK should stand in the way of other member states deciding to transfer criminal law competence to the Community”.

The Lords also point to the advantages of QMV in terms of decision taking. They point to the paralysis suffered by the requirement for unanimity among 25-27 national governments highlighting the time taken to agree the European evidence warrant and the failure to make progress on the framework decision on procedural rights in criminal proceedings for people charged in other member states. The Lords report says – “we believe that the proposal deserves careful examination and caution against any knee-jerk reactions resulting from media coverage”.

The Law Society also considers that “the full incorporation of the Justice and Home Affairs pillar into the Community structure offers the best guarantees that the rights and freedoms that are in the interests of individuals will be balanced against the security concerns of the member states”.

It is therefore all the more shocking to read the language used by the Commons scrutiny committee. Granted, this committee has always attracted rabid Eurosceptics like Tory MPs Bill Cash and David Heathcoat-Amory, but it has generally had a pro-Europe majority. Yet, it is now arguing against the proposal , describing the “passarelle” as a “gangplank” and questioning “whether it would be acceptable for the European Parliament to have the right of co-decision on measures (…) when most of its Members do not represent and are not answerable to the electorate of the UK”?

This is a remarkable argument. By analogy, from a Welsh (or a Scottish) perspective, is it acceptable for the Westminster Parliament to take decisions when most of its Members do not represent and are not answerable to the electorate of Wales (or Scotland)?

Whatever level a decision is to be taken, the Parliament of that level should be involved. If a matter is to be decided at EU level (which we should decide on objective usefulness or otherwise of having common decisions in these areas), then the European Parliament will be involved - and of course it contains non-Brits!

Michael Connarty MP, the (Scottish) Labour chair of the Committee, may find he is inadvertently giving succour to SNP diatribes against Westminster!

I was delighted to see Ed Balls's initiative today on EU financial management. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury has taken up the European Parliament's suggestion that each Member State government take full auditing responsibility for its own EU budget spending (80% of EU spending is carried out by national governments).

He has announced that the UK will do this. It will in future provide a written statement on how EU funds have been spent in Britain. This statement will have to be cleared by the National Audit Office.

In doing so, Britain will lead by example. Other EU governments will find it difficult to resist pressure to do likewise. Indeed, Ed said he would urge all other member states to follow suit when he meets fellow finance ministers in Brussels on Tuesday.

He also warmley welcomed the House of Lords Report which I mentioned in my blog last Tuesday (14 November). This, he said, "serves to dispel some popular myths about fraud and corruption in the EU", which the Lords indeed said was minimal.

But financial management systems can be improved, especially at Member State level where most of the problems of not fully complying with procedures has occured. As Ed Balls said: "While we have been making some progress, it's not fast enough."

Well done, Ed!

I am delighted that my fellow Labour MEPs have re-elected me as their Deputy Leader. Only a write-in vote for "Ronnie Corbett" denied me a completely unanimous re-election. Evidently, I must be careful not to garner a reputation for long-winded, rambling speeches littered with weak jokes!

Leader Gary Titley was also re-elected by a large majority. We serve a term of office that lasts until the 2009 European elections.

Curiously, it means that each major UK political party has a Leader or Deputy Leader in the European Parliament from Yorkshire, with Timothy Kirkhope in charge of the Conservative MEPs and Diana Wallis of the Liberals.

Saturday’s European Policy Forum in Sheffield was a great success with over 100 people in attendance and everything from the Tinsley towers to climate change in Kenya discussed.

The forum gives myself and my colleague Linda McAvan MEP the chance to report back about our work in the Parliament and what we achieved over the last year.

Two other themes of this year’s event were multiculturalism and migration with Dutch MEP Jan Marinus Wiersma speaking about the former and TUC Regional Secretary Bill Adams talking about the latter.

Like the UK, Holland is in a debate about multiculturalism, which became highly charged following the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a religious fundamentalist, and Jan Marinus stressed how dangerous the current, narrow, media-spun view of Islam is. Yet, positive role models, like PSV Eindhoven football player Ismaïl Aissati are helping Holland understand and talk about Islam away from the stereotypes that so normally abound.

The afternoon then focused on migration with Linda's researcher, Chris Read, offering a plethora of statistics which gave an illuminating portratit of the current situation in the UK.

Of the eastern-European migrants that have come to the UK, 82 per cent are aged between 18 and 34 with 93 per cent arriving with no dependents. The most common statistic banded about by the media is that there is thought to be 600,000 migrants from eastern-European EU countries in the UK but one example of how statistics can be misleading is the fact that those leaving are not even counted!

Most worrying though is the fact that 78 per cent only earn between £4.50 (which is of course well below the minimum wage) and £5.99 an hour.

Bill Adams then concentrated on the problems some eastern-European immigrants have suffered and left much of the room shocked at the levels of exploitation by unscrupulous employers occurring in this country.

One of many horror stories featured an agency which charged so much money for signing-on fees, administration and rent (for a bed in a room with up to eight others) that some workers were left with a big fat zero in their pay packet. Not wanting to miss another insidious trick the agency then offered the exploited workers loans with exorbitant interest rates. Other agencies have been telling workers that joining a trade union is illegal.

As I have mentioned before on the blog the trade unions are aware of the problems and have taken the lead to inform migrants and British workers about their rights.

But these incidents also show why we need to agree on the proposed EU Temporary Agency Directive, which has been held up for some time by deadlock between governments in the EU Council of Ministers. It's high time for movement on this issue!

The government will this week announce its decision on whether to allow Bulgarians and Romanians the right to seek employment in the UK as of 1 January, the day of their accession to the EU, or whether to postpone the right for a transitional period.

We all know that more people than expected came to Britain when 10 other countries joined the EU two years ago. But in the main, this has been a positive experience. They have filled gaps in our job market, paid far more tax than they have received benefits, and given an extra boost to our economy.

Of course, there have been some problems too. A few struggle with their English which can obviously cause safety problems while large numbers of young men in particular locations can cause difficulties. Although most have not brought families, those that have tend to congregate in the same areas and are inclined to use the same (normally catholic) schools.

Unfortunately there have also been cases of unscrupulous employers who have exploited migrants by pressuring them to accept poor conditions and low wages. But as I have said recently on the blog, this is something the trade unions have been quick to realise. The TUC’s guide to employment rights for migrant workers is particularly useful and is available in several languages. It also puts the traditional workforce and new arrivals on the same side, defending their common rights.

In these circumstances, it would be a pity if the government were to cave in to the tabloid clamour and postpone the access of Romanians and Bulgarians to the UK labour market. Access has proven to bring considerably more benefits than disadvantages. A (relatively) small extension to two more countries won't change that equation.

But above all, the consequences of restricting access should be thought through. It would not stop Romanians and Bulgarians coming to Britain - they have that right anyway. It would simply stop them taking official employment. The likelihood is that many will take unofficial employment, unregistered, unregulated and unprotected. They will be wide open to abuse and exploitation. They will not contribute taxes. Any media kudos gained in the short term will quickly be lost when the press inevitably exposes illegal workers from Bulgaria and Romania. Far better that they be officially registered. It would minimise the problems and maximise the benefits.

In reality, this is not so much a Home Office matter as one for the DTI, the Dept of Work & Pensions and not to mention the Foreign Office for its EU repercussions. In other words the government must take a collective decision and not be bounced.

It was interesting to see that most of the traditional Tory newspapers did not deem David Cameron’s closing speech to the Conservative Party Conference worthy of the front page.

Indeed the only national paper to dedicate their leading story on the front page to Cameron was the Telegraph, which focused on his insistence that the Tories must abandon their outdated views on gay relationships and single parents. Judging by the staid faces of many of the Tory delegates caught on camera by the BBC, he has plenty of convincing to do.

He also has plenty of convincing to do outside the party. As my colleague Michael Cashman pointed out in a letter to the Guardian: “Despite having voted against nearly every measure on equality for lesbians and gay men in the UK, they still claim themselves to be the all-welcoming, all-inclusive new Tory party.”

This is not forgetting the record of the Tory MEPs who, the vast majority of, have failed to condemn homophobic and xenophobic violence and also abstained from supporting a programme which helped victims of domestic violence.

So, Labour Conference over, and I hope you enjoyed looking at Jonathon Roberts's blog.

Another Parliament week over too, so I only saw Tony Blair's speech on TV from Strasbourg - but what a performance!

Yesterday, I was interviewed by the "p.m." programme on BBC Radio 4, on what I thought of the absence of much debate on Europe at the Conference, something Commissioner Wallstrom had commented on in her blog. Questions soon centered on Gordon Brown's speech - a very good speech, but with no mention of Europe.

Even when he said he was proud to be Scottish and British, he didn't add "and European", which would have been particularly appropriate the day after Europe's Ryder Cup triumph in a sport that was invented, after all, in Scotland!

Does he want to keep quiet on his European policy? Or does he think it not important? Or is he still pondering on it? Who knows. It certainly contrasted with the view of one of his closest confidents, Ed Balls, who in a fringe meeting said Britain's constructive engagement with the rest of Europe was the most important issue facing us over the next decade.

David Milliband too was a powerful advocate of acting at European level - not surprising as he is minister for an issue on which national action alone is less useful, namely the environment. He said that, in peoples minds, the letters "EU" should stand for "Environmental Union".

There were in all a dozen fringe meetings on Europe at party conference, with just one Eurosceptical one from the "common market safeguards campaign", a throwback to the 1970s. Whatever the detailed views of Gordon Brown turn out to be, the party as a whole remains pretty committed to Europe - an improved and enlarged EU, of course, but not an unravelled one.

Party Conference has an unusual atmosphere: the first time in years
that it's not at a seaside resort!

I will not blog on the Conference, as I am off to Strasbourg Tuesday,
but refer readers instead to the blog of Jonathon Roberts, executive member of the LME. Jonathan, 24 years old, works in my office and he won a competition to be the official Labour Conference blogger. He has done a blog for his CLP, Thirsk + Malton, and his Conference blog will, I'm sure, be equally frank and entertaining.

The following is an extract of an email I recently received from a prominent Labour councillor in my constituency:

"Some good comments on your blog about Tony Blair and the continual demands for a Blair to go now.

I'm perfectly happy for MPs to have whatever views they wish in private, and will be quite happy to see Tony replaced by Gordon Brown, John Reid or any other potential replacement (I would draw the line at John McDonnell, I have to say) .....

But why can't we have any of our arguments in private?

Meanwhile, we seem to want to allow the public to sleepwalk into the idea that all the achievements of the last eight years - full employment, investment in health and education, the pledge to eradicate child poverty, help for working families, real regeneration of our inner cities and urban areas, etc, etc, - will just carry on without concern if we let Cameron and his Tories in."

Sentiments I echo heartily.

Charles Clarke has returned to the news headlines since talking publicly about his dismissal from the cabinet, but on Tuesday night he spoke at a Socialist Group conference in Brussels.

The conference focused on fighting terrorism and how to ensure security without infringing on citizens rights – a common challenge for governments across Europe. In his excellent speech, Charles offered an insight into his immense knowledge on the subject.

He also sensitively covered the importance of better relationships with Muslim communities – a challenge that different European countries have addressed in quite different ways, but where comparing best practice shows that Britain has done far better than most.

On terrorism, there are some common measures that EU countries have agreed to take jointly, such as the European Arrest Warrant that enabled Britain to obtain rapid extradition of the suspected London bomber who escaped to Italy.

Shame that even such patently useful forms of co-operation are lambasted by Eurosceptics as being “too federalist” or an “attempt to get the constitution in by the back door”.

I was delighted to see that the new team at the Foreign Office - Margaret Beckett as Foreign Secretary and Geoff Hoon as European Minister - have actually gone out to start making the case for Europe.

In a speech to the House of Commons on the 14th June, Margaret Becket said:

"Many of the challenges which we face as a country can only be met if we work together with our European partners.

"Let me give one classic example – that of the environment, not least of climate change. Many of the substantial environmental improvements we have seen in the UK in recent years - cleaner air, cleaner water - have been driven by regulations agreed at an EU level, and so can be said to be 'due' to the EU.

"Equally, there can be little doubt that climate change is the greatest long-term threat facing the world. It will have a direct impact on the lives of people in this country and across the EU. And it is something on which people across Europe are demanding that their Governments take action.

"But neither the United Kingdom nor any other Member State can hope to succeed through unilateral action. Carbon emissions anywhere affect the climate everywhere. International consensus and international action within and beyond the borders of the EU is an imperative.

"Because, under this Government, the United Kingdom's voice is recognised and respected within Europe, we have been at the forefront of European Union efforts to tackle climate change.

"Those efforts have led to concerted action among the 25 member states to reduce their own carbon emissions. There is still much more to do – but what we have already achieved would have been unthinkable if we needed to rely solely on a network of bilateral agreements.

"And beyond the EU it is as a negotiating group that we have a much stronger voice on the international stage. In 5 years of climate change negotiations culminating in Montreal, I have seen it demonstrated time and time again. That the EU plays a pivotal role in brokering agreement. A role we could not play and an agreement that - e.g. in Montreal – we would not have reached if Europe had not spoken with a single voice."

On the same day at a speech to the Centre for European Reform, Geoff Hoon said:

"Let me give you another example. Mobile phone costs. Over the past 20 years, falling costs in mobile (and fixed) phone bills, including working towards the abolition of the exorbitant mobile 'roaming’ fees have been driven by removing the barriers to competition between telecoms companies across the EU.

"The liberalisation of the telecoms sector was a key UK objective. It underpinned exactly what the creation of the single market was about. But freeing up competition in a highly profitable, but technical area like telecoms meant getting the detail right - and tackling powerful national vested interests - in every country. So we had to agree a major package of detailed measures.

"Some of you will remember the mundane sounding 'electronic communication framework' - to set the essential changes in stone. But those changes were fairly revolutionary in the context of the massive, largely State-run telecoms monopolies of the day. It meant separating the regulation of the industry completely from Government control.

"Tasking the newly-independent regulators with investigating how open every aspect of their national markets were to competition. Using the Commission to push deregulation forward. Reducing the power of existing State-owned providers. It sounds dry and bureaucratic rather than revolutionary, but the effect has been dramatic. On average, business users have been paying 30% less for their calls since 1992. Residential users are paying 16% less in call charges and subscriptions. The cost of a fixed line call has fallen by more than 50% since 1984. And the process of liberalisation is continuing, as the technology develops. "

On Wednesday, Geoff Hoon (Minister for Europe) gave a speech on the benefits of being in the European Union and by all accounts it was very warmly received.

The lowering of mobile phone calls costs, environmental standards and cheap flights were all given prominence, but Geoff also pointed out that British people tend to take the benefits of being in the EU for granted.

Picking up on this point a Spanish journalist enquired why Britain does not give more credit to the EU for the positive things it does. The journalist pointed out that in Spain, a road built with EU money will be adorned with signs telling everyone who paid for it.

Perhaps if we followed Spain’s lead more of the British public would not take the EU for granted so much. Some things, like the positive effect the EU has on our economy, are difficult to highlight (especially with a sign!) but there are plenty of other opportunities to celebrate the EU. One good example is Britain’s beaches,