Green Lane sets an example for us all to follow

Thanks to an email from a constituent called Ian Lewis I was pleased to discover that Britain's "greenest street" is in Yorkshire & Humber.

Green Lane, in Leeds, took part and won the Green Streets initiative which involved several streets from across the country competing to see who could save the most energy.

While the houses on the streets were given help (such as solar panels and loft and wall insulation), most of the savings came from simply turning things off at the mains, not leaving lights on, cooking more efficiently, not over-filling kettles and ditching the odd appliance. The savings made were astonishing, with Mr Lewis and his family reducing energy consumption by 45%, with Green Lane managing an average of 35%.

As Mr Lewis points out, if we were all to follow Green Lane's example across Britain, Europe and the rest of the world, we could start having an immediate and significant impact on climate change.

These are very easy changes we can all make and must start making. And if we do, we'll not only start having a real impact on the environment we’ll have more money in our pockets too.

Congratulations to all involved in Green Lane's triumph and lets hope everyone else follows in their footsteps.

Click here and here for a little more on the Green Streets initiative

Protecting the Amazon

Today, along with other MEPs on the Andean Delegation, I wrote to the President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa Delgado, to voice my support for his decision to protect the Ecuadorian Amazon from further destruction.

The Yasuní Park covers an area of 6,100 square kilometres of the Amazon rainforest and is one of the most bio diverse regions in the world. It is home to the Waorani, Kichwa and Shuar communities, some of the few indigenous communities left in the Amazon today. The Park is teeming with rare animal species and plant life.

However, under the rainforest canopy and the rich soil of the Yasuní Park there is oil, and many are keen to exploit the reserves. Nevertheless, President Rafael Correa Delgado, is well aware of the environmental importance of the site and in February of this year he decided to leave the oil of the Yasuní Park unexploited and to establish an indefinite term for this decision (decree No. 1572 of February 2009).

Indeed, allowing development in this area would cause contamination, deforestation, the extinction of cultures. There are severe global implications of developing the largest natural rainforest in the world too. In a time of such concern over the future effects of climate change on human health, we should be supporting efforts to prevent any further deforestation of the world's largest tropical rainforest and river basin.

The Ecuadorian President proposes an alternative to exploiting the area for oil. He appeals to the national and international community for compensation to implement this expensive national decision.

Given the global environmental implications of developing this area, this is not an unreasonable demand. Germany has already committed to promoting the initiative inside the EU and the OECD. The British government, the Spanish and the Italians, as well as multilateral organisations and several high profile individuals have also given their support to the idea.

We can hope that now with the fresh commitment of President Correa of Ecuador to protect the Yasuní Park, international support will be forthcoming, as there is an important global dimension to this issue.

Shedding some light on the right wing paper’s panic over lightbulbs

Much hysteria about lightbulbs this week, as it was announced major stores were running out of 100 watt incandescent lightbulbs after retailers voluntarily agreed to stop selling them ahead of an EU ban on the sale of them from September.

The right-wing papers mourned the passing of the 100 watt bulb as if electricity itself was going to be phased out and replaced by candles, rather than by a more environmentally friendly, efficient and cost effective replacement as the Express's headline "EU's barmy idea to ban lightbulbs" suggests.

The Daily Mail began its report with, "Millions of Britons are finally waking up to the fact that their beloved light bulb will disappear for good after 120 years" as if the 100 watt lightbulb is revered as some kind of national treasure, only discussed with tear-stained eyes, a lump in the throat and accompanied by a stirring rendition of Jerusalem.

And depsite the Mail's headline, "Revolt! Robbed of their right to buy traditional light bulbs, millions are clearing shelves of last supplies", the comments section of their webpage suggests most people don't really care or are in favour of the newer lightbulbs. In fact such is the extent of the Mail's misjudged mania over the bulbs, readers take to mocking the story for its lack of logic and scant regard to facts.

The Mail reports that supermarkets and hardware stores are running out of the bulbs. Well of course they are, that's what they are trying to do! It is perfectly logical that 100 watt bulbs will be harder to find as stocks diminish. The fact the paper itself has 25,000 free 100 watt lightbulbs to give away hardly suggests they have become impossible to source items.

Then there is the implication that 100 watt light bulbs are cheaper. They may well be cheaper to buy but energy efficient bulbs last far longer and reduce the amount of electricity used, so in fact work out significantly cheaper.

The Mail's flag-waving about "Britons" and "their beloved lightbulbs" alongside the usual fingerpointing at the EU is made to look ridiculous by their accompanying piece entitled, "What Happens Overseas", which reveals that Cuba, Australia, the United States, Canada, Brazil, Venezuela and Switzerland have already or intend to ban 100 watt bulbs.

There is no doubt the odd person who is unhappy that, eventually, they will not be able to buy 100 watt incandescent lightbulbs but if we are to combat climate change then these are the sort of small changes we have to make. The fact you can save £7 of electricity per energy efficient bulb each year highlights this is not just an easy way to reduce the amount of energy we use but an easy way of saving some money. And somehow I doubt that at the current time few people will be planning to "revolt" about that.

2008 - a good year for the EU?

Mark Mardell, the BBC’s Europe editor, said in his blog today that “For the European project's enthusiasts 2008 has been a good year.”

He focuses on foreign affairs, with the EU brokering the Georgia ceasefire, setting up its Kosovo mission and sending a joint fleet of warships to the Somalia coast to protect shipping from pirates. He also refers to the financial crisis and the fact that “the euro has weathered the storm better than the pound” and all EU countries eventually reached “agreement on a coordinated plan to stimulate the economy”.

In my view, the biggest EU achievement this year has been the climate change package, and he could have dwelt more on that. The package does not just proclaim targets, but brings in measures to achieve them. It creates binding Europe-wide laws on emission limits for vehicles, renewable obligations, carbon trading and so on. It finances pilot projects for carbon capture and storage. It brings aviation in to the Emission Trading Scheme, which it strengthens.
This is a good example of using the EU to do more than we can achieve just by ourselves, and where Europe is leading the world ahead of the Copenhagen climate change talks.

But, as ever in the BBC, Mark feels he has to give a sop to the eurosceptics. He buys their line on the question of the Irish response to the Lisbon treaty and does not even mention the fact that almost every other member country has approved the treaty. He refers to the Irish government’s plan to seek concessions and then hold a new referendum as “the leaders of EU countries and the commission deciding that Ireland should vote again” – sorry, Mark, neither the other countries nor the Commission have any such power, only the Irish parliament can decide, if it wants, whether to hold a new referendum.

He quotes approvingly (“a stroke of brilliance”) the phrase "They don't know the meaning of the word 'No'" and refers to the EU being "an unstoppable juggernaut". Come off it, Mark! The EU can only change its rulebook (the treaties) with the unanimous consent of every single Member State. The dice are loaded in favour of the eurosceptics, who only need to obtain one single 'No'.

As it turns out, Ireland, as the single 'No', has offered to reconsider (it's still their choice), in exchange for other countries trying to meet their concerns (e.g. on the number of Commissioners, on neutrality, taxation, conscription, etc). It is actually Ireland that can, if it wants, “bully” the other countries into making concessions, not the other way around!

In fact, as ever in a grouping of 27 sovereign countries, there will be an attempt to find a compromise, to bridge the gap, to meet halfway and to try and find a solution that is acceptable to all 27 countries. This is not to ignore the result of the Irish referendum - it is to respond to the result, look at the concerns that were expressed and try to meet them. I very much hope that will be sufficient to enable a positive result in a new referendum to be held in the autumn, when it will be up to the Irish people to make their choice. Is that so unreasonable?It was, after all, the leader of the NO campaign who said the result was a mandate to the Irish government to negotiate a better deal.

A successful summit

After frantic negotiations, the European Council summit has ended with success on a number of fronts, with agreement on how to tackle both long and short-term political problems.

The summit ended with agreements that will enable the EU to meet its previously agreed targets (to cut carbon emissions by 20%, to increase use of renewable energy by 20%, and also achieve a cut of 20% in energy use by 2020 as compared with 1990 levels).

Given the strident opposition from several eastern European countries and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, it is an impressive feat that a deal was reached. Indeed, John Kerry as US representative at the UN climate conference in Poznan, has already described the deal as "an enormous act of leadership". The package also enables the EU to revive its pledge to cut emissions by 30% provided the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen next year agrees to a new deal as well.

The other pressing problem facing the summit was how to tackle the financial crisis and economic downturn. Despite the apparent spat between our Government and the Germans on how best to respond, EU leaders have announced a €200 billion stimulus package - the equivalent of roughly 1.5% of total gross domestic product in the EU. Although the precise details of the package will be ironed out over the next few days, they will include a combination of tax cuts,extra financial support for small businesses and an acceleration of public spending projects. Although individual Member States will be able to opt-out of specific measures with which they disagree, it is good news that, rather than leave all countries to 'go it alone' and so increasing economic turmoil, EU countries have come together to seek a co-ordinated response.

The discussion of how to salvage the Lisbon Treaty was, to most, the least important item on the agenda at this week's European summit - no one would argue that the EU's institutional framework is more important than the future of the planet and mitigating the effects of the economic downturn. But the deal struck maintains the package of institutional reforms that will allow the EU to be better able to deal with these long-term political problems. As I reported yesterday, the Irish government can claim a notable diplomatic victory and the 27 governments can show that the issues raised in the no campaign have been listened to and responded to.

EU closing in on vital climate change package

This week's plenary session in Brussels was dominated by the climate change and energy package. The negotiations between Parliament, Council and Commission to agree a deal at first reading in Strasbourg in two weeks time have been proceeding well. There is still some way to go, however, and it is vital that all sides make the last effort to reach an agreement.

To be acceptable to Parliament the package of measures must be sufficiently vigorous for us to achieve the agreed EU targets of a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions and a 20%increase in renewables by the year 2020 - but also to enable us to go further and raise this up to 30% in the event of an international agreement. I am also pleased that there seems to be agreement that the biofuels target should be subject to strict sustainability criteria, ensuring that biofuels would not have a detrimental impact on food prices.

The debate also displayed some of the worst aspects of the European Tory delegation. Roger Helmer ignored the hard science of man-made climate change caused by our high carbon emissions, claiming that "the threat is not posed by global warming, but by policy responses which would "have a devastating economic effect". Such arguments are not only scientifically bone-headed but also economically suspect. The sad irony is that the reaction to Tories like Helmer on climate change is similar to their proposed response to the current financial crisis: do nothing. But doing nothing on climate change now could, as with failing to stimulate our economy, cause widespread human suffering and serious economic decline further down the line. In taking action now, we can not only negate these potential costs but also, as exists already in some parts of the world and several European countries, develop 'green' jobs and a 'green' economy.

Some like Helmer and UKIP describe the climate change package as being extreme. If so, then I am an extremist - but let us be clear: moderation in the face of a threat to the very future of this planet would be no virtue and vigorous action no vice.

Press hyperbole on pesticides detracts from a serious debate

The British press has been at its hyperbolic and inaccurate best this morning. The issue in question is on the proposed directive to re-classify pesticides that comes before the European Parliament's Agriculture committee this week.

The Daily Telegraph started the bidding, declaring that "plans to cut the use of pesticides in European farming could double the price of vegetables", a bid that was matched by the Scottish Daily Record. Not to be outdone, the Daily Express out-trumped them both by stating that "hard-pressed families' fruit and vegetable bills will triple under controversial EU plans", adding that "the number of crops grown in Britain is set to be slashed if bureaucrats give the go-ahead".

Now, if any of the so-called "journalists" that penned this copy had bothered to do their homework, they might have come to somewhat different conclusions.

First of all, we are talking about proposals to phase out dangerous pesticides in our food that carry significant health risks.

Secondly, any such pesticides would not be immediately banned. Instead, most of them would remain on the market until 2016 to allow safer alternative products to be developed, while the process of gaining authorisation for a new farming pesticide will be made much quicker and easier. Even then, if the 2016 timeframe is not sufficient to develop new products, the current proposals provide a further 5 year derogation, to minimise adverse effects on agriculture and crop yields.

In other words, the proposed directive is expressly designed to prevent any adverse effects on the agricultural sector that would lead to higher food prices. There are certainly issues with the proposal - my Labour colleagues and I are not happy with some over-zealous aspects which we will seek to amend - but it is a question of getting the right balance in the detail. What a shame that these newspapers chose to create a scare story that must have had families up and down the country choking on their morning corn-flakes.

Tories a bundle of contradictions on climate change

I have followed some of the debates in the House of Commons on the Lisbon Treaty and I continue to be amazed at the disarray of the Tories.

I am told that over half the Conservative speaking time on this has been accounted for by just two MPs - Bill Cash and David Heathcoat-Amory. That the Conservatives allow these two extremely anti-Europe members dominate their contribution to this extent shows how far they have shifted in a Europhobic direction. These two denounce every aspect of the EU as the devil incarnate.

William Hague, by contrast, is now pursuing a different line. He says we don't need a new treaty reforming the EU because, in his words, "the EU is working perfectly well". Not a position Bill Cash would agree with!

The debate on the effect of the treaty on tackling climate change was a further illustration of Conservative incoherence. Two contrasting amendments were tabled by the Conservatives: one which stated that "the Treaty of Lisbon is effectively irrelevant to the vital issue of climate change" - (implying that the EU should be given more powers in tackling climate change), and another, which my regional colleague Hugh Bayley drew attention to, tabled by a number of senior Conservatives, including former leader Iain Duncan Smith and John Redwood, stating that the EU should have no role at all on climate change! Although this amendment was disowned by the Conservative front-bench team it offers another illustration of the Tories' divisions on Europe.

The reality is that we cannot effectively tackle climate change and raise environmental standards without being engaged with the EU - a point emphasised by John Gummer, one of the few moderate Conservatives on Europe, who said that "it is not possible to have an anti-European position and have any kind of environmental policy".

Climate change policy is one of the policy areas where collective rather than individual action is most effective. The unlikely deal reached at the Bali summit on climate change was an example of the clout of the EU when we have a united position. Already committed to unilateral emissions cuts of 20% by 2020, European countries were able to speak with authority and a common voice. Unwittingly, the Tory amendment, in describing the provisions on climate change as "institutional tinkering" revealed the shallow opportunism of their demands for a referendum. The point is that the Lisbon Treaty is about institutional tinkering rather than giving the EU new powers. Therefore, if the Tories accept that the treaty is about "institutional tinkering" then why do they want a referendum?

This is not to say that the Conservatives are all climate change deniers. Indeed, Nick Hurd, Greg Barker, Peter Ainsworth and John Gummer all made speeches emphasising the importance of the EU in tackling climate change. However, their approach in the European Parliament is summed up by their choice of Roger Helmer (who believes that climate change is "a journalistic fiction") as the Conservative member of the temporary committee on climate change.

David Cameron talks a good game on the environment, but Wednesday's debate offered ample demonstration of how the Tories are all over the place. In the words of Caroline Jackson, the only Conservative woman MEP: "from the point of view of the Conservative Party, pursuing the green line is all talk and no action".

Reducing carbon emissions requires legislation and an end to the Strasbourg sessions

Last week's European Parliament vote to ban patio heaters has caught the attention of the press, with Eurosceptics jumping on the opportunity to attack the EU. While a ban of patio heaters would be a small step in tackling climate change, it would nevertheless be a significant one. A Green Barometer survey predicts that the number of patio heaters in the UK alone will rise to 2.3 million in the near future, with the amount of CO2 they emit the equivalent to that emitted by driving from Lands End to John O'Groats 200,000 times! The patio heater is a particularly wasteful appliance
as it uses most of its energy heating the open air, while the Energy Savings Trust research indicates that most are used largely in July and August - the warmest months of the year. Surely it is legitimate to debate whether they are worth the emissions?

Of course, this is not to say that patio heaters are the only, or worst, culprits. In fact the widely publicised attempt to ban carbon heaters is part of a larger set of suggestions put forward to the European Commission that includes restricting or phasing out the standby mode on electrical appliances. The Commission already has a timetable for increasing the energy efficiency for a wide range of appliances, including light bulbs and TV set-top boxes. In the long run, the EU's stated aim - agreed to by all member countries - is to reduce overall emissions by at least 20% by 2020.

In a recent Guardian /ICM poll, 78% of respondents stated that the environment was an important issue in their voting decision, while a Sunday Mirror/ICM survey ranked climate change behind only health and crime as an issue respondents were most worried about. Why then the negative responses? If people are serious about tackling climate change then legislation against the most wasteful carbon emitting products is a necessary step.

Of course calls for the EU to get its own house in order are completely justified. The European Parliament is forced against its will to travel to Strasbourg 12 times a year. The trip may not contribute much in the great scheme of the things but the point is that everyone must make changes to battle climate change. Banning patio heaters requires personal sacrifices, while ending this monthly migration would not even be a sacrifice as far as most MEPs are concerned.

Britain's not being "forced" into anything

We all know combatting climate change means switching to clean, renewable energy. We know that Britain doing this alone would be futile. Our country gets other EU countries to agree with us to work together to reduce C02 emissions by 20 per cent by the year 2020 - hailed at the time as a great example of British leadership in Europe.

How is this now rendered in ouur Eurosceptic media? Yesterday the Mail screamed that,"Brussels demands thousands more turbines across the UK", while the journalist, David Derbyshire, followed that article up with one today which stated, "Britain will be forced to generate 40 per cent of its electricity". Similarly the Telegraph went with "EU to set Britain 'ambitious' 40 per cent renewable energy target".

All of these imply that these targets are an unwelcome imposition by the EU instead of an agreed (and British-led) common endeavour.

A clutch of good-news stories

A flurry of EU activity just before the Christmas break will probably not get the publicity it deserves.

First, on 20 December, EU environment ministers agreed to include airlines in the Emmission Trading Scheme as of 2012. Airlines will have to meet pollution-reduction quotas either by reducing their own emissions or buying credits from other industries.

All airlines coming to and leaving the EU's 27 member states - not just intra-EU flights - will be included, which will guarantee another clash with the USA.

The decision comes just after the international climate change meeting in Bali last week in which the EU took a strong position in persuading other countries to commit to long-term environmental targets. Hilary Benn, Britiain's Environment Secretary, said "This is a bold step by Europe - in the week after the Bali agreement - which shows the EU leading in the fight against dangerous climate change."



The same week, the European Commission finalised its proposals (which must now come before Environment ministers and the European Parliament for approval) to force car makers to make greener cars from 2012 or face fines. Under the plans, cars should emit an average of 130 grammes of carbon dioxide in four years time or be subject to fines rising to €95 per gramme over the limit. Practically it is expected to mean that big gas-guzzling cars will become more expensive while smaller more efficient cars will be relatively cheaper, and have thus been strongly resisted by the manufacturers of large cars.



On another front, that of consumer protection, Neelie Kroes, the EU’s Competition Commissioner, has threatened to fine MasterCard for breaching EU competition law. This follows an extensive investigation by the Commission into competition in the financial services sector.

The Commission criticised MasterCard because of the fees it charges consumers who make cross-border transactions on credit and debit cards in other countries. The fees - known as multilateral interchange fees - apply to both MasterCard credit cards and Maestro debit cards and range from 0.4% to 1.2% of a transaction.

"Consumers foot the bill, as they risk paying twice for payment cards - once through annual fees to their bank and a second time through inflated retail prices paid not only by cards users but also by customers paying cash" said Neelie Kroes. She pointed out that the fees also make it more expensive for retailers to accept cards and that these costs are inevitably passed on to customers

The Commission has informed MasterCard that they have six months in which to get rid of the fees, otherwise they will be fined daily fees worth up to 3.5% of global turnover, which translates into fines of £4.5million per day.



Finally, the EU's borderless ("Schengen") zone expanded to nine mostly eastern European countries at midnight on Friday (21 December) in its biggest enlargement so far. Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia and the Czech Republic - which all joined the EU in 2004 - are involved. Land and sea border checks between them and the other Schengen countries are now abolished, while air borders are set to follow on 30 March 2008.

Practically it means that as of today, people can travel hassle-free between 24 countries of the Schengen area without systematic border controls - from Portugal to Poland and from Greece to Finland. Celebrations were held throughout Friday on several border points to mark the occasion. Britain's and Ireland's position outside this area remains unchanged.

EU shows its influence in Bali

The unlikely deal agreed at the UN summit in Bali at the weekend was a welcome surprise after two days of bitter wrangling, not least a bitter stand-off between the European Union and the US, with the US delegation refused to sign any text until the eleventh hour.

The "Bali roadmap" will initiate a two-year negotiation process to finalise a set of emissions targets to replace the Kyoto protocol by the time of the 2009 UN climate change conference to be held in Denmark.

The process is an example of the clout of the EU when we have a united position. Already committed to unilateral emissions cuts of 20% by 2020, European countries were able to speak with authority and a common voice - making a deal more likely.

We did not achieve the holy grail of binding targets for cutting emissions but getting the US, who never ratified Kyoto and have, until recently, even denied the need to cut emissions to tackle climate change, to agree to a text stating that "deep cuts in global emissions will be required" is a damn good start.

I spoke in Monday's parliamentary debate on the natural disasters that blighted parts of Europe this summer.

Inevitably, the debate tended to focus on the more recent fires in Greece which have left scores dead and large swathes of the country torched - their worst since 1857, apparently - but I was able to ensure that the floods in Yorkshire and other parts of Britain were not neglected.

They are mentioned in the Parliament's resolution too, endorsing the case for EU solidarity aid. Britain has now formally requested such aid, and the general consensus in debate was that the Commission must release the money rapidly.

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.

This week saw a flurry of coverage on the environmental cost of obliging the European Parliament to sit one week per month in Strasbourg instead of staying put in Brussels, thereby generating (according to a report by Professor John Whitelegg of the University of York) more than 20,000 tons of extra carbon dioxide (CO²) emissions due to the additional travel between the sites by MEPs, their assistants, journalists and lobbyists, not to mention the truckloads of documents transported each month.

Most MEPs, who also face considerable travel hassle in getting to Strasbourg, would love to change this situation. Unfortunately, it is not the Parliament itself that decides on the location of EU institutions, but the national governments, and it was the Edinburgh summit, chaired by John Major, that made it legally binding on the European Parliament to go 12 times a year to Strasbourg. So thanks John!

To sign the petition to have the Parliament located only in Brussels (saving the European taxpayer €200m per year as well as the environmental benefits) please visit www.OneSeat.eu.

The first European summit of the year concluded today with national governments agreeing bold targets to combat climate change.
Member States have ambitious plans to generate 20% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.

EU countries will also aim to reduce carbon emissions by 20%, increase the use of bio-fuels to 10% of transport fuel and will also consider banning filament light bulbs in private homes and offices by 2010.

The deal allows for flexibility so the less developed countries will not have to contribute as much as those in the western half of the continent.

This is, by any standards, an important breakthrough on an issue in which Britain has been at the forefront. Securing EU-wide agreement on such a programme will not only make it more effective but will also help gain leverage to persuade the rest of the world to do like wise.

For more on the summit you can read the BBC’s report while the Guardian and the Times also have coverage on ther websites.

I see there is the usual shock horror reaction to the suggestion by the European Commission (the Commission can only propose and not decide) that minimum penalties should be set across all EU countries for certain types of offence against agreed EU rules. In particular, they are suggesting that for environmental crimes of a trans-boundary nature, such as dumping of dangerous waste, minimum agreed punishments should be set. This will stop, for instance, companies facing the same standards across Europe, but different penalties, dumping waste material in countries that merely impose a small fine.

There is indeed little purpose in agreeing Europe-wide standards if member states do not treat the law seriously across Europe. If EU countries agree, for instance, to outlaw the dumping of radioactive materials or dangerous, highly toxic chemicals on waste sites, but one or another country, whilst making it illegal, merely says that the company will have a 100 euro fine, whereas in Britain they would be sent to jail, then a highly unsatisfactory situation emerges.

It is therefore perfectly sensible for the Commission to propose to do something about this - though the decision on whether or not to follow their suggestion remains with the Council of Ministers. That is why it is totally ludicrous for Tim Kirkhope, Leader of the British Conservatives in the European Parliament, to claim that "it is a significant transfer of power to the Commission" and that "the decision on whether or not to criminalise offences in Britain should be a matter for Britain, not for the EU".

If he really believes that, then he should never again complain about laxity in other EU member states in living up to the agreements we have reached with them.

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.

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.

The UK Presidency ended as the clocks chimed in the New Year, and it's worth evaluating what was achieved. The balance sheet is surprisingly positive; surprising, that is, compared to the assessments of many of the armchair commentators whose agenda precludes them from saying anything positive about the government or the EU.

The Presidency of the European Council is not an executive office, but the chairmanship of one of the EU institutions for a very short period. It has no decision-taking powers of its own, merely the opportunity to chair skillfully, to broker compromises, and to place items higher up the (largely inherited) agenda.

Within these constraints, the UK's achievements are not insignificant:

• Managed to get a deal on the budget. (Enough has been said about this elsewhere on this blog.)


• Secured agreement on the "European Consensus on Development" that will double EU countries development aid to $80billion per year by 2010, commits Member States to reach the UN target of 0.7% GDP by 2015, and re-orientates the EU's own programmes towards poverty elimination and meeting the Millenium Development Goals.


• Begun a further round of CAP reform, with agreement to end all export subsidies over the next 7 years, to fit all the 10 new Member States and the next two (Bulgaria and Romania) within the current CAP spending ceiling, which will itself be reduced by 7%, to radically reform the sugar régime now and to have a new overall review of spending in 2008.


• Got all 25 countries to agree to start accession negotiations with Turkey.


• Persuaded Council to agree that its meetings on EU codecision legislation should be held in public, with immediate effect.


• Made huge progress towards adoption of the REACH directive on protecting consumers and workers from dangerous chemicals.


• Secured agreement with the European Parliament (rather than an intergovernmental shortcut) on the data retention directive, vital for combatting terrorism and serious criminality.


• Persuaded Council to resume consideration of proposals to reform the "comitology" system of scrutinising the implementing powers of the Commission, in view of giving Council and the European Parliament equal rights to call back Commission decisions.


• Set an example of how Council presidencies should interact withn the European Parliament, with a record number of ministerial appearences in Parliament and no fewer than four visits of the Prime Minister.


• Hosted a highly successful meeting of the 104-country ACP Assembly in Edinburgh.


• Launched EU Security & Defence missions to Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt and to Aceh in Indonesia.


• Made progress on climate change, leading the EU delegation to contribute to the agreement at the Montreal conference and putting together a package of assistance to China to clean up its coal-fired power stations.


• Secured agreement in Council on the Capital Requirements Directive, an important part of the Financial services Action Plan.