European Parliament wins big victories for consumers

It’s been a week of good news for consumers after this week's voting session in the European Parliament resulted in the adoption of new rules which will save millions of people money.

First, and most importantly, is the news that energy suppliers will no longer be able to charge a premium to people who pay for their gas and electricity on prepayment meters. Currently people who use their prepayment meter for both gas and electricity will pay on average an extra £215 a year more for their energy than people paying by direct debit. This is a patently unfair system, all the more unjust when you consider that you are a third more likely to buy your energy with a prepayment meter if you have a disability, live in social housing or are a single parent.

This practice will now end thanks to this week's vote in the European Parliament, a decision which will reduce bills for millions of people living in Britain who pay for their gas and electricity with a prepayment meter (there are 5.9million meters in the UK alone).

Along with the end to price discrimination, the new rules effectively give a bill of rights to energy consumers. Customers will be given the right to change their gas and electricity suppliers within three weeks and free of charge, be able to claim compensation in cases where people are given inaccurate or delayed bills. Finally, 80% of consumers across Europe must have access to energy-efficient SmartMeters for electrical appliances.

Mobile phone users will also save money after further caps were agreed this week for people using text messages and downloading data while abroad.

Back in the summer of 2007 a maximum tariff for people making or receiving phone calls abroad was introduced, and a ceiling price for data and text messages will come into force on July this year while receiving and making abroad will once again drop.

The cost of sending a text message while abroad will not be able to exceed 11 cents form 1st July this year while one megabyte of data (which is used to send emails and pictures and for web-browsing from mobile phones or laptops) will be limited to one euro (prices do not include VAT). By July 2011 this will drop to 50 cents.

In the past people have ended up with astronomical bills into tens of thousands of pounds (see here) by downloading programmes and games abroad because there was simply no warning or limit to how much they were spending. The new rules will give people the opportunity to impose a limit on how much they download abroad, a service people will have to opt out from by 2010.

Once again the European Parliament, thanks in part to the work of Labour MEPs, has stood up for the rights of consumers against big business, leaving ordinary people with more money in their pocket.

It's still fine to fish for your supper

Those who think that "Brussels bureaucrats" can impose barmy rules without further ado would do well to look at the story of anglers coming under the Common Fisheries Policy. In fact, it is proof that the EU's democratic process can and does stop the adoption of barmy rules.

In this case, amateur anglers were understandably taken aback when they heard or read that they were to be included under the Common Fisheries Policy. In fact, it was just a Commission proposal - a first draft.

The proposed regulation would have required recreational fishermen to register their boats, with their catch having to be counted against the fisheries quota for that country. This would have been, justifiably, a gift for those who claim that the EU imposes bonkers legislation and ignores common sense.

However, MEPs on the Fisheries Committee voted through amendments to leave this matter at the discretion of each country to decide, while the Commission has also seen reason - with Fisheries Commissioner Joe Borg giving written assurances that recreational anglers now have absolutely nothing to worry about.

In his words: "The normal hobby angler who catches an insignificant number of fish when he goes out fishing and uses it exclusively for his private consumption will not be covered by the control regulation, even if he catches fish like cod which is under a recovery plan."

Even Tory MEP Struan Stevenson, a regular exaggerator of the story, said "anglers have nothing to fear".

That should settle it. The bottom line is that any angler who has the patience to go fishing to catch themselves their supper can rest easy. They'll still be able to do it.

A step closer to a ban on seal products

Yesterday MEPs on the Internal Market and Consumer Rights (IMCO) Committee agreed to a ban on the import of seal products deriving from commercial culls.

A majority of 25 MEPs to seven on IMCO voted to strengthen the Commission's proposal calling for an outright ban of products imported from commercial sealing.

Notwithstanding an attempt by Yorkshire & Humber Liberal Democrat MEP, Diana Wallis, who in a failed attempt tried to water down the proposal pushed for a mere labelling scheme, only seven MEPs voted against the report, siding instead with the Canadian hunting and sealing lobby.

This is a sensitive issue, which is close to the hearts of many constituents. It is vitally important for the EU to take a strong stance against this cruel practice and set a global precedent for the banning of seal products from the spring cull.

Indeed, with such a large majority in favour in committee, we can hope that support for the ban will be reinforced when it reaches the full parliament vote next month.

Thank you to all of you who have written to me on this matter and please be assured that I will continue to support a ban in the final vote in the Parliament.

EU scare stories coincide with Euro election build-up

First, Bruno Waterfield, Telegraph correspondent in Brussels, fills in a lull in interesting stories coming his way, by reporting that "MEPs" want to build a swimming pool in the parliament at taxpayers' expense. Never mind that the idea has already been rejected bt the Parliament's bureau. It is sufficient that one French Green party member continues to support it, for Bruno to generate his headline, which has inevitably been taken by many readers as meaning that the parliament has decided to waste money on a luxury - the opposite of what it really did. Already, newspapers across Europe, from Athens based "New Europe" to Scotland on Sunday repeating and embellishing the story.

Then, of course, several British tabloids report that MEPs could become millionaires if they were to divert their expenses into their own pocket. Never mind that Labour MEPs, recently followed by the Conservatives and the LibDems, have their accounts reviewed by independent auditors to make that impossible. Never mind that this story is a re-hash of one last year, about an alleged abuse by a number of MEPs, which spurred on a reform of the Parliament's own system. The key thing is to implant in the public mind the image of MEP = corruption. Expect more of this as Eurosceptics seek to discredit the whole Parliament ahead of June's elections.

Not to be outdone, UKIP indulged in their own distortions this week by saying that Parliament's President Pottering had endorsed their claim that 75 percent of legislation in our countries is EU law. He did nothing of the sort. EU law is, according to most studies, a much lower proportion (9 percent according to the House of Commons library, 6.3 percent according to the Swedish parliament, 12 percent according to the Finnish parliament and between 12 and 19 percent according to the Lithuanian parliament). But such low figures undermine UKIP's claim that we are creating a centralised superstate.

So they have misinterpreted a comment by Pottering that 75 percent of EU legislation (i.e. of the proportion that IS adopted at EU level) is adopted by the European Parliament (through the co-decision procedure with the Council of Ministers) and that this will rise to (nearly) 100 percent with the Lisbon treaty, to imply that he said that 75 percent of legislation in Europe is EU legislation.

UKIP (unless they are even more stupid than most people think) obviously know that that is not what Pottering was saying - it is clear from the context and in his original German (though not in the English subtitles used on UKIP's video). But again, why let the facts spoil a scare story?

End testing on primates

Finally, last November the European Commission announced the long awaited revision of the directive on the use of animals in experiments. The revision of this directive, which is over 20 years out-of-date, is great news for the animal world and humans alike.

The directive, which is currently being examined by the European Parliament's Agriculture Committee, contains improvements to the conditions under which animals for experimentation are kept. It also commits the EU to replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in scientific experimentation.

I am, however, dismayed to discover that the Commission has failed to set a timetable to end the use of primates in experimentation. Although the proposal introduces more stringent criteria for testing on non-human primates, there are a number of loopholes which permit the continual use of primates for testing.

The use of monkeys and apes in testing is a barbaric practice. Not only are there ethical questions over the use of animals in testing, but also testing on primates also often produces inconsistent results and with scientific development providing real alternatives is utterly indefensible in today's society. These highly intelligent creatures are often confined in appalling conditions and subject to rigorous invasive procedures causing varying amounts of pain, suffering and distress.

In the Parliament we need to show our support for the complete phase out of the use of primates for experimentation without the current loopholes in the Commission's proposal. With 55% of Euro MEPs having signed the original Written Declaration 40/2007 (which called for an urgent end to the use of great apes and wild-caught monkeys in experiments, and the establishment of a timetable to bring an end to the use of all primates in experiments) we can hope that this practice will soon be phased out in Europe, setting a global precedent.

For more information about the proposal and the effect on primates please see Animal Defenders International website: http://www.savetheprimates.org/

Decision time for EP over Working Time

An enormous political and media storm has arisen on the issue of the Working Time Directive and whether the European Parliament will vote to phase out the right for individual workers (though often under pressure from employers) to opt out of the 48 hour maximum average working week.

Yet the position of the two sides is actually not that far apart. The Council of Ministers, with UK government support, wants a tighter definition of the 48 hour limit (averaged over three months), but allow individual workers to opt out, subject to stricter safeguards than there are at the moment. The European Parliament has a looser definition of the 48 hours (averaged over 12 months - which implies considerably more flexibility than three months, which will cater for the needs of most industries and services), but with the opt out gradually disappearing.

In other words, all concerned are searching for the right balance between protection and flexibility. If Parliament does indeed amend the Council's position, and Council then does not accept this, it should not be beyond the bounds of the possible to negotiate a compromise ahead of the third reading.

Let us not forget that this directive was introduced originally well over a decade ago (when a British Conservative government, at the time, abstained in the Council of Ministers rather than vote against it) in response to growing medical evidence that sustained and long term excessive working hours have considerable and negative health implications for the workers concerned. Not to mention the implications
for the rest of us if we are, for instance, operated on by a tired doctor or run over by a tired lorry driver. The Clapham Junction Railway Accident, in November 1989which killed 35 people and injured hundreds, is one of too many examples, where the investigation states the direct cause ‘was undoubtedly the wiring errors made’ by the electrician due to ‘the constant repetition of weekend work in addition to work throughout the week which has blunted his working edge, his freshness and his concentration.’ In the three months before the accident the electrician had had one day off over the entire period.

Opt outs are only possible at the moment where provided for under national legislation and with the explicit agreement of the worker concerned. Under the new proposals, there will be extra safeguards to prevent employers pressurising workers to opt out (Council of Ministers version) or the opt out will be ended in entirely, but balanced by having an annual average, thereby enabling much longer working weeks for up to half the year or more (Parliament's version).

Of course, there is a case to say that a young healthy person in a job that is not excessively physically demanding and that does not endanger the health of others should be able to choose to work longer if they genuinely wish to do so. The Council's position caters better for those cases. But there are also numerous and well documented cases of employees being pressurised to work such longer hours against their will (polling evidence shows that a majority of people working more than 48 hours would prefer not to do so). The European Parliament's position caters
better for protecting them. Surely it s possible to reconcile the two?

Equal rights for Temporary Agency Workers!

Today the European Parliament adopted the Temporary Agency Workers directive that will, finally, give equal treatment at work to some of our most vulnerable workers.

This directive has been a long time coming. It has now been six years since the Commission first brought forward proposals for a Temporary Agency Workers directive. Under this directive, temporary workers will be given the same rights to pay, hours and holidays as their full-time colleagues. The number of temporary agency workers in the public and private sectors of the UK labour market has greatly increased in recent years. 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.

Following the directive's first reading in the European Parliament, which approved it with the support of Labour MEPs, TAW was blocked in Council, where the main concerns have been over the length of the qualifying period before equal treatment rights apply. In May, the UK government reached an agreement with the unions and the CBI that would give equal treatment after 12 weeks, allowing a deal to be reached among European Employment ministers in the Council of Ministers in June.

The Parliament, in accepting this compromise, has now ensured that this directive will enter into law very swiftly. All of which is great news for the estimated 1.3 million British workers who will be protected by this legislation and a demonstration that our European common market is a social market that combines protection of workers' rights with flexible labour markets.

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.

Majority voting is to Britain's advantage

Opponents of the EU sometimes argue that its provisions on majority voting mean Britain loses control because others will gang up against us to vote in a certain way, doing down our interests.

In fact, majority voting - which anyway is qualified majority voting (QMV) requiring over 70 percent of the weighted votes (weighting is by size, so Britain has more votes as a large country) to be in favour to adopt anything – rarely sees Britain out-voted, and certainly not on important matters, as Britain’s views are pretty much in the mainstream on most issues and it has enough negotiating skills to avoid being in a small minority.

The most recent figures I have show that over the three years 2004 to 2006, Britain voted against only one adopted EU measure in 2004, one in 2005 and two in 2006.

Were they of vital interest to Britain? The 2006 measures both concerned the provisional prohibition of the use and sale in Austria of genetically modified maize. The 2005 measure was a trade measure for (eastern European) countries and territories participating in or linked to the European Union's stabilisation and Association process. The 2004 measure concerned common rules on compensation and assistance to air passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights. In short, pretty minor, except perhaps the last one, where the quarrel was with the detail of a measure that has proved pretty popular with travellers and which many would like to see strengthened.

On the other side of the balance sheet, are the measures that Britain supported which would have been blocked by the veto of others if we had unanimity instead of QMV. With unanimity, 26 other governments have a veto over things we want, ranging from environmental measures, consumer protection, international development, trade, to CAP reform.

Seems pretty clear that QMV is in general a good deal, and should be supported – bearing in mind that it does not apply to really sensitive matters like tax, foreign policy, security, treaty revision, and so on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here for questions and answers on the new tariffs.

While much of the talk around the parliament is about this week’s summit, which kicks off in Brussels tomorrow, we are still in the midst of a normal parliament session in Strasbourg.

This week has seen the parliament again demonstrate that it deserves its reputation as a world leader on animal welfare welfare by voting to ban the import of dog and cat fur in the EU.

There are some ghastly statistics about the use of dog and cat fur, with a single coat costing the lives of 24 cats, while millions of dogs and cats are slaughtered each year because of the trade.

Labour MEPs actually started campaigning for a ban over eight years ago, and with some tremendous support from EU citizens the issue was recognised by Parliament and the Council.

Meanwhile, the intensely fought battle over vodka in the parliament, ( a political one rather than some form of drinking competition in the Swan Bar) that really took off during Finland’s presidency looks like it has finally been resolved.

Poland, Sweden, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia all joined Finland in demanding that only vodka made from grain and potatoes could be described as vodka, a situation other countries who made vodka from fruit or sugar (like Britain) were deeply unhappy with.

Long meetings had failed to break the deadlock while angry emails have flown across cyberspace with the war of words at one point desending into wild accusations about some vodkas not made from potatoes or grain, containing cow slurry!

However, finally the parliament have adopted a compromise which means vodka may indeed be produced from things other than potatoes and grain, but must say so prominently on the label.

Importantly for Britain, the new rules also state that whisky cannot contain flavourings or sweetners, a measure which will protect Britain’s huge whisky industry from inferior imitators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The EU won glowing headlines after European Parliament committees agreed to adopt caps on mobile phone roaming charges earlier in April.

It is particularly positive news for the people who believe the EU must start showing its relevance more visibly to its citizens, as it is an issue that affects the pockets of a large number of people.

Picking up on the public’s interest in the story, the BBC have decided to follow the process of following this particular bit of legislation from beginning to end.
If you click here, you can read how and why roaming charges became an issue for the Commission, and how Member States and MEPs will bring the legislation into existence, through committees, council meetings and parliament votes.

A useful little guide to co-decision procedures and on a piece of legislation which will probably end up saving you some money!

Ever since David Cameron put himself under pressure from both sides of his party by promising to pull the Tory MEPs out of the EPP in the European Parliament, the issue has been a constant headache for him. In a bid to end the confusion, he launched his Movement for European Reform in Brussels on Tuesday.

It is, Cameron claims, “a Pan-European campaign open to everyone”, albeit a campaign which has so far gathered the support of just one other party, the Czech Republic’s Civic Democrats. To put this in perspective, 235 different parties are represented in the European Parliament, with the abominable far-right Independence, Tradition & Sovereignty group attracting more takers that Cameron’s Movement for European Reform.

There has been plenty of debate in the blogging world about Cameron’s speech and intentions on Europe with the Nosemonkey/Europhobia blog providing a comprehensive set of links on the subject.

Another pertinent comment was Kevin Maguire in the Mirror: "Confused Cameron claims he'll concentrate on 'things that matter' To be honest, I can't recall a politician who's ever vowed to focus on 'things that DON'T matter'. But Cameron can't square his declaration with pulling his MEPs out of the centre-right EPP in 2009. The EPP grouping dominates the European Parliament and has real clout. His plan to ally them with nationalist nutters, including an idiot who denies global warming, will reduce the Tories' influence."

As far as I’m concerned, Cameron’s Movement for European Reform is a failed diversion. Far more important is his pledge to pull the UK out of the Social Chapter of the Treaty, which is the basis for the legislation which protects workers across the whole of the EU's single market.

Previously Cameron has been keen to claim that he supports a better work-life balance but this is completely contradicted by prioritising the UK’s exit from the Social Chapter.

EU social chapter legislation has given both parents the right to time off when a child is born or adopted, improved the rights of temporary workers, and provided for employees in large companies to be prperly informed and consulted. Should Cameron ever succeed in pulling the UK out of the charter (which is extremely doubtful) it would be the most vulnerable British workers who would suffer most.

Curiously, what the Tories usually object to is the Working Time Directive, which is not part of the Social Charter and was adopted when they were in government. At the time they did not oppose it - the UK government abstained in the Council of Ministers. Probably a bit too confusing for Cameron’s advisors!

Open Europe, the eurosceptic think-tank, has re-used the old gimmick of calculating the total volume of EU legislation by pages, pointing out that it would stretch 31.7 miles. This illustrates, they say, that "the growing burden of EU over-regulation is a serious problem for businesses and even voluntary groups".

Sounds fine, but they do not mention that a large proportion of this EU regulation is designed precisely to cut bureaucracy and red-tape for businesses by setting a common EU norm to replace 27 divergent national standards in the EU's single market. In calling for regulations to be repealed, "Open Europe" is rarely specific. For instance, do they want to repeal legislation that allows a company to register a trademark once, to be valid throughout Europe? Without that legislation, companies would have to register their trademarks 27 times over, going through different hoops and bureaucracies in 27 different countries, filling in 27 different forms etc.

No EU legislation can possibly be adopted without the agreement of a very large majority (and often unanimity) of the member states themselves, so the very idea that the EU has "imposed" unwanted and unnecessary legislation on member states is somewhat simplistic. Yet the eurosceptics go on trying to portray the EU as an all-powerful bureaucracy spewing out unwanted legislation that member states have no choice but to accept. Any attempts to counter this myth and to explain how the system actually works are denounced by them as "EU propaganda". Their lies and hypocrisy make you sick.

There is, however, one thing the EU can do - and is now beginning to do - to reduce the number of pages of EU legislation. This relates to when it adopts legislation amending pre-existing EU legislation (and the bulk of single market legislation nowadays is precisely that: an update or review of existing EU law, rather than new EU law). Rather than adopting countless directives amending another directive, it should recast the original directive, keeping a single text rather than a string of them on any one subject.

The Constitutional Committee of the European Parliament is at this very moment preparing a change to the Parliament's Rule of Procedure to facilitate the adoption of consolidated legislation of this kind. At least this will lessen the ability of eurosceptics to exaggerate the volume of legislation that emanates from the European Union.

The Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) directive was today approved by the European Parliament. REACH has been described as being one of the EU’s most important pieces of legislation for 20 years and will prevent diseases caused by dangerous chemicals, saving thousands of lives a year as well as millions of pounds of health costs. The adoption of this legislation is a big step forward for the protection of people and the environment.

The REACH regulation makes producers and importers responsible for analysing their chemicals and proving either that they are safe or that their use is necessary and strictly controlled. Dangerous chemicals will not be authorised in circumstances where safer alternatives exist.

An independent European Chemicals Agency will be established in Helsinki to oversee the way firms assess chemicals for safety, while all dangerous products will be independently examined under conditions that should stimulate the development of safer alternatives to the most dangerous substances.

It could be argued that a final text that leaves some environmentalists saying they hoped the law would go further than it did and some industry groups saying it went too far, cannot be too far wide of the mark.

There is a case to say that a compromise such as this is not perfect. However, a common set of rules on this important matter is better than a patchwork of perfect (but divergent) rules in some countries, half measures in others and no rules at all elsewhere - in what is supposed to be a common market with common rules. That would have given less protection at greater cost. This agreement also shows how useful the EU can be by sharing the burden of funding, testing and research. This is great news for everyone in Europe.

The funeral of my constituent David Wilson took place today.

I got to know David and his wife Tracey very well after he was wrongly imprisoned in a Greek jail in 2003.

David was jailed after 19 Iraqi Kurds were found in the back of his lorry at a Greek port. Despite each of the Iraqi Kurds signing a statement saying they entered David’s lorry without his knowledge, he was jailed for 11 years.

As David was totally innocent, he was eventually acquitted on appeal, but not before suffering the horrendous ordeal of months in prison far from his family and the permanent loss of his lorry and livelihood.

David never recovered from his ordeal and tragically took his own life last week. My thoughts are obviously with his family who also suffered greatly because of this great injustice.

It is now crucial to ensure something like this never happens again.

David would not have gone through the ordeal that led to his death if the EU’s Framework decision on procedural rights in criminal proceedings for people charged in other Member States had already been in force.

This proposal would guarantee that anyone facing criminal charges abroad has access to their country’s consular services and are given a qualified interpreter and legal advice.

Both were lacking in David’s case. He was charged and sentenced within 24 hours under a fast-track procedure that he accepted under duress, with a local shopkeeper as interpreter and without advice from the British embassy or sufficient legal advice.

This proposed EU law would prevent others from having to go through what David did. It should be wholeheartedly supported and governments should get a move on in at last agreeing this proposal which has been on their table for a few years now, held up by the need for unanimity among the governments of 25 countries. Britain should support the European Commission’s proposal to speed up consideration of this matter, as the House of Lords has suggested.

The EU’s planned legislation for a Europe-wide system to test and regulate chemicals (called "REACH") was discussed in committee yesterday, with MEPs in the Environment committee voting in favour of putting a strong version of the law before Parliament in November’s Strasbourg session.

REACH could potentially improve the health, safety and working conditions of virtually every citizen of the EU.

The need for REACH was highlighted in the media twice yesterday. The Daily Mail contained an extended article on two twins suffering from hypospadias, a genital abnormality. The number of children born with the condition has doubled over the last 25 years with experts putting the blame squarely on chemicals used in everyday products.

The Guardian’s Conservation website reveals how a toxin called tributyltin contained in paints is contaminating wildlife and subsequently entering the food chain. By 2008 it will be banned in the European Union.

At last Friday’s Labour Movement for Europe evening, Giampi Alhadeff, the Secretary General of the European Parliamentary Labour Party, spoke of how we should identify problems that the EU can contribute to solving. The EU will get off the back foot if its legislation is seen to be making an obviously positive impact on the lives of its citizens.

REACH is proving Giampi right. The Daily Mail will never be a general advocate of the EU but, however reluctantly, it admits that this legislation will improve the health of Europe, and is therefore a good thing.

You can always tell that people are being “liberal with the truth” when their story changes. Over the years I’ve heard Eurosceptic MEPs claim that 90% of new UK laws have been decided at a European level. Sometimes that figure changes to 80% (as Conservative Dan Hannan was quoted the other day), sometimes it’s 75% etc etc – this figure depends, I’m assuming, on which number comes into their head first.

I see that this week, according to Godfrey Bloom, the figure is 65% (which means Hannan – a Tory, is even more wild in his allegations then UKIP!).

Well they're certainly getting warmer. I wonder how long it will take for them to get down to 9% (the actual figure - supplied by the House of Commons library).

It's also worth mentioning that Mr Bloom said, and I quote, "nobody knows anything about it [the European Union] and how it works. That's a great shame".

This is something that I CAN agree with him on wholeheartedly. Does this mean that Bloom will now become part of the solution and not the problem? Will aviatory pigs really be seen over his Selby office? Watch this space!

One of the most satisfying results of this week’s Strasbourg session is the decision to crack down on misleading food labels.

Food companies can currently make claims on their labels which lack any real scientific basis and profess to be far healthier than they really are. For instance, a bag of crisps can be emblazoned with “low in salt” but still contain unhealthy levels of fat.

Now, under the new legislation passed by the European Parliament, food will have to meet certain criteria before it can make a claim such as “low in fat”. Food that is unhealthy in any aspect will not be able to brand itself as a healthy option, even if it does have low levels of one nutrient. Food manufacturers will also have to prove any health claims they make about their products.

With the Yorkshire Evening Post reporting that one in every eight children in Leeds is obese it is clear something needs to be done to combat this problem.

More truthful food labels may only play a small part in creating a healthier society but it is a step in the right direction. Now that manufacturers will be forced to print only facts on their labels consumers can at least make an informed decision about a product.

There will no doubt be some readers out there who like a drink or two, there may even be some who have woken up cursing the activities of the night before, wondering just what exactly it was that left them in such a state.

Well, the obvious answer is too much alcohol but sometimes it is the other ingredients that can cause a headache. Soon, thanks to the European Union, drinkers will be able to discover exactly waht goes into their beer and wine.

The Telegraph reported this week that: “The Government is backing European Union proposals to force drinks companies to reveal hidden chemicals used in beer and wine.

“Commonly used chemicals in cheap beer can include betaglucanase, used to speed up brewing and propylene glycol alginate, added to help maintain a beer's head, even after months on a shelf”.

As the President of the British Beer Club in the European Parliament I applaud this news, which again shows the EU’s commitment to helping consumers make informed choices on products they wish to buy.

It is also a move which should help benefit smaller British brewers whose traditional methods typically include less chemicals than mass-market beers and lagers.

Bottoms up!

I nearly fell off my chair when I read what UKIP MEP Mike Nattrass wrote in a letter to the editor of EU Reporter, a magazine aimed at small businesses. Referring to an article I had written in the same magazine, Mr Nattrass wrote:

"What the Europhile Richard Corbett MEP describes as the euro sceptic attack on his vision in your 30th January issue is no such thing. In fact UKIP can agree with most of what he has written!"

He then goes on to list a few specific points over which he disagrees - leaving the majority of my article untouched.

So we are to infer that UKIP now agrees with the main thrust of my article, as follows:

• When we get it right, European legislation is an exercise in cutting red tape.
• European legislation is not adopted against the will of the Member States.
• The EU single market has brought us all financial benefits in the region of €2000 per family per year.

Needless to say, Mr Nattrass's letter was not entirely free of the usual UKIP froth.

He asks, "What has the imposition of a new driving licence on UK motorcyclists got to do with free trade?" This is a bizarre question. Why should it be anything to do with free trade if governments choose to require drivers to be licensed? Surely, all governments do this for traffic safety reasons. The only EU dimension is to cut bureaucracy and red tape by agreeing a single set of licence types rather than the 80-odd that used to be in force across Europe - thereby also making it easier for the police to check people actually do have valid driving licences. Now, would Mr Nattrass rather that were not the case?

He then asks, “Why do they want to make our ports more difficult to operate?”. Who does he mean by "they"? Surely not the European Parliament - which just threw out proposals for changing to the current system for ports.

He then asks why "our parliament" is "stopped by the EU" from debating capital punishment? Come on, Mr Nattrass. Surely, after nearly two years as an MEP, you must have picked up at least the basics of how things work? You must know that reason the UK and more than 40 other countries agreed to scrap the death penalty has nothing at all to do with the EU. It's the European Convention on Human Rights, which was set up at Britain's initiative shortly after the Second World War. Rather than admit the facts, Mr Nattrass is trying to recruit supporters of the death penalty to support his anti-European political ends!

One extra achievement of the UK Presidency just before it finished - which therefore went almost unnoticed - is the new agreement that the EU Council of Ministers will hold its co-decision discussions and votes on proposed EU legislation in public, with immediate effect.

This meets a long-standing demand of the European Parliament, which considers that votes on legislation should be in public in both branches (Council and Parliament) of the EU legislature. How else can the public see who is accountable for decisions and national parliaments control their country's minister? Of course, the results of votes were already published, but this extra transparency is an important improvement.

Only a few months ago, the leaders of the Labour, Liberal, Conservative, Green and even UKIP MEPs signed a joint letter supporting this. Will they be united in their applause? Don't count on it!

I was struck by how the assumptions and myths propounded by the Eurosceptics in Britain have come to dominate even the thinking of many of us pro-Europeans. Sometimes we all-too-readily concede arguments that are based on nothing more than endless repetition.

Take, for instance, the evidence that Lord Wallace of Saltaire gave to the European Reform Forum (page 19 of this PDF document). He played to the gallery in complaining that the European convention (which drafted the constitutional treaty) "did not go far enough into the whole subsidiarity issue and did not open the box that it was supposed to open, which was marked 'returning competences from the Union back to national governments'".

This is simply not true. The first few months of the Convention's work was precisely around the subject of "what do we want to do together?", in order to examine whether the EU's field of responsibilities is too large, too small or about right.

The conclusion was that it was about right: because after all, the EU only ever deals with those matters which the member states have unanimously agreed that it should. Where they have done so, it is not because they are predisposed to handing over their powers to "Brussels", but because there is sufficient reason to convince them all that common action in the matter is beneficial. And even where the EU has been given the authority to act, the degree and intensity of EU action is determined by the member states themselves, as it is the Council of Ministers (and the directly elected European Parliament) which adopt European legislation and policies, not the European Commission.

Lord Wallace bemoaned suggestions that there should be a harmonisation of the maximum level of alcohol allowed in the blood stream before a person's driving licence is withdrawn, stating that "for all I know, South Carolina and North Carolina might have different views on that, so I do not see why Belgium and Luxembourg should not have different views on it either". That is a perfectly valid standpoint - and indeed different EU countries do have different laws on this. But the difference between the US system and the EU one is this: in the EU, those arguing to have a harmonised rule have to persuade the European Parliament and ministers from national governments to support it. So, unlike in America, it cannot happen without the agreement of the member states themselves!

A constituent challenged MEPs from Bradford "to write to the Shipley Target and assure local voters that they are backing amendments to the proposals on chemical testing that will reduce the testing of such chemicals on animals". I am happy to write in and provide some assurance.

The whole point of having a common Europe-wide programme of testing the safety of chemicals (REACH), rather than 25 countries each duplicating each other with their own programmes, is to reduce the amount of testing necessary - saving costs and preventing unnecessary animal suffering.

We do need to find ways of testing chemicals. Recent medical evidence shows that each one of us has 300 more chemicals in our bodily tissues and blood than our grandparents did. We also know that there are increasing rates of asthma, cancer and other diseases which probably originate from chemicals.

Some in the chemical industry argue that such testing is costly. But anyone who recalls the asbestos tragedy will know that without money invested in the testing now can save thousands of lives and millions of pounds downstream. With the burden shared with our fellow countries in the European Union, this is well worth doing. And if it can be done while minimising animal testing, so much the better.

Good to see the new chair of the Dutch Labour Party is my former MEP colleague Michiel Van Hulten. The new leader of the Danish Social Democrats is similarly a former colleague, Helle Thorning-Schmidt. Both were in the Campaign for Parliamentary Reform, which worked with me on the “Corbett Report” (link to PDF) which reformed the European Parliament’s internal Rules of Procedure three years ago. Their support was important in helping shape a package capable of getting the necessary majority.

They join a long list of Socialist parties now led by former MEPs: Francois Hollande of the French Parti Socialiste, Elio di Rupo of the Belgian Parti Socialiste, Piero Frassoni of the Italian Democratic Left, Robert Fico of the Slovakian Social Democracy and Borut Pahor of the Slovenian Social Democrats (who is still serving as an MEP!). I wonder when Britain will follow this trend?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's some hoo-hah in the press today about the new directive on vitamins. I'm all for public debate about EU legislation - in fact, I think it's crucial to the democratic life of Europe - but, as usual, the UK's debate is too much, too late, and painfully ill-informed.

First, a letter from a QC in The Times:

"The judgment of the European Court of Justice to uphold the Food Supplements Directive (report and leading article, July 13) highlights the way in which the EU’s law-making intentions are easily distorted by an inbuilt addiction to over-regulation.…

"Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, says that our Government will “continue to press for the lightest touch possible in carrying out the directive”. This pitiful acknowledgement of inability or unwillingness to protect our economy and interests demonstrates the need for fundamental change in the objectives and law-making procedures of the EU."

Why is it that the stock response to any decision we take at EU level is to invent spurious objections to the way we take those decisions, rather than actually discussing the quite important issues that surround them?

Firstly, all decisions on new EU-wide laws are taken by the governments of EU member countries and by elected MEPs. If there is praise or blame to be apportioned for any democratic decision, let it at least be apportioned correctly.

Secondly, the charge of "over-regulation" here is outrageous. Setting aside the fact that more than 99% of vitamin products are unaffected by the new rules, the UK's decision to press for this directive was based on conclusive medical advice. As another correspondent pointed out in The Times on the same day, measures that save lives are not self-indulgent over-regulation; on the contrary, they are our solemn duty.

The very same points can be made in response to the ignorance of a still more reactionary letter in my own local York Evening Press (the letter itself isn't available online):

"Once again our lords and masters in Brussels have decreed that all members of the European Union must obey their latest idiocy."

(With a first paragraph like that, I hardly need go on, but let's indulge.)

"And, lemming-like, the British government immediately brings out legislation to enforce it rather than raising a metaphorical second finger right hand skyward, and advising the mandarins in Brussels to 'rotate!'."

Sigh.

What's particularly curious is that, in this case, it was our very own UK government that pressed for the directive - successfully. So, far from showing the blind adherence of our "lemming-like" government to the whims of "mandarins in Brussels", these new rules show just how much Britain can achieve when we work together with our European neighbours.

As for the directive itself, let's not lose sight of three simple facts:

1. More than 99% of vitamin products are unaffected by the new rules.


2. The directive is based on conclusive medical advice already accepted by all 25 EU countries.


3. The measures are strongly supported by the British Dietetic Association.

Surely we should welcome health measures that save lives - not use them as an excuse to invent anti-European arguments?

Something I missed last week: tobacco advertising became illegal across the EU on radio and television, and in print.

The UK has also managed to convince its European neighbours that the association between perceived "sexy" sports like Formula 1 and the tobacco industry is doing more harm than good, and so the new law aims to ban tobacco sponsorship of such sporting events, something we did a while ago in this country.

Shortly after 11am (UK time) today, we rejected a proposed law on the patenting of software by a huge majority. This proposal is now dead.

I've received more e-mails, letters and calls on the issue of software patents than on any other issue in recent times. I'm immensely grateful to the hundreds of constituents who have taken the time to explain their views to me.

Labour colleagues and I have taken on board their advice and rejected this proposal, so my thanks go out to constituents for their participation in good lawmaking.

More information here.

The European Parliament discusses tomorrow whether to amend or reject the proposed Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions, or 'software patents directive', as it's commonly known. (Lots more information, and a history of this directive, is here.)

For an issue which is so important to my constituents - I've had more lobbying messages on this in the past few months than on any other issue I can remember! - it got no mention at all on the BBC news this morning. To be fair, it does coincide with the G8 build-up and the Olympic bid, but you'd think they'd find space for a mention of such a crucial vote which will effectively determine the future of software development in Europe.

But the debate is certainly hotting up in Parliament, and I've noticed that two myths are circulating about this directive. They threaten to make it sound innocuous when in reality it's very far from innocuous.

Myth 1: This directive is just about "computer-implemented inventions" like washing machine programs and automatic braking systems. What harm can there be in that?

This is not so. Although the directive does cover washing machine programs and automatic braking systems, the draft before Parliament in fact also covers all kinds of computer-implemented inventions, including software designed for PC programs or for the internet.

The Council's current position defines "computer-implemented inventions" very broadly and very vaguely, but one thing that almost all commentators agree on is that it will open the door for software concepts to be patented. That is, under the current proposal, any software concept - an on-screen progress bar, an internet shopping trolley, a resizeable icon, anything - will be patentable and will therefore be protected by law as soon as a company applies for a patent. The only requirement will be that the software implements a "technical invention", which is a disturbingly vague phrase.

In fact, Parliament's original first-reading position redefined "computer-implemented inventions" much better. It specified that only programs which had a physical effect on the real world could be patented. That definition really does refer only to things like washing machines and brakes. It makes it clear that 'pure' software concepts - that is, programs and bits of programs which have no physical effect on the real world because they don't control a spin cycle or drive a car - are not patentable.

That first-reading position was welcomed by the anti-patent lobby because it outlined a very reasonable (albeit arbitrary) limit to patentability. But that position has been reversed by the Council's second-reading position.

Myth 2: The people who oppose software patents are just "open-source supporters", a bunch of pie-in-the-sky lobbyists with no connection to modern commercial reality.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Software patents are opposed by small software companies, businessmen and individual developers, as well as academics and the open-source community.

Small software companies and individual developers fear trampling by large corporations, who will be able to register vast numbers of patents and then defend them in court against their rivals, or use the threat of legal action as leverage against them. Small businesses and individuals will not have the legal or financial resources to fight back effectively, or to patent their own ideas.

Even if a given concept is not actually patented, small businesses will be very wary to use that concept in their own work because they won't be able to afford to check the patent situation. Software patents will therefore stifle creativity - as well as being painfully anti-competitive.

Only a small proportion of our constituency lobbying has come from "open-source supporters". These are people who believe that software concepts should be free in principle, so that amateurs and the software community can gradually improve and distribute them.

I was interested to read in the FT (full article here - but you need to subscribe) that the House of Commons library has estimated that EU legislation only accounts for about 9% of new regulations adopted in Britain each year, rather than the 50% or more often claimed by eurosceptics.

The library has analysed all statutory instruments adopted over the last five financial years, up to April 2004 and showed that the proportion arising out of agreements reached at European level come to about 9% per year - and many of them rather technical rules concerning trade or agriculture.

Don't count on the Eurosceptics dropping their silly claims that we are being sucked into a super-state that dictates all of our laws from Brussels. They have never let the facts stand in the way of their claims.

My colleague Linda McAvan MEP helps to raise public awareness of an MEP’s day job with this letter in the Grimsby Evening Telegraph:

The EU legislation Ronny Jillings refers to (Viewpoint January 27), is designed to stop misleading health claims being made about food. Should companies market products as 90 per cent fat free, implying they are good for you, when they are full of sugar? Should high salt, high sugar foods, be targeted at children? These are the kind of questions MEPs are looking at.