Rumours abound about Strasbourg parliament

Ever since the roof caved in in the Strasbourg parliament, rumours have flown back and forth about the state of the building.

The latest gossip is that the steel used to construct the parliament was the same as that used to build Terminal 2E in Charles de Gaulle airport, which collapsed in 2004, killing four people.

If the rumour turns out to be true, and it only is a rumour, it would appear that the Strasbourg Parliament will be out of order for quite some time.

Solving the Strasbourg seat dilemma

A couple of weeks ago I circulated a tongue-in-cheek suggestion by email to parliamentary colleagues; that the Parliament rename the building in which its parliamentary chamber in Brussels in located. Instead of calling it the "Paul Henri Spaak" building, it could, I proposed, be called "Strasbourg", and Parliament could then hold all its sessions in Strasbourg.

I was, however, somewhat surprised to hear from the BBC that the Scottish Nationalist Party has this week taken up this idea in a press release, claiming it as their own. Plagiarism is, of course, common in politics, but usually not on such a specific matter - although they always say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Joking aside, it is high time the national governments (whose power it is) revise their 1992 decision (at the Edinburgh Council chaired by John Major) obliging Parliament to shift twelve weeks a year to Strasbourg. The recent interruption of the monthly migration, due to the collapse of ceiling in the building that France built for us in Strasbourg, has been widely welcomed and shown how operating in Brussels is easier for all concerned, not just MEPs, but ministers, commissioners, journalists, staff, embassies and all.

Government confirms it wants a solution to Strasbourg

Many of you will have supported the One Seat campaign which seeks an end to Parliament sessions in Strasbourg.

Our Labour government, in response to a Downing Street petition, has essentially backed the campaign stating that having two seats for the parliament is "far from ideal" and that want to find "the most cost-effective solution for the conduct of business in the European Parliament".

This is good news but of course the decision on where the Parliament sits is made by all national governments and must be unanimous. There is still little sign that Sarkozy would be willing to end Strasbourg sessions. And there won’t be unless there is a concerted effort to pressure the French government into accepting a compromise. It is encouraging that our government has promised to continue to "press for progress". We should all press the Foreign Office and Number 10 to keep doing so at every opportunity.

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.

The election of a new French President (who faces no new Presidential or Parliamentary elections for another five years), coinciding with an Intergovernmental Conference to quickly adopt a set of amendments to the current treaties, could provide us with an opportunity to solve one problem that has been niggling away at us for some time now - the issue over the Strasbourg Parliament seat.

We must try to convince France that maintaining the seat in Strasbourg is not in its interests. The refusal of France to budge on this issue is damaging its reputation across Europe, not to mention the reputation of the EU itself (the Strasbourg seat was a major factor when the Dutch rejected the Constitutional Treaty). The constant travelling MEPs and their staff (not to mention lobbyists, journalists, and so on) have to do every month to Strasbourg from Brussels not only presents a logistical nightmare, it constantly generates bad press over the wastefulness of the EU and the hypocrisy over the EU's bold environmental targets when travel between the two cities leaves a huge carbon footprint.

Mr Sarkozy presents himself as a bold reformer. What better opportunity to solve a problem that will otherwise continue to fester for many years?

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.

Along with hundreds of other MEPs I am in Strasbourg this week and the current session has coincided with a welcome drive to have just one site for the European Parliament, in Brussels.

The use of both Brussels and Strasbourg has long been a contentious issue and the expense of this dual base has given Eurosceptics plenty of ammunition for their attacks against the EU.

It is the nation governments, not the European Parliament, which decides on the seats of the EU institution and this convoluted system is the result of a last-ditch compromise at the Edinburgh Summit in 1992, chaired by John Major.

It was an expensive mistake and it is essential that it is rectified as soon as possible. The current situation is not only costly but inconvenient and impacts on the efficiency of the EU.

I have recently signed an online petition which is campaigning for one seat (in Brussels) for the European Parliament and I urge all of you to do the same.

It intends to collect a million signatures and is an opportunity to have your say on this issue.

You can register and find out more at www.oneseat.eu

This will hopefully add to the pressure. But besides maximum pressure, we need to offer France a way out: after all, thanks to John Major, it has a veto on changing the situation.

That is why I have suggested a quid pro quo: Parliament to Brussels and the European Council (summit) meetings to Strasbourg. This would be quite logical: the summit is supposed to take a strategic view and would benefit from taking a certain distance from Brussels, whereas the Parliament should be on the scene where the day-to-day work goes on. Swopping the two would also give just as much prestige to Strasbourg, which is important for France and might help persuade it to do a deal.

Click here to see my motion for resolution.

My office today put out this press release:

The current system of basing EU institutions jointly in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg has sometimes been called “schizophrenic”. But European decision-makers have been unable to agree on a single location for Parliament, Council and the Commission – until now.

Richard Corbett, a Labour MEP and EU constitutional expert, explained:

“The search for a single location for the ‘capital' of the EU, secretly codenamed ‘Europa', has been going on for decades.

“We had to find a central location which embodied the ideal of European unity without giving preference to any member state. That was our main stumbling block.”

Read the full press release here.