Red lines beat red herrings, as Commons votes against referendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revealed, the way the Tories voted on the treaty

Which way individual Tory MEPs voted on yesterday’s vote on the Lisbon Treaty makes interesting reading.

The vast majority voted against the treaty, in accordance with the Cameron/Hague line. They were, as I said yesterday, the only major party in the whole of the EU to do so.

But nearly a quarter did not follow their party dictat. Christopher Beazley voted in favour as did Tory new boy Sajid Karim, who having defected last year from the Lib Dems, has obviously failed to make many of his new colleagues see sense.

Five more avoided voting. Caroline Jackson might have been simply trying to avoid her colleagues after fiercely attacking them in the Financial Times.

But what of Syed Kamall, who has spent the past few sessions tediously squeezing in references to having a referendum in almost every speech he has made, regardless of the subject being debated, but on Wednesday, when he had a chance to vote on the treaty, he didn’t? Christopher Heaton-Harris and James Elles were also notable by their absence, though the former, at least, is an unlikely closet federalist.

As to Edward McMillan Scott, he can sometimes be very sensible, so not voting against was surely deliberate. And I won't reveal the names of those who apologised to me for not voting for my report on the treaty, citing unbearable pressure from on-high.

An interesting pamphlet, prepared by a group of academics, chaired by Professor Jo Shaw of Edinburgh University (and formerly of Leeds) looking at EU cooperation in the field of Justice & Home Affairs, came across my desk today. In its conclusions is a comment which could apply generally to some British attitudes to the EU. Referring to the advocates of retaining vetoes on EU decisions, it says they give the impression of "European partners apparently eager to legislate against British interests wherever the national veto is lost. In fact, the UK is often a quiet champion of law-making in JHA and in many cases stands to benefit from the greater ease of decision-making brought by qualified majority voting."

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.

Like many national parliaments, the European Parliament has rules that members may not vote on matters where they have a pecuniary personal interest. This is intended to stop, for instance, members who hold shares in a company that might be affected by a decision from benefitting from the way they vote.

In yesterday’s vote on capping mobile phone charges, two of the Eurosceptic Tory MEPs got up to say that they would not be voting because they stood to gain financially if phone charges went down, because they owned mobile phones. Following their logic, I suggested that the President find out if there was any member who did not possess a mobile phone and that member alone might decide on this particular piece of legislation!

Obviously, MEPs benefit from any consumer protection measure that protects the general public, since they are themselves also members of the general public. The attempt to make it impossible for any member possessing a mobile phone to vote on this measure was in fact no less than an attempt to sabotage it – though an amusing one!

Perhaps the most high profile vote in the Strasbourg session this week was on funding for scientific research across Europe.

At first glance this may seem a fairly straight forward issue but it became a deeply contentious one because of the proposal to offer financial backing to stem cell research.

Despite the controversy surrounding research in this field I, and the Labour MEPs as a group, felt it was important to vote in favour of the proposal.

Stem cell research offers hope to people suffering from the likes of Alzheimer’s, cancer and Parkinson’s, all terrible diseases which we must do our utmost to discover new or improved treatments for.

Europe’s tight regulations and strict ethical codes mean that it is better for the research to take place here rather than countries with less stringent rules.

It is also good news for Yorkshire and the Humber. The University of Sheffield’s Centre for Stem Cell Biology has been at the forefront of these experiments, with scientists having already made a breakthrough on IVF treatment.

In general, British universities claim 20 per cent of all research money allocated by the European Union and with Sheffield, Leeds, York, Hull, Bradford and Huddersfield all hosting excellent universities the Parliament’s vote is great news for them too.

Click here for more details on the University of Sheffield's breakthrough on IVF treatment.

I have voted with enthusiasm in favour an excellent parliamentary initiative by my colleague Gary Titley. It proposes a pan-European automatic emergency call system. In the event of a road accident, the "eCall" device in the vehicle will automatically dial the nearest emergency call centre, also providing information on the precise location of the accident. This will result in a dramatic reduction in rescue time and make it possible to treat more injuries in the crucial 'golden hour' following the accident.

The advantage of this system is not only that it will help save lives but also that it will reduce congestion time and contribute to the efficiency of road transportation in Europe with a reduction of external costs.

It is an excellent example of the advantages of action at EU level, complementing the common emergency telephone number (112) which I was involved in suggesting when I was a junior civil servant many years ago.

I think I've cracked the mystery of how UKIP MEPs manage to keep such a grumpy expression no matter what, and mechanically vote against every useful proposal that comes before Parliament.

The answer? They're all robots.

I was browsing the European Parliament's transcript of debates (the hi-tech equivalent of Westminster's Hansard) the other day and spotted a remarkable similarity between the contributions to the debate made by several UKIP MEPs. First, Mike Nattrass:

"UKIP fully recognises the desirability of improving conditions for handicapped people, particularly in some states on mainland Europe. However, we reject the notion that improvements should be carried out under the competence of the Commission."

Next, Tom Wise:

"I fully recognise the desirability of improving conditions for handicapped people. However, I reject the notion that this should be done, by the EU on behalf of anyone, let alone sovereign Nation States."

Next, Gerard Batten:

"UKIP fully recognises the desirability of improving conditions for handicapped people, particularly in some states on mainland Europe. However, we reject the notion that improvements should be carried out under the competence of the Commission."

Anyone else smell a rat?

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!

Yesterday saw Parliament's full vote on the Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) legislation, which aims to introduce a coherent testing regime to ensure that the chemicals used in everyday products are safe.

I am strongly in favour of the REACH legislation being brought into effect in its most effective form possible, along with my Labour colleagues and the rest of the Socialist group in which we sit in the European Parliament.

However, in the European Parliament, no political group has an absolute majority and the European People's Party (including the UK Tories) is the largest group. These political realities have made it difficult to build a majority in support of as strong a piece of legislation as I would have liked.

So I voted in favour of two compromises. One, negotiated between the Socialists and the Greens and Liberals, covered scope, substances, authorisation information, transparency and limitation of animal testing. The other, negotiated with the centre-right, covered which chemicals would have to be registered. These compromises are not ideal, but they are the best deal currently possible, given the political majorities in the Parliament.

We do need to test 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 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.

Along with the rest of the Socialist Group, I also supported all the amendments that were recommended to us by animal welfare organisations who sought to reduce the testing of chemicals on animals as a result of the new legislation.

I believe that the final compromise was the best possible outcome that could have been achieved, given the political make-up of the Parliament. The draft legislation will now pass to the Council, where the Ministers of the 25 Member States will examine the text adopted by the Parliament. If they agree our text, it will become law. If they decide it requires further amendment, the text will come before the Parliament for a second reading. I will do all I can to ensure that the compromise is not weakened in any further readings.

I'm somewhat apprehensive of the 'Grand Coalition' government being formed in Germany. What will happen when it becomes unpopular - as all governments do, but this one perhaps more quickly than others given its need to compromise widely differing views?

If both main parties are sharing the blame and voters want to vote for the opposition, it could mean that the extreme parties will do well. The only time the neo-nazi NPD ever came close to reaching the 5% threshold for representation in the Bundestag was during the last Grand Coalition in 1967-69. There's a danger that, this time, disaffected CDU/CSU supporters vote for the far right and disaffected SPD supporters vote for the former communist “Left Party”. This in turn would make coalitions other than a grand coalition more difficult to achieve, and a vicious circle would be started. Let’s hope it doesn't get that bad.

We voted today on the revision of the working time directive. The Labour MEPs have negotiated a compromise which, whilst recognising that the opt-out is bound to be phased out in due course, gives employers and employees greater flexibility in allowing the calculation of the 48-hour week to be made over a 12-month reference period. This will allow for large variations over the course of the year and will be welcomed by many small businesses, especially in those sectors where activity varies over the year.

This was a first reading by Parliament - in other words it is a package of suggestions submitted to the national governments who will consider it in the EU Council. They can accept it or amend it, notably to take account of any particular national concerns, and then send it back to Parliament for further consideration.