|
|
columns in local newspapers
Eryl writes a light-hearted monthly newspaper column that appears in local newspapers in Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire. The most recent columns are listed first. Looking forward to an enlarged European Union Genetic testing and sharing good practice What's wrong with the Common Agricultural Policy Z is for Zorba, Zrihen and Zenkiewicz Y is for Year of People with Disabilities The benefits of free trade in services The war, world trade and family planning U is for Uranium, Ukraine and the USA In praise of change and diversity EU research grants: the real issues How do we match up to EU declarations? Intelligent energy, GM foods... and more Working together as part of Europe and the world So you think you'd like to work in the European Parliament Television and driving in Europe Spain calls for better understanding of Europe, life with the Euro - and more The truth about life as an MEP - and this month's parliamentary business World trade, European Union research and other issues The European Parliament and the debate about world trade A federation - not a superstate Science, language learning... and more Top 10 questions asked to MEPs "No surprise that British know least about EU" says Euro MP Start of the Fifth European Parliament The European Parliament Elections
February 2004 Looking forward to an enlarged European Union As
I'm standing down from the European Parliament this June I'll be able to help
out in the European elections taking place for the first time in countries like
Lithuania and Poland. Most of the ten countries joining the EU in May were
formerly communist of course and have had a difficult time in adjusting to the
free market economy which the EU will demand of them, alongside the ability to
adopt all EU legislation and to be fully committed to human rights and to
democracy. Obviously "Copy us and everything will be perfect" is not
an appropriate piece of advice from existing members since all current EU
countries are struggling with maintaining competitiveness in a globalised
economy and at the same time improving "social cohesion". December 2003 Whichever
way you choose December 2003 I'm
going to let Christmas come early for the Euro-sceptics in this month's article,
since I'll raise some of the concerns I have about the current state of the EU.
I certainly haven't become a convert to their extremist cause, however, and
firmly believe that our future in today's world needs us to be in the EU, with a
strong European Parliament and a positive attitude towards cooperation.
I
thought I'd pick out a few of this week's activities in Brussels, to give you a
flavour of what's going on and how MEPs work. I arrived on Sunday evening and
I'll be leaving on Thursday afternoon, for constituency engagements that
evening, Friday and during the weekend. That's my normal pattern of travelling -
3 weeks in Brussels and one in Strasbourg (Grrrr) every month. This week Monday
and Tuesday are for meetings of the big Trade and Industry committee, with votes
on 12 different reports, including hot topics like stem cell research, oil
supplies and "e government". The stem cells issue is very difficult,
actually, since the use of surplus embryos to provide stem cells which could
help to alleviate or cure incapacitating diseases is controversial in some
countries such as Ireland, Germany or Austria. We'll also be discussing attempts
to lay down European safety rules for nuclear power stations and funds for
decommissioning them. The problem here is largely the new members in Eastern
Europe whose nuclear reactors are less safe than ours and who haven't got funds
ready for the very expensive process of decommissioning. The
Commissioner for Energy, a Spanish women called Loyola de Palacio, came to the
committee to discuss the problem with us. As Commissioner, her task is to follow
the political lead of the "Council of Ministers" (representatives of
the 15 member state governments) and to draw up possible laws which we in the
Parliament will then vote on, alongside the Council of Ministers. She can't make
decisions, therefore, only suggestions. Only elected governments and the
fully-elected European Parliament make decisions. Once the laws are passed, it's
the Commission that ensures they're carried out. (This all seemed very clear
when I started to write it!) I've
had dozens of requests for meetings about the new chemicals laws, which have
just been published (as suggestions!) by the Commission. You may remember that I
wrote about them last month. The requests are mainly from chemical companies but
some environmental groups and Trade Unions also want to meet me and other MEPs.
I doubt whether they'll all be saying the same things so I'll meet a few of
each, as well as asking people in the UK what they think. We don't have big
chemical plants in our region but we do have industrial users of chemicals and
of course we have the public whose health is the reason for the new laws. I'll
have to get my teeth into this one. I've
organised a meeting for European astronauts, to discuss European Space Policy
and will be meeting a Mexican Trade Minister to talk about the recent failed WTO
meeting in Cancún. (No connection at all but that's how we work, jumping from
subject to subject.) We're having a long session this week with the person who
currently chairs the WTO - Señor
Perez del Castillo of Uruguay, to see how or indeed whether trade talks can be
re-started, given the justifiable determination of developing countries not to
be ignored. We have a full session of Parliament on Wednesday and Thursday, with debates and votes, as well as a report from Romano Prodi (President of the Commission). He'll no doubt be questioned again about the financial scandal in the statistics branch of the Commission, "Eurostat". I'm glad that the Parliament is on the case, but we shouldn't give the impression that the whole of the EU is corrupt, any more than one crooked headmistress showed the whole British school system to be tainted. Back home on Thursday to talk to Watford CAB at their annual meeting. Let me know if you want more information about anything I've mentioned. (emcnally@europarl.eu.int).
September 2003 Chemical
regulation and the protection of consumers against harmful substances is a
subject of great importance these days. We have all read studies in the
newspapers about household products we all use without thinking that have been
proven to have dangerous long-term effects. From cleaning products to cosmetics,
building materials to children's colouring pencils, our world is designed using
technology and science. It is vital that this science is monitored and that
technological progress does not come at a price- to human health and to our
environment. We
need experts to tell us what is safe and what is not. The European Commission
has proposed a system of chemical registration and authorisation in order to
regulate the chemicals made and imported into the European Union. The Parliament
is to begin discussions on the proposal shortly. This measure is vitally
important to us as consumers, all too often ignorant of the contents or effects
of the items on our supermarket shelves. We are not specialist scientists and
need someone with genuine authority to ensure that the products we buy are
risk-free. Chemical
control is also essential in the workplace. Workers who come into daily contact
with chemicals should not do so at a risk to their health or well-being. We need
to avoid cases of long-term exposure to a certain substance leading to illness
because of a lack of information or insufficient testing. Making
a register of all the chemicals that are produced and used in the European Union
is a huge task and incredibly complicated. Not only would new chemicals have to
be given the all clear, but substances that have been in use for many years
would also have to undergo new stricter testing procedures. This
has enormous repercussions for industry. It will mean more work for
manufacturers and producers. The cost of rigorous testing procedures could force
smaller sized companies out of the market. Excessively strict standards could
deter foreign investment and push businesses to relocate outside of the EU. With
new obstacles and rules to negotiate, the price of higher standards could be the
loss of jobs in industry. The
system must provide ample financial protection for those companies who are
threatened by increased demands for testing. It must ensure that the procedures
are as simple and straightforward as possible for the manufacturer to implement.
The EU has a duty to preserve European industry and of course to preserve
European jobs, and this should be a high priority in the Commission and
Parliament's considerations. In
the long run, data sharing on a Europe-wide scale makes a lot of sense. In the
field of chemical manufacture, this will bring important benefits. Manufacturers
throughout the European Union will have access to the results of previous
clinical trials. This will allow them to reduce the time and money spent
re-testing products that have already been given the green light, in another
country or for another manufacturer. This is also good news in the fight against
animal testing- the publication of test results will ultimately reduce the need
for new tests on animals throughout Europe. Do let me have your views.
August 2003 My latest visitors' group to Strasbourg and Brussels were in the gallery of the Strasbourg hemicycle chamber when Silvio Berlusconi, a more sinister person than his clownish behaviour would indicate, by the way, appalled almost every MEP by suggesting that one of the German socialist members could play a Nazi concentration camp guard in a film. It takes a very ignorant Prime Minister not to know that the horrors of the Third Reich have been instilled into all Germans throughout their schooling. German schoolchildren visit concentration camp museums such as Buchenwald and are spared none of the details of the dreadful events that took place there. Martin Schulz, the MEP concerned, is very far from being a warmonger and has specialised in civil liberties and highlighting atrocities in the world, so the outrage we felt was huge. Italian colleagues were mortified and pointed out to us what they have to put up with, thanks to Berlusconi's grip on the Italian media. Luckily the visitors saw many more edifying aspects of life in the European Union. Glenys Kinnock told them about the ongoing struggle to ensure that developing countries are treated fairly, and an MEP colleague from Luxembourg explained that we are losing influence (and jobs) by not joining the Euro. They met a representative from the umbrella group of organisations who work with and for the elderly and a representative of the American Chamber of Commerce in Brussels who explained some of the background to the ongoing trade disputes between the US and the EU. Think steel tariffs and genetically-modified foods. We voted on GM labelling during their visit. I think it's very important that customers know whether the foods they're buying contain genetically-modified ingredients, although I personally don't fear health risks. I am concerned about the impact on the environment, however and do believe that pollen from genetically-modified crops will spread over long distances. Labelling something as free from genetically-modified ingredients must be scientific and provable, through documentation throughout the growing and processing of the food concerned. I spoke in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) debate, pointing out that developing countries have no wish for issues like investment, or competition policy to be on the agenda for the WTO meeting in Cancun, Mexico, in September, and that I thought we should drop them and concentrate on areas where we might get agreement. As you know, the EU negotiates on behalf of all member states in trade matters and it's quite an achievement to reconcile all the national preoccupations in a strong position vis a vis the Americans and others. Those of us going to Cancun will be trying to explain to those we meet from all over the world that we do understand this is a make or break chance to do the right thing by developing countries. Anglia television spent a day filming me to produce a short "day in the life" of an MEP. I wish more visitors could come to see us at work - it's much easier to see why it's worth voting carefully when you know what the successful candidates will actually have to do to earn the salary you and I pay for!
July 2003 Genetic testing and sharing good practice Every now and then I have to attend meetings at one of the European Commission's conference centres and I'm always amazed to see just how many meetings are taking place each day, bringing together groups from all over Europe on the most disparate subjects - life-long learning, genetic testing, SARS, cod quotas, ageing, entrepreneurship in developing countries, young people - just a sample of the networking that was going on one day last week. These aren't useless meetings, organised to help the revenues of travel companies and hotels, by the way, but enable the participants to share experiences and to put together projects or influence policy. No country has a monopoly on good practice in every area and national experts are keen to hear about what goes on elsewhere. My group was on genetic testing and we spent a day looking at the costs to health services of doing or not doing genetic tests, how counselling is best done, whether ethnic and cultural differences are sufficiently taken into account and what laws are needed about disclosure of genetic information. The whole question of how to involve citizens in what's going on at European level was examined during the recent Convention. Of course, direct representation is by the elected MEPs and every government has a say in what's going on, but obviously other mechanisms are needed if civil society is to be represented. All the major charities and campaigning groups in the UK are aware of the need to work at a European level. This week I met someone who works in a local hospice and who finds the European Association of Palliative Care, on which she is active, a very good resource in exchanging views, resources and in campaigning for more recognition of the need for research in this area of work. I recently organised a meeting for all the European organisations working for elderly people and was impressed to learn that in some countries older people are asked to serve on advisory groups called "councils of the wise". There is a body called the Economic and Social Committee (ECOSOC) which has been in existence for longer than the European Parliament. It's made up of representatives from three groups – employers, workers (through trade unions) and ‘others’. It's probably fair to say that it's "not quite reaching its potential", to be polite. It could and should be revamped so that it genuinely represents the alternative voices that should be heard at European level. Of course there's no guarantee that charities and campaigning groups are representative, and they don't have the democratic legitimacy of MEPs, so of course shouldn't vote on laws. They're very valuable, though. Our group on genetic testing is greatly strengthened by having three people from patients' organisations – not just industry representatives and academics. They are very aware of the reality of genetic testing. One has lost two children to a rare disease and another has cystic fibrosis. Without European networks we would lose out on so much different knowledge and experience and would be all re-inventing the wheel in our own small countries, without benefiting from the added value which the EU brings.
June 2003 What's
wrong with the Common Agricultural Policy The most frequent question I get at public meetings is about the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Our region is agricultural in terms of land-use but not in terms of contribution to the economy, but of course rural areas must be helped appropriately. The CAP is not appropriate! We
the taxpayer the consumer are paying through the nose to prop up a system that
destroys the livelihoods of third world farmers as huge surpluses are dumped on
third world countries and it does little to help small farmers in Europe.
It also encourages highly intensive chemical-reliant, highly mechanized
farming techniques that do little for environmental concerns and does benefit
large commercial farmers and agribusiness. In
Mozambique for example, 80% people live in rural areas and agriculture for most
is the sole source of employment. Despite years of civil war and the floods a
few years ago the people and government in Mozambique have worked tirelessly to
get sugar production back up again and now they produce the cheapest sugar in
the world. The sugar sector is the single largest employer in Mozambique. The
EU is one of the highest cost sugar producers. However, because of its subsidies
it is the second largest sugar exporter. Mozambique is not allowed to export the
sugar to the EU. What is worse is
that it can’t even export sugar to other African countries - because the
massive surpluses generated by EU, which are dumped at ridiculously low prices
in these countries. Sugar from Mozambique does not stand a chance.
Employment is the sugar industry could be doubled over night in
Mozambique if they were given a chance to compete fairly. France is the biggest recipient of subsidies, partly because they have the largest agricultural sector. Farmers in Italy get paid around twice as much for their milk as farmers in the UK. The way subsidies get given in the milk sector is that they go to the processors. In Denmark this works quite well as the cooperatives that produce the milk also process it. This is not the case in the UK, the big food companies often don’t pass these savings on the farmer and in fact there is something of a price war amongst our supermarkets in milk, meaning the UK dairy farmer is getting an exceedingly low price. There are guidelines about what price the processor should give to farmers, but they are just guidelines and often not followed. CAP has been heralded as a
mechanism for keeping the small farmer in business, but this is a myth. The
lion’s share of the subsidies goes to large farms and agribusiness. The number
of dairy farmers has halved in just one decade with the average size of a farm
going up by half. CAP costs €47 billon
(over £33 billion) half the EU budget .In a recent survey 70% of Europeans
supported those aspects of CAP relating to food quality, protection of the
environment and to improve of the quality of life in rural areas. But only 30%
believe that CAP fulfilled these. Any subsidy that promotes
overproduction & increased exports promotes dumping. For developing countries to break out of their cycles of poverty and debt, the EU must stop dumping its surpluses on them. It is vital. Do let me know what you think.
Z is for Zorba, Zrihen and Zenkiewicz Something
I've learned the hard way is that anyone who blithely offers to do an A to Z
series should very make sure that they've got plans for X and Z, before they
start. You may recall that I resorted to "xylophone" for X but very
fortunately for me I have two excellent MEP colleagues named respectively
Myrsini Zorba (Yes, she is Greek) and Olga Zrihen (she's Belgian) whom I'd like
to tell you about, so that you get a feel for the varied experiences which MEPs
bring to their work. I'd also like to mention Marian Zenkiewicz (he's a man)
who's an observer to the Parliament from Poland, in the run-up to next year's
European elections, when Polish members will be elected, along with those from
nine other new countries. All
MEPs are directly elected from their home countries, which makes the Parliament
unique in the world as an international body, although as I've mentioned before,
we don't work in national delegations, but in political groups. Myrsini, Olga
and Marian are members of the PES (Party of European Socialists) group, like me
and we all work on the Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy committee. Myrsini is a qualified lawyer, who's studied in Italy as well as Greece. She's been a publisher for many years, even during the repressive period of the Greek colonels, when this was far from easy and had to be clandestine. Amongst her close personal friends is Doris Lessing. Before coming to the European Parliament she was Director of the Greek National Book Centre and is passionately interested in culture, including all sorts of cultural industries, which she fears are at risk in Europe because of the all-pervasive and money-making American entertainment companies. Olga
was born in Morocco - in Casablanca, in fact, into a very poor and large family.
When she was small the family moved to France and gradually moved northwards,
living in cramped and poor-standard accommodation and ending up in Belgium,
where her natural intelligence and will-power enabled her to do language studies
and become a translator and teacher. Taking a critical look around the social
facilities in her neighbourhood she got involved in community action groups,
including setting up a local TV group. She was widowed very young, and it was
some time before she entered mainstream politics. She's the opposite of a career
politician, and her commitment is always to all those who get the rough deals in
our world. She knows what she's talking about. Marian's
only just joined us, of course, and so far the main thing I've learned about him
is that he was an international track athlete who competed in London during the
1950s. He was born before the Second World War and I can only imagine the
upheavals he's seen in his country - invasion, Nazi occupation, Russian
barbarities, Soviet-style communism, Solidarnosc and the move towards EU
membership. You probably now know more about my three "Z" colleagues than you do about any UK MEPs! You can imagine, however, I hope, what benefit comes from the bringing together of like-minded people whose very different backgrounds and histories allow joint work which is much better-informed, while we strongly retain our own cultures. I hope this A to Z series has given you a flavour of what goes on at the European parliament. Look up "Europarl" on the web if you want to know more.
May 2003 When
shots of international assemblies like the UN are shown on TV, you can see the
cards in front of the delegates showing which country they represent. The
European Parliament works quite differently, though. The 87 MEPs from the UK
don’t sit together, but separately, alongside their political counterparts
from other countries. There are MEPs from 10 different UK Parties – Labour,
Conservative, Liberal Democrats, Greens, Plaid Cymru, Scottish Nationalists, UK
Independence Party, SDLP (John Hume), Democratic Unionists (Ian Paisley) and
Ulster Unionists (Jim Nicholson). All
the Labour members, plus John Hume, are in the Group of the Party of European
Socialists, the Conservatives in the European People’s Party/European
Democrats, Liberal Democrats in the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Group,
and the others spread themselves amongst the Group of the Greens/European free
Alliance, the Group for a Europe of Democracy and Diversities and the
“non-attached”. There’s also a Confederal Group of the European United
Left/Nordic Green left and the Union for a Europe of the Nations Group. I know
it’s beginning to sound like a sketch from “The Life of Brian” but the
political cultures of 15 member states can’t always be easily categorised. All
the work of the Parliament is organised through these groups and we sit in a
hemicycle, ranging from the far left to the far right. The hundred or so new
MEPs from the 10 countries who’ll be joining next year will have to decide
which group their Party fits best into. Again, not easy, since most of them are
ex Communist countries, where lots of new Parties have been formed since the
changeover in regime. I don’t know whether or not there’s a “hunting and
fishing” Party in Slovenia. If so, they could join the EDD group, which
largely consists of the French Hunting Party. Bizarre! The French are the only
country to be represented in every single Group, by the way. I
was very sorry, though, that the French were misrepresented and subjected to the
worst kind of ignorant xenophobia during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq -
naturally by the appalling tabloid press we sadly have in this country, but also
by senior politicians who should certainly know better. No other country in
Europe would tolerate the sort of coverage we regularly see in the Sun and the
Mail, using the crude language of the gutter to describe our European partners,
with whom enormous progress has been made in working together on difficult
issues, ever since the Second World War. Jacques Chirac, and indeed any leader of a democratic country, has every right to use his own judgement, with which, in his case, the vast majority of his fellow-citizens wholeheartedly agreed. A world in which one country dictates to all others what they should think would be a disaster, as those who are voluntarily joining the EU, having lived under the influence of the Soviet Union, would certainly admit. The European Parliament is, as I’ve mentioned before, the only directly-elected international assembly in the world and its plurality is an enormous benefit for wise law-making. Without it, the chances for those who have different views from the current government of their country to be heard would be zero. Power to the people!
May 2003 Y is for Year of People with Disabilities As my Y in the European alphabet I've chosen the "European Year of People with Disabilities" (EYPD) that is taking place in 2003. I sometimes get fed up with "Week of", "Year of" and "Day of" since some of them are so bizarre - "International oral hygiene week" springs to mind. All of us would agree, though, that people with disabilities should be centre-stage, given the discrimination and lack of thought which makes their lives more difficult, often quite unnecessarily. One in ten of the population in the EU has a disability and most EU countries could do much more to recognise this. Thanks to Brian Crowley, a young Irish MEP, who's used a wheelchair since he was severely injured in a rugby accident, and other MEP wheelchair users, we know how deficient the European Parliament's own buildings have been - thankfully now somewhat improved. The European Year will be run using the ideas of people with disabilities, in all 15 member states and will have a budget of 12 million Euros (over £8m), with more added by each government. In the UK, for example, 50,000 Euros (about £35,000) were spent on the launch events and 500,000 Euros (about £350,000) will be spent on projects all over the country. Our government is adding £2million. There'll be a UK Disabled People's Parliament, handbooks, websites, training in how to represent people with disabilities and over 170 projects, three in our region. One of the local projects is based in Hertfordshire and intriguingly entitled "The Great Escape". I'll try to find out more, since Hertfordshire's always seemed relatively OK to me as a place to live. There's a Power Wheelchair Marathon in Colchester and a "Forum" project in Cambridge. In June the special People's March, which is visiting all EU member states in connection with EYPD (currently in Portugal) will be in the UK - unfortunately not in our region but it will be in London, led by a psychedelic bus. The Special Olympics World Games will be held in Ireland. As well as the projects and special events some serious political work has to go on, if the rights of people with disabilities are to be properly recognised. There is huge anger, for example, that the "Convention", led by Giscard d'Estaing, which is meant to be drawing up a new constitution for the EU, has not incorporated the anti-discrimination objectives of the EU in an appropriate place. The European Disability Forum and many other groups have clearly expressed their disapproval and I hope that changes will be made. The EU would be a disaster if it were to be only a single market, and since people with disabilities have as much right as anyone else to free movement in the EU, adequate standards must exist everywhere. I'm very pleased at forthcoming legislation in the UK. People with disabilities represented on the European Disability Forum, voted unanimously to oppose the war in Iraq. I suppose they refuse to accept the deliberate creation of disability in tens of thousands of people - an inevitable consequence of war - as well as disbelieving the ostensible reasons for the war. If you'd like to know more about the EYPD, there's a lot of information on the web - you can access it direct (eypd2003.org) or through my website (erylmcnallymep.org.uk)
April 2003 It's
hard to concentrate on our normal work in Strasbourg this week, knowing that
people are dying daily in a war opposed by the majority of us. One of the
reports we'll be voting on, coincidentally, is about the priorities and
deficiencies of European security and defence. Clearly the current splits over
Iraq make the possibility of joint defence policies seem remote, but in due
course it would be much better for the EU to have a permanent force for
humanitarian and rescue missions, and for relationships with NATO to be
clarified. We can't allow the role of the UN to be diminished, either, in favour
of a self-appointed world ruler like the current Bush administration. We'll
be giving our formal assent to the negotiations on enlargement, firstly to ten
countries and later to Bulgaria, Romania, eventually the Balkan countries
(Croatia has already applied) and possibly to Turkey, although that's
controversial and they certainly don't qualify on human rights issues alone at
the moment. A
directive on the use of human tissues and cells will get its first reading. It
will lay down European standards for the donation, testing, storage and
distribution of human tissues and cells. We think donations should be unpaid and
completely voluntary and that tissues and cells should be traceable. Member
states will be able to decide whether or not children have the right to trace
their genetic parents, even though sperm may have been donated on the basis of
anonymity. There is an attempt to prevent stem cell research, which I shall not
support, since I think there are possibilities of relieving suffering with such
work. There'll be another directive later this year looking at organ transplants
and how we can overcome the shortage of available organs, whilst of course
respecting the wishes of potential donors. We'll
be voting on the results of a conciliation process between the Parliament and
the Council of Ministers (representing the 15 member-state governments) about
the movement of domestic pets over borders. The new rules won't affect the UK or
Sweden for at least five years as we have a new system in place. I know many
people who travel abroad are relieved that they can take their pets. Rabies has
almost disappeared in Europe, following the oral vaccination of foxes in the
North-East but can still come from outside. The new law will make electronic
tags (transponders) compulsory, rather than tattoos, after a phase-in period. One of the success stories of the EU is international exchange schemes, such as 'Erasmus' which allows university students to spend a year in another EU country. This week we'll be extending it to countries all over the world. I hope that a similar scheme will soon be in place for apprentices - training for some crafts is excellent in countries like Germany. The problem always for British students seems to be their incredible reluctance to learn other languages and many don't realise that living in a country makes you learn twenty times faster than you possibly can in a classroom. Danish, French or Swedish teenagers don't give you homework or lists of verbs to learn and the language comes very naturally after the first few weeks of listening. Go for it! My office can help with information.
April 2003X
is for xylophone
X,
in my European alphabet, is for Xylophone, since I've already dealt with
xenophobia and can't think of much to say about x-rays or xylose. My very
resourceful "stagiaire" (trainee) Eimear, in my Brussels office, has
just shown me how to play the xylophone on a computer and has given me a brief
on its history, but the rather tenuous link with this column is that the
European Union Youth Orchestra (EUYO) is one of the great successes of the
European Union. It includes a xylophone. In fact the Youth Orchestra is one
example of the European Parliament taking an initiative via its budgetary
powers. Normally, as I've explained before, the right of initiative is
restricted to the European Commission, who come up with proposed legislation or
funding programmes in accordance with political guidelines from member states.
Their ideas - almost always amended by the Parliament – are then voted into
law. The Parliament can, however, use the annual budgetary procedure to suggest
new budget lines. If the member states agree, the idea is put into practice.
Bringing talented young musicians together is obviously a winner. The
European Union Youth Orchestra has appeared in all the major cities, concert
halls, and festivals of Europe. As an Ambassador of Goodwill, the orchestra has
undertaken important foreign tours that have included China, Hong Kong, Japan,
India, North and South America, Eastern Europe, Russia and the Baltic States.
The orchestra has won an excellent musical reputation and has been compared with
the world's finest orchestras. The EUYO has also won a number of awards. Please
contact my office if you'd like a CD featuring the orchestra. Auditions
for participation in the European Union Youth Orchestra are held annually in
each of the fifteen member countries of the European Union. If you would like an
opportunity to play together with 140 talented young Europeans, developing
friendships and understanding, and at the same time achieving a common goal - a
community symphony orchestra of great excellence, please contact the European
Youth Orchestra at the address below to request an application form: 65 Sloane Street, London SW1X 9SH, UK
Tel: 0207 235 7671
Fax:
0207 235 7370
Email:
info@euyo.org.uk. Jean
Monnet, founding father of the European Union, once said that he wished he'd
started with culture, not coal, steel and nuclear power, to bring the countries
of Europe together after the Second World War and you can see what he meant. The
tough issues of creating a single market would have been easier to tackle once
international understanding had been cemented in less threatening areas.
The "Convention" which will be finishing its work on
redesigning Europe later in the year, will make it clear that joint actions on
culture do have their place in the EU, alongside the environment, the single
market, consumer protection, a joint currency and harmonised policies in
research, transport and agriculture. There's
no doubt that the - in my view unwise and dangerous - decision of the UK to
support George W. Bush in his contrived war against Iraq has shaken the EU. When
this tragic event is over we will see how relationships between member states
can be restored. Our world needs international cooperation.
March 2003 The benefits of free trade in services Words like NATO, WTO, or GMO are so familiar to us that it's easy to forget they're acronyms, based on initials, and will therefore be completely different in other languages. The three I mentioned are respectively OTAN, OMC and OGM in French, for example. It's taken me some time to get used to talking about AGCS with French colleagues - it's the French version of GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services) and a very hot potato, as you know. The first item on the plenary agenda in Strasbourg this week is in fact a statement by Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy, followed by a debate in which I'll be speaking on behalf of the European Socialists. We are very concerned that pressure is being put on developing countries and others to open up their markets in the services sector, which could include sensitive public services and that the requests and offers for access are being made secretly. (In fact, as "coordinator" for the PES (Party of European Socialists) - PSE if you're French - I was allowed to see the EU's negotiating document, but only in terms of complete confidentiality, with the opportunity of getting clarification from Pascal Lamy if I had doubts.) We don't think this is good enough. The
services sector is important for EU jobs - well over 60% of jobs are in services
rather than in manufacturing, agriculture, forestry or mining, so having access
to markets abroad, with rules provided via GATS could be valuable for British
firms. Our experiences of liberalisation, for example in the energy sector,
aren't all positive though and I think the whole philosophy of free market
access should be questioned more. Thank you to those who've sent me their views. Also
on the agenda this week, it goes without saying, is Iraq. Very few MEPs are
supportive of George W Bush's strategy and tactics. We'll hear from the Greek
Prime Minister and from Chris Patten of the European Commission and will then
probably vote again, so that the Parliament's view is clear, in the run-up to
yet another UN deadline. I'll
be speaking in the hemicycle, the debating chamber, three times this week - 2
minutes each time, as usual in plenary debates - on GATS, on next year's budget
and on the Biofuels directive, which will ensure that renewable alternatives to
petrol and diesel are introduced in member states. People in my father's home
town, Llanelli, jumped the gun recently by running their cars on vegetable oil,
buying ten times more than any other town in the UK. Unfortunately they didn't
pay excise duty, otherwise this was a very good idea. There are moves in our
region to recycle cooking oil for cars and we have by far the greatest potential
in the UK to grow crops for fuel. 69% of people in the EU support renewable
energy - far higher than any other type of energy. The
first referendum on EU entry by an applicant country - Malta - was successful. I
organised a meeting with the Polish Ambassador, in Stevenage recently, and he
explained the issues which are concerning Poles - CAP funding, the costs of
environmental laws and the future of small farmers. Organic farming and rural
tourism in Poland's unspoilt areas have great potential, in his view. Time to
change your holiday plans?
February 2003 W is for Welsh, which like Catalan, Basque, Luxemburgisch and Irish Gaelic is not a working language of the EU, although it is, of course, an official language in its own country, as are the others. ( Irish Gaelic is used for EU treaties, but the others are not). When enlargement takes place the question of languages will become delicate. The Maltese have agreed to use English, not Maltese, but the Czechs and Slovaks have refused to share interpreters, even though their respective languages are very similar, as you’d expect, given that Czechoslovakia existed until not so long ago. (I’m told it’s like the difference between English and Scottish people speaking English – some different words but mutually very comprehensible). We have Scottish, Irish and American interpreters in the English booths, as well as English – in fact the two best interpreters in my view are both Scottish. One of them startled us recently by translating a loud-mouthed Dutch member in her own style, so that we were told the Council of Ministers had done “b……r all”. I checked with a Dutch friend who confirmed that this was the correct translation of what was said. There isn’t a rule about “unparliamentary language” in the European Parliament - difficult with 12 languages, of course. Maybe we’ll learn useful swear words in Latvian and Slovenian. W is also for war, of course, on a far more serious note, and the current debates about Iraq have shown up big differences between member states, or at least between their leaders - I suspect that ordinary people everywhere are much more united in feeling very sceptical about the US case for attacking Iraq. Drawing up a common European foreign and defence policy seems a pipedream at the moment and the clear hostility of the US to any notion of the EU becoming a counterweight to its world dominance is a major problem. The new entrants (Poland etc) are very attached to the US, whom they see as their rescuer from the Soviet Union and I expect there to be a long adjustment time until Europe is as united and self confident as many of us want. In the meantime let’s hope that what many of us consider to be an unnecessary war is avoided. Another W, the WTO (World Trade Organisation) will be holding a major ministerial meeting this September, in Cancun, Mexico but there is very little optimism about the chances of a successful meeting. Rich countries simply haven’t delivered enough to the developing world. Agriculture remains heavily subsidisied, there’s no deal on how to supply life-saving drugs to poor countries who can’t make their own, and demands by developing countries for free movement of workers have been ignored. (Money sent home by workers abroad is more important to some developing countries than their own agricultural and industrial earnings). The EU, via Pascal Lamy, the Trade Commissioner, is a major player in the WTO and MEPs are trying hard to influence the negotiations. One of my German colleagues recently wished us a “Happy Winter’s End” - a new phrase to me, but very welcome. I wish you the same!
February 2003 The war, world trade and family planning Like many of you, no doubt, I shall be in London this Saturday, marching to show my disapproval of the rush to a war which I don't believe to be legally justified or wise and whose consequences are most unlikely to make the world safer. I believe that Saddam Hussein can be contained by the UN without a full-scale war and I have severe doubts about American motives. It seems to me that the decision to have a war was taken by them long ago, in the belief that only via successful military action can the pain of September 11th be assuaged, and the rationale for war has been drawn up subsequently, in a not very convincing way. Naturally, talk of Iraq is a preoccupation here in the Parliament and we've had several debates. You can see the resolution we passed recently by clicking here or obtain a copy from my office (01923 242102). This week we'll be having reports on the meetings of financial leaders in Davos, Switzerland, and the much larger gathering of alternatives to capitalism in Porto Allegre, Brazil. The new President of Brazil - "Lula" - born into extreme poverty himself, attended both meetings and argued for a transformation of society, with more effort to reduce poverty, while avoiding debt crisis and inflation. Large numbers of MEPs attended the Porto Allegre meeting and came back enthusiastic about the serious debates and practical ideas put forward. Some of these ideas link in well with the debates we'll be having on two tricky aspects of World Trade Organisation negotiations - cheap (copied) medicines for poor countries and agriculture. I'll be speaking in these debates and if the discussions we had in the Socialist group last week are anything to go by, I'll be out of line with colleagues from France and Spain, whose idea of Common Agricultural Policy reform are considerably less ambitious than ours. We can't help developing countries if we maintain subsidies and import tariffs, and we have to find a way to help our farmers in difficult areas to do something else. It's justifiable to maintain high quality control, environmental and animal welfare standards, of course, and importing produce from countries where such standards don't exist isn't fair. The medicines issue is much clearer, I think - it's a question of how we give favourable access to medicines. Do we change the rules, ignore them for a certain period, earmark funds to buy the drugs? Let me know what you think. Judging
from the correspondence I'm getting, there seem to be objections to a report
coming up this week on sexual and reproductive health in the developing world.
Some people object to birth control and abortion on strongly-held points of
principle and wish to ensure that no funding ever goes to these measures. I have
a different viewpoint, having seen at first hand what happens in some parts of
Argentina when girls start their families at fourteen or fifteen and continue
with a baby a year until their health is damaged and their chances of bringing
up their children adequately are very limited. At least they should be informed
about choices available to them. To withhold information and help is wrong and
we should not impose our views on others, although seeking to influence elected
politicians is an important right. Thank you for your letters.
January 2003 Making a comeback isn't always easy in politics but ex French President Valéry D'Estaing (V in my alphabet) has done so in trumps by becoming Chair of the "Convention" which is looking at the future of the European Union prior to the entry of up to 13 more countries. The Convention is loosely based on the body which drew up the American Constitution and it would be nice to think that they'll come up with equally inspiring language. Of course things won't sound the same in the 21 official languages of the enlarged EU, but the bringing together of countries without war is an achievement worth some grand words. There are 102 members of the Convention - 1 representative of each member state government and one from each applicant country (13, including Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania, who are long-term applicants), 30 MPs from national Parliaments and 26 from applicant Parliaments, 16 MEPs and 2 representatives of the European Commission. They meet every month, in the European Parliament building in Brussels and have progressed from the "listening phase" to the "deliberation phase" before finishing their work later this year with concrete proposals which member state governments will incorporate (or not) into an important new treaty. The Italian government, who take over the six-month presidency of the EU in June, are hoping that the next treaty can be signed in Rome, like the first, back in the fifties. My bet would be that it's more likely under the following presidency - Ireland - and a Treaty of Killarny or Tipperary would be nice. (I'm a bit biased, maybe.) The challenges of globalisation, a certain disenchantment by European citizens who don't feel that the EU means much to them, the complications of enlargement and a need to be clearer about what should be done by national governments and what can be done collectively at European level all add up to the need for a re-think. One of the first conclusions of the Convention members was that all the various treaties and agreements should be brought together and simplified. This includes the strange and anachronistic Euratom Treaty, to promote nuclear power, which I've mentioned before. A controversial point, not yet agreed, is whether or not there should be a President of Europe - the person who picks up the phone when Presidents Bush or Putin want to talk to "Europe". Our government and some others are keen on the idea but others think this would make the national governments too powerful, compared to the European Parliament and the Commission. The German idea is to have two Presidents, one elected by the European Parliament. Convention members all realise that the benefits of the EU in its current form aren't at all clear to many citizens - including some people in Royston at a guess - and most want the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated into the new Treaty. They also want a list of who does what, so that the EU's limits are made clear. We'll see. If you'd like to learn more, there's a useful website (http:// european-convention.eu.int) or you can contact my office.
January 2003 A Finnish MEP colleague told me today that she didn't go out much over Christmas, since it was "rather cold" - in fact minus 30 (!) which made me feel a real sissy for complaining about our weather. She's happy to come to Strasbourg (minus 8) for a warm-up, unlike our Greek colleagues. We had a two-day meeting in Athens (16 degrees) last week, to meet the Greek Ministers who'll be chairing all the EU Council of Ministers meetings for the next six months and who have to ensure that enlargement plans proceed properly, as well as all the normal business. They've also got the preparations for next year's Olympic Games to think about, as well as the terrifying prospect of a major war, should Bush decide to go ahead and attack Iraq. (Almost all members of the European Parliament believe that only if the UN and all European countries are in favour should there be any question of an attack. This is certainly my view.) We've got a very mixed bag of debates this week. I'll be asking the Greek Prime Minister, Mr Simitis, for some details about exactly how he intends to promote research expenditure - one of his presidency's aims. A Dutch colleague has a hard-hitting report on human rights abuses within the EU itself and doesn't spare her own country, or ours. It's quite salutary to see what others think of us and her views on overcrowding in our prisons and the way in which very young prisoners are treated in the UK are worth considering. We have several big reports on European railways - how they can be made more interoperable and what a European Railway Agency could do. There'll be continued examination of the causes and effects of the "Prestige" disaster off the coasts of Spain and France. A German MEP is doing a report on health care and care for the elderly. These are both issues for national governments to decide, of course, but some comparisons and descriptions are useful, especially since some elderly people now choose to spend the winter in other European countries (I wouldn't recommend the North of Finland, by the way). We also have one of those esoteric debates which are on important subjects but hard to follow if you're not an expert - "The effect of low frequency active sonar on marine life". I feel in need of some low activity sonar myself at this time of year. We'll be choosing our next Parliamentary Ombudsman this week - hot favourite is the very impressive current Greek Ombudsman. Any European citizen or resident can take a case to him if they think there's been maladministration in any of the EU's bodies. You can also send a petition to the Parliament on any matter with European implications and I'd be glad to help you, as I've helped other constituents in the past. One signature is enough so you don't have to stand around shopping centres - unless you want to. Please contact my office for more information. Enjoy the warmer weather!
December 2002 U is for Uranium, Ukraine and the USA I've mentioned the Euratom Treaty before. It's the one which was signed in the very early and optimistic days of nuclear power, in the fifties, and which is long overdue for repeal. Some of its provisions, however, on nuclear safety, are now to be used - for the first time - in an attempt to get common safety standards throughout the EU. There's certain urgency about this as some of the former Communist countries get ready to join. Their nuclear power stations are built to a Russian design - the one used for Chernobyl in many cases - and are widely considered unsafe. Indeed it's been a condition for joining the EU that countries like Slovakia and Lithuania close some of their reactors. The problem is that we can't yet point to European standards which must be maintained, since they don't exist. They will, soon, which doesn't please some of the Western countries with their own standards (like us) but I think it's a valuable advance. The Ukraine isn't currently a candidate for the EU and nor are Belarus, Moldova or Russia. Bulgaria and Romania are, however, despite the huge problems which membership would bring for them, given their relative poverty and troubled political systems. At some stage we're going to have to say, "That's enough", I guess, and close the door on new applications. As you know there are some misgivings on Turkey's application, quite apart from very serious breaches of human rights which still have to be addressed. I have no truck with those who say that the EU is "Christians only" - an absurd statement given that millions of non-Christians already live in the existing EU - but the geographical extent of Europe hasn't yet been defined. Relations between the EU and the US are strange. Every European country is massively influenced by American culture and business practices. Even though France has a cultural policy which imposes quotas for EU-produced films and music, the queues outside French cinemas are for the Hollywood blockbusters, not the home-produced films. I'm amused when anti-Europeans claim our culture is threatened by our membership of the EU - the homogenisation is much more likely to come from over the Atlantic. Despite this, there really are big differences between us and the US and from time to time the differences become very visible, often via trade disputes. European countries are much more careful about new technologies like genetically modified foods or hormone treated beef and our social rights are much more advanced. The main fears expressed about GATS are that American services companies will force the whole world to let them run things like health and energy. The EU is big enough to be a formidable sparring partner and in future will be even bigger, of course. Americans are very active on the Brussels scene, so they're obviously aware that the EU matters. Europe has come a long way since the Second World War !
December 2002 Every
now and then I realise that I'm occasionally beginning to use a weird form of
English. It comes from spending so much time with MEPs from other countries,
using the EU jargon which has developed over the years, which looks like English
but isn't actually how we talk in the UK. Thank
goodness we meet our constituents regularly and are brought down to earth! Let
me give you a few examples. "The
open method of co-ordination" is very popular at the moment. All it means
is that countries don't need to have a European-wide law ("directive")
in order to work in the same way. They can do things however they want to, as
long as they tell other countries what they're doing. It's then likely that
they'll bear in mind what the other countries are doing. This is an attempt to
be more coherent in the areas where we haven't agreed to make joint EU
decisions, such as education or health care. I
don't suppose you often talk about the "Social Partners" but we do,
all the time. It means the employers and employees (represented by Trade Unions)
who in most European countries make joint decisions, which are binding. It's a
very common-sense way of working, which leads to consensual agreements on
workers' rights. The Commission only needs to step in with its own suggestions
if the Social Partners can't agree. "Policy mix" is another way of saying "joined-up thinking". (We should offer a prize to whoever can find a better expression than both of these, by the way) It means that you look at the social and environmental implications at the same time as making economic policy decisions - or that you look at the economic implications when you make environmental decisions, etc. You wouldn't, for example, bring in environmental rules on chemicals which would close down the whole industry and put hundreds of thousands out of work, nor would you introduce a free for all in energy policy which polluted the whole world. This all sounds like turgid stuff but in fact most primary school pupils I've spoken to are very enthusiastic about the European ideal, when it's explained in normal language. As Victor Hugo, quoted in a Christmas card I've just received from an Italian colleague, wrote "We will see a day when every nation of the continent, without losing its own distinct quality and glorious individuality, will join together in a higher union. We will see a day in which cannonballs and bombs will be replaced by votes." A Happy and Peaceful Christmas to you all. November 2002 T is for Treaties, without which relationships between countries would be impossible, since no one would agree on what was decided at the last meeting. Try running any organisation without written minutes and you'll soon see what I mean. The very first treaty leading to today's European Union was signed in 1951 in Paris, when the European Coal and Steel Community was set up. That treaty came to an end in July of this year, as planned, although nobody could have foreseen the virtual death of these two industries in many European countries - indispensable giants as they were in 1951. Rome was the next venue for signatures, when the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) treaties were signed in 1957. Of course we were onlookers at the time, believing (wrongly) that the plans could never work. The next big treaty was in Maastricht in 1992, which created the European Union and changed the way in which decisions were made, giving the European Parliament far more power in the law-making process. (The Parliament didn't exist at first, although MPs from each member state used to meet in a Parliamentary Assembly, which was, frankly, not known for its assiduity and seriousness. In 1979 the first direct elections to the Parliament took place, enabling the views of citizens to be expressed by full-time MEPs, not beholden to their national governments.) The Treaty of Amsterdam was signed in 1997 and came into force in 1999. It was much less dramatic than its predecessors and more of a tidying-up job. As you know the latest treaty is the one signed in Nice in February 2001, which hasn't come into force yet - the first Irish referendum put it at considerable risk but a re-vote has reversed that negative decision. The Treaty of Nice lays down the rule changes that will be needed for ten new countries to join the EU in 2004. Apart from these big treaties - Paris, Rome, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice - there have been other important agreements, such as the Single European Act, signed in Luxembourg and The Hague, which provided the adaptations required for the Internal Market. This all sounds very statesmanlike and historical but of course the negotiations leading up to the treaties are very tough and contain considerable helpings of horse-trading, threats and no doubt some deviousness. I'm told that our British civil servants are feared, admired and thought of as "gentlemanly thugs" (quote from an MEP colleague who was a senior Minister in his home country). I don't know whether to be pleased or distressed at that description and certainly no offence is meant to any civil servants who read the Royston Crow. Every member state looks out for its own interests, of course, and that makes it all the more remarkable that consensus is ever reached. Every Treaty has needed the unanimous consent of every single EU member state, represented by its Head of Government. It's still a lot easier than doing things the old European way, by going to war every twenty years or so! The Strasbourg Parliament building is packed solid this week, with people from all the applicant countries, who'll be debating with us. Future treaties are going to be interesting.
November 2002 The Socialist group in the European Parliament held a three-day meeting in Warsaw this week. Anyone who's been there will know that Warsaw in November is hardly the best venue for holidaymaking at the taxpayers' expense, before you write in to complain, by the way. I visited the biggest combined heat and power station in Europe and went to a reception at the People's Palace for science and culture (a rather unwanted gift from Stalin to the Polish people) but apart from that, spent the time in meetings with Polish politicians, discussing their future membership of the EU. I'm now even clearer about the challenges this will pose but also of the need to ensure that it happens. 20% of the Polish population work on the land, in very small farms indeed. They're very worried at the prospect of huge buy-ups of land by foreigners and want safeguard clauses to prevent them, which of course would contradict the freedoms of the EU (freedom of movement for people, goods and services). Unemployment in some parts of Poland, especially the former heavy industrial areas, is currently very high - over 20%. The manager of the power station that we visited explained that EU environmental laws on emissions would mean huge costs for the fitting of flue gas desulphurisation equipment. (I must say that my childhood in the South Wales valleys came back to me as I sniffed the air outside the power station). Having recently seen Roman Polanski's brilliant film "The Pianist", set in wartime Warsaw - don't miss it but be prepared for a harrowing evening - and having read about Poland's history, I can fully appreciate their wish to be in the EU, where every country's pride and independence is recognised and where decisions are made jointly. Just before leaving Brussels for Warsaw I participated in a round table on science and policy-making at the launch conference of the sixth EU framework programme on research. Nearly ten thousand scientists from all over the EU and well beyond attended the conference, at the huge Heysel exhibition centre, and it was very exhilarating and encouraging. Over 300 Polish scientists were present, all experts, contributing their intelligence and knowledge to the solution of society's problems and the development of new products. Also present were representatives of other applicant countries and my long-suffering staff are currently entering Polish, Slovakian and Hungarian names into my files from the full pack of business cards I've collected. The Polish Prime Minister, the Vice-President and senior ministers and senators all spoke at our meeting - all men and all fairly elderly. We're rather worried in case their first MEPs are also all men, which would be very out of line with current membership of the Parliament, which is one third female, a minimum for a Parliament in the 21st century, in my view. I'm not thrilled to be the only woman out of the eight MEPs in our region - it means that the majority of the local population are unrepresented - but most British political parties do at least acknowledge the problem and are trying to get more women candidates. I'm not sure that Polish parties are as committed. We'll see!
October 2002 R is for research, in my European alphabet. I deliberately joined the Parliament's Research and Energy committee when I was first elected in 1994, because I wanted to get away from the stereotype of women specialising in education, social affairs or health, and because I've always been interested in technology policy. The committee's now much bigger and covers industry and trade policy as well, so I'm never short of work that is directly relevant to our region. The East of England has the largest concentration of boffins in the UK (as well as cyclists) and our future prosperity depends on their ideas and the way in which they're used to create jobs. The research programmes of the EU are one of its unnoticed success stories - not as sexy as stories/myths about WI jam under threat, fishermen with compulsory hairnets and the rest, but far more important. Every four years the EU launches a so-called "Framework Programme" for research. The next one starts in 2003 and will have a budget of £12.5 billion pounds. It will pay for international partnerships in areas like life sciences, aerospace, information technology, energy, nanotechnology (working at the level of atoms), agriculture and human sciences. You can find all the details on the CORDIS website (www.cordis.lu). A particular push this time will be for more participation by small firms and by women scientists, and at the Parliament's insistence we want the impact of scientific research on society to be examined. Ethical issues are most obvious in medical research I suppose, and questions like stem-cell research still haven't been sorted out. Some countries, especially those where church influence is very noticeable or where, as in the case of Germany, Nazi experimental horrors occurred, do not accept the use of cells from human embryos for research. There are other ethical questions, such as research into genetically-modified foods, work in the information technologies which could have civil liberty implications and perhaps the development of military uses. MEPs will be monitoring the way in which these issues are addressed. I am very hopeful that there'll be a big increase in the use of the research money by local firms (especially small ones), universities and research centres. At a conference I recently organised in Hertfordshire possible future participants in the research programmes had the chance to question Commission officials and heard about local projects already carried out by small firms. Although there were some complaints about slow payments and excessive bureaucracy (the downside of the rigorous control designed to prevent fraud) the overall verdict was very positive. The small firms made it clear that the combination of money and the chance to work with partners from other countries - made incomparably easier because the EU exists - had enabled them to be far more successful. The tedious "What's Europe ever done for us?" question is quickly answered by our scientists! There's a lot more information on my website (www.erylmcnallymep.org.uk). It's a lot better than recent satirical articles in right-wing publications would have you think, by the way. Have a look for yourselves.
October 2002 In praise of change and diversity I was amused recently by the plaintive cry of an elderly woman delegate at a conference on the Euro that I addressed. "I just want everything to stay the same", she said, 'I don't like changes". No chance of her getting what she wants in today's world, I'm afraid (and just as well if you're from a developing country or an impoverished area of the rich world). Women over 60 are the most assiduous voters in the country, by the way, and our votes will be crucial if there is a Euro referendum, so there's obviously some work to be done for those of us who think that we should seriously consider joining. I think the arguments for joining the Euro - stability, increased influence, protection from speculation, easier comparison of prices and elimination of the considerable costs of changing money - outweigh the possible disadvantages - less ability to borrow, the risks of an inappropriate and unchangeable overall interest rate and a changeover of notes and coins. Much of the "sovereignty" which we would lose is illusory and a "No" vote will probably mean a meltdown of foreign investment in our manufacturing industries - we're currently getting the benefit of the doubt, although some recent decisions to move work elsewhere are worrying. I hope a lot more information on all these issues is made available soon or I can't see the debate being very enlightening. Working in an international Parliament is a daily reminder of diversity. Many's the morning when a cheerful 'Ciao bella!' or an ultra-courteous 'Guten Morgen Frau McNally' have reminded me how very much I enjoy working with people from other countries. The true diversity of Europe isn't represented among the MEPs, though, since there are very few from the many ethnic minority groups who live in our member states. I hosted a meeting this week for multi-faith organisations from all over the EU. The initiative was led by the Multi-faith group from Luton and it was one of the best afternoons I've spent in the Parliament. We debated how to strengthen civil society, how to affirm cultural differences, how to clarify joint values and how to respond to the war against terror without scapegoating individual faiths. The presentations were original and included poems, dialogues, a beautiful song by a Kurdish woman who lives in Berlin and, to the complete astonishment of the ushers and interpreters, a joint dance, including all those of us present, accompanied by the singing of some other Kurdish refugees. We politicians sometimes forget the joy of ordinary human contact, engrossed as we are in formal debate and voting. It was good to break the routine. Earlier in the week I met sixth form students from a local secondary school and answered their questions. I think their trip to Brussels was a real eye-opener. Very few are studying languages at A level, although meeting one of our talented interpreters, as well as my assistant, and hearing about all the other jobs available in EU institutions - but only if you've got other languages - may convince them to try harder. Ciao!
September 2002 This month I'm concentrating on Q for Questions - those MEPs are asked, and those we ourselves ask. As you may have heard I'm not happy with the new system for electing MEPs which was introduced in 1999 and much preferred the previous system, where one MEP represented a manageable constituency (normally one county) and was easy to track down via the local library or CAB. Constituents could then expect that MEP to do what an MP does and take up issues for them. It made us directly accountable for our actions and electors could make up their own minds about whether we were competent or not. The new system is that eight MEPs are elected via Party lists to represent the whole of the East of England (6 counties, with a population of five and a half million). Since I'm in Brussels or Strasbourg from Sunday to Thursday each week, trying to make myself known in Norwich, Watford, Clacton, Peterborough and of course, most importantly, Royston is a tall order! I do my best, as do the other MEPs but it doesn't work. (I don't really want to do the things which quickly make you famous/notorious - sex scandals, publicity stunts, rebelling noisily against your own Party for example.) Despite the difficulty some persistent electors do track me down and ask me all sorts of questions. Top three are: "What do MEPs actually do?", "Why don't you stop the corruption of the EU?" and "Can you get us a grant?". Quick answers are: "We vote on laws which affect your daily lives", "We're working hard on it, although it's not actually any worse than in all large organisations" and "Maybe". Ask my office (' 01923 242102) for a booklet on what's available". Of course lots of EU policies cause concern - exactly why I want those I represent to be able to contact me easily. Environmental and public health laws almost always start off in the EU. Users of vitamin pills are currently worried that the EU will restrict them, and cruelty to animals in other countries worries many local people. I can only be effective on your behalf if you tell me what you think and since you pay my salary through taxes it makes sense to use me and the other MEPs effectively. We have lots of ways to take up issues. MEPs can submit written questions, or ask oral questions of the Commission in the plenary sessions. These are rather formal, set-piece occasions and I find it better to make a more direct approach, when you often get much more detailed answers and explanations and can argue back. We're not restricted to questioning EU bodies, naturally, and I often take up cases with British Ministers, local authorities or foreign embassies, if the matter is relevant to my work as an MEP. Sometimes I enlist the help of MEPs from other countries as well as working with Westminster MPs and local Councillors. I hope you agree with me that elected representatives at whatever level should be better known. Any suggestions on how to achieve that are very welcome - preferably not green hair or non-stop showing off, though! Don't hesitate to get in touch with me on any EU issue. My contact details are as follows: Mrs Eryl McNally, MEP, European Office, The Labour Party, 270 St Albans Road, Watford WD24 6PE or email: emcnally@europarl.eu.int Tel. 01923 242102 .
September 2002 EU research grants: the real issues I organised a small conference in Hatfield this week to enable those who might want to take part in the EU's next (£12.5 billion) research programme to hear directly from Commission civil servants about how it will work. My other plan was to allow those who've already taken part in the current programmes to confront the Commission staff with some of the problems they've encountered - late payments, excess bureaucracy, slow decisions, for example. I must say that the three civil servants from Brussels whom I'd invited - one British, one Spanish Basque and one German - were very game and managed to sweep away the " mindless Brussels bureaucrats" stereotype in one day. They showed themselves to be very dedicated, very knowledgeable and very willing to learn from some of the bad experiences described to them. All in excellent English, by the way. Even more gratifying were the success stories we heard about. As you know, one of my constant worries is the tendency of multinational firms to close factories in our region and take the work to cheaper countries. Since cutting wages to Chinese levels (a hundred times less than ours) is hardly a practical solution, we must have new jobs and they rely on new ideas. At the conference we heard from small firms who've been able to grow - and take on workers - directly because of EU research money. One firm, for example, works on "avatars" (virtual humans), which will transform the way we use computers, phones, TVs and other machines. We'll be able to have signing for deaf people, by very realistic human lookalikes, on-screen alongside TV programmes so that subtitles aren't needed. Another firm (very small) has been able to develop undersea electrical connectors for the oil industry. Working with EU partners from other member states on the projects has led to much more advanced work and to contacts which would have been impossible or at least very difficult to make without the EU's help. I've been very involved in helping to get the new research programme through the Parliament and my small conference convinced me that my work in Brussels is directly relevant to what constituents are concerned about - our economy and security for our workers. As you may know, I've decided to leave the European Parliament at the next elections in 2004, since I'll then have been an MEP for 10 years and would like to do other things, which I certainly hope will not involve weekly commuting via the M25 and Heathrow/Brussels airports - not to mention the monthly joy of getting to Strasbourg. I 'm not leaving because of the new system for electing MEPs, by the way, but I do hope that it will be reviewed and changed as soon as possible. I don't think that having 8 different MEPs all covering a huge area with five and a half million electors is a good way to make our job understood by the public. To imagine, as anti-Europeans claim, that I therefore think MEPs are a sham and the EU is undemocratic is downright nonsense, of course. The European Parliament is directly elected and brings the voice of ordinary people to bear on laws. What I want is just an easier way for people to know how to use the Parliament and how to contact their MEP. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me on any EU issue. My contact details are as follows: Mrs Eryl McNally, MEP, European Office, The Labour Party, 270 St Albans Road, Watford WD24 6PE or email: emcnally@europarl.eu.int Tel. 01923 242102 .
August 2002 A welcome feature of public services over the past decade or so is the recognition that they make mistakes and that the public should be able to point these out and have redress without having to be millionaires to pay for teams of lawyers. The same applies to governments, of course, and to the European Union. 'O' is for Ombudsman and other ways that citizens can exert their rights in dealing with the European Council (national governments), Commission (the civil service) and Parliament (626 elected MEPs). The Ombudsman is a newish post, given a thrust forward when the Finns, Austrians and Swedes joined the EU, with their high expectations of public access and openness. The only postholder so far has actually been a Finn – Mr Jacob Sodermann, who at least came to the job knowing what was expected of him. He’s called the "mediator" by the French and others, but we’ve kept the original Swedish, as we do for the UK versions. He can investigate any breach of rules or maladministration in the EU institutions and then take action. He has chalked up a lot of successes and publishes a report every year that you can read on my website. It’s thanks to him that the discriminatory age limits on jobs in the Parliament (35!) has gone and he’s ensured that member states stick to the law and recognize qualifications from other EU member states. Italy had become notorious for refusing to recognize non-Italian qualifications. Anyone can approach the Ombudsman and I’d strongly recommend you to do so if, for example, you haven’t been paid yet for work you’ve done in connection with an EU project – unfortunately a common complaint – or for any other reason. He usually insists that you take up the case with the relevant department first, before he starts work. You don’t have to use the Ombudsman if you have a problem. You can put in a petition, (P in my alphabet) which sometimes leads to a major report and reveals scandals. My UK office will let you have a leaflet that explains the procedure, which is very straightforward. You don’t need to collect thousands of signatures – just one is enough – and your petition must be about something within the powers of the EU. I would be glad to give you advice. I once helped a couple whose son and his girlfriend were killed by a drunken driver in Crete. He got off more or less scot free with no endorsement on his licence, even though he was found guilty. There are now plans to harmonize driving offences within the EU, which was what my constituents wanted. Sometimes the petitions committee asks for a scientific report, which seems to put the wind up the industry concerned. We’re currently looking into tragic cases of child deaths from the toys found within certain chocolate eggs and the manufacturers are doing all they can to stop the enquiry, as did the nuclear industry when we looked into discharges from reprocessing plants. You don’t have to use the Ombudsman or a petition – MEPs are paid from your taxes to represent you and I’d be happy to hear of any problems you’d like me to take up. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me on any EU issue. If you're taking holidays at this time I hope that you'll have a chance to relax.
August 2002 How do we match up to EU declarations? Over the past eight years since I was first elected as an MEP I’ve read and heard plenty of grand phrases and inspiring declarations. Many of the Parliament’s own resolutions look as though they’ve been made up from an "insert as appropriate" tool-kit consisting of lists of phrases such as "human dignity", "social justice", "wholeheartedly deplores", etc. "unreservedly condemns" etc. I don’t mean that our resolutions are insincere or lacking in value – in fact they’re taken seriously all over the world – it’s just that the language doesn’t do justice to the stark reality of some of the issues we’re addressing. The European Council, a six-monthly summit meeting of the Heads of Government from all 15 member states is obliged to come up with a declaration each time, which gives the political guidelines that the European Commission (civil servants) use to bring forward suggested legislation One of the best known of these declarations, strongly influenced by the UK, was made in Lisbon in June 2000 at the end of the very successful Portuguese presidency. It seemed to sum up all we aspired for in the EU and has been referred to more often by more politicians than any other of the grand declarations. Our aim was to achieve: "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, with sustainable growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion". As an MEP for the East of England (reminder – Herts,Beds,Cambs,Essex,Norfolk and Suffolk – five and a half million people) I have been trying to see how we shape up locally to this declaration, phrase by phrase.
The Lisbon declaration is useful if it’s taken seriously. Otherwise it can join the pile of great words which don’t lead to any changes. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me on any EU issue.
July 2002 Working together as part of Europe and the world One
of the most inaccurate terms in use is to call the US and the UK jointly the
"Anglo-Saxons". Both countries are of mixed composition, with
Anglo-Saxons, whoever they are, as a very minor part of their respective
histories. I met someone this week
who was convinced that the "Anglo-Saxon" way of doing things is by far
the best and that all other countries should follow our examples. This would
apparently ensure a booming economy, a flexible workforce and the ideal society.
Other models - the "Rhenish", the "Nordic" and the
"Latin" are doomed to failure for one reason or another, according to
this person. There is racism in such statements, I suppose, made even dafter by
the fact that the speaker was Welsh, like me and more Celtic than Anglo Saxon. Anyone
who's visited the US or lived there knows very well that it's as foreign to us
as any other country. We are exposed to so much American culture on TV that we
often have the illusion of knowing how the place works, but we don't. I was
speaking to a group of students from Athens University - in Georgia, USA - this
week and they were astonished to learn that I wouldn't dream of asking local
firms to give me money for my election campaigns and would be very shocked if it
was offered. All US Congressmen and women start raising huge sums of money from
business as soon as they're elected, it seems, to pay for their next election in
two years' time. They're then expected to work in the companies' interests when
legislation is under discussion. The students found this normal and I think saw
me as rather eccentric. We discussed the steel tariffs, the Farm Bill ($ 190 billion's worth of subsidies to US farmers), Kyoto, the International Criminal Court - all examples of the US going it alone, in opposition to the sort of involvement in world affairs which we had expected and hoped for. (Of course they came up with good examples of the EU's protectionism and double standards as well - not hard to find, if we're honest. A Mexican student was fairly clear that our recent trade agreement with his country was far from altruistic on the European side.) Our "European social model" - what made the EU acceptable, as far as I'm concerned, having voted to stay out in 1975 - is certainly different from US practices and more successful. Even in the UK, which has a legacy-thankfully now changing, of the highest proportion of poverty (ie the percentage of people living at below half the average wage) in the EU, we don't have the two society model of the States and suggestions of a privatised health service, with minimal care for the poor, are rejected. Our striving is towards average EU standards, not US. Let's leave Anglo-Saxons with the Visigoths and the other races from history. We are geographically Europeans and world citizens and should continue to work with our neighbours to find a better way of organising ourselves. If you're taking holidays at this time I hope that you'll have a chance to relax.
July 2002 N is for nationalism, which plays an important role in the world, of course and in the European Union. I heard a dying François Mitterrand tell the European Parliament that "le nationalisme - c'est la guerre" (nationalism is war) as he explained why the creation of the European Union was so important to him. The same sentiment has been expressed many times by very moving speakers. I always get goose-pimples when the European anthem is played at solemn moments in the hemicycle (Parliament chamber) and I look round, seeing the faces of the dear friends from 15 different countries with whom I work. Nationalities don't seem to matter at emotional times. They certainly do when we're in less uplifted moments, however, and that's when the EU comes into its own. Take as an example the newly announced proposed reform of the common agricultural policy. I know perfectly well that not one French colleague, from any political group, will agree with the reforms as they are. Most British will, as will Dutch, Danish, German and Swedish colleagues. I would be as completely astonished to hear a Dutch member launch into a defence of agricultural export subsidies as I would be to hear a French colleague say that spending half the EU's budget on 3% of its population was nonsensical. We often have difficulties with Spanish colleagues when environmental legislation is proposed. Germans are very wary about anything that would threaten their way of doing business (making hostile take-overs easier, for example), and British members are very aware of animal welfare concerns. Greeks get very nervous when tobacco subsidies are threatened and the Austrians are super-sensitive about the risks of nuclear power. We're also as a nation much less keen on social legislation than others. British MEPs from all parties are more likely to vote against the whips (who promote the party line) of their respective groups than any others, by the way. You may conclude from all this that MEPs simply represent their national interests and that talk of common endeavour is misplaced but you'd be wrong. I've picked out above the evergreen and dramatic examples of national foibles but after the differing votes and compromises, common sense means that some progress is made and attitudes are shifted, if only very slightly. No country gets everything that it wants but no one is left stranded, either. If tobacco subsidies are cut, the plight of the Greek farmers is taken into account, and funding to help diversification is considered. We British get - unfortunately in my personal view - opt-outs or longer phasing-in periods for some of the workers' rights legislation. You certainly get more realistic about international negotiations after a spell on a legislative committee in the European Parliament, but I've been aware of the power of local differences ever since I was first a district councillor. Then I learnt from colleagues about the so-called iniquities and selfishness of councillors from another small town in the district concerned. Perfectly nice people in fact and in the same party as me but it took a while to get used to each other. Just like the EU and much easier than world wars! If you're taking holidays at this time I hope that you'll have a chance to relax.
June 2002 Intelligent
energy, GM foods... and more Glum
faces all round in Strasbourg this week as lost elections and/or
football matches, horrible weather and the distinct possibility of
legionella lurking in our offices made the monthly trek even less attractive
than usual. It's a shame for French colleagues that all this happened just as we
were due to vote on next year's timetable, ensuring that the pressure to move
our work to Brussels would be heightened. We did manage to eliminate the
unnecessary Friday sessions in Strasbourg, thus meaning that we can work in our
constituencies on those days, but no further progress yet. The legionella in the
water and air-conditioning systems, which has already struck some members is to
be investigated. Good! I've
been appointed as rapporteur on a big energy programme called "Intelligent
Energy for Europe". As you know, all suggestions from the Commission (the
civil servants) go to the Parliament and to the Council of Ministers for
decision. The Parliament appoints one MEP to take charge and that person is
responsible for managing the passage of the proposal throughout the
Parliamentary process. He or she makes suggestions for changes, after consulting
consumer groups, trade unions, industry, national governments, pressure groups
and academics, and decides whether or not to accept the changes other MEPs
suggest. All the proposed changes have to be voted on, in committee and then in
the plenary session. In the meantime the 15 ministers are deciding what they
think, collectively. There has to be an agreement between the Parliament and the
Council in the end, otherwise Parliament can veto the whole thing, which has
happened from time to time. You can see the details of the "Intelligent
Energy for Europe" programme in its first draft on my website or by phoning my office. Ideas for changes are welcome. We're having a hard time deciding on what to do about labelling foods which may have minute traces of genetically modified ingredients. No-one has any doubt that straightforward genetically-modified tomato puree or other foods should be very clearly labelled. It's whether or not "genetically-modified free" makes sense that's been difficult. I'll let you know what we come up with when we vote in July. I currently think that I'll vote against labels which I don't think add any useful information to the consumer but my mind's still open. A reminder that my report on asylum is available, as usual on the website or by post. I'm very uncomfortable at the tone currently being used in this country and others, which is beginning to sound very hostile and lacking in understanding about why people make the huge wrench of leaving their own country. As a country which does need more people and which has always had a shifting population we should be much less condemnatory. Hands up all of us with economic migration or flight from oppression in our ancestry - most of the population, probably. The sooner we have a joint but humane European approach, including real help to the poverty-stricken and devastated countries of the world, the better.
June 2002 More British MEPs have names which begin with the letter M than any other letter. Thought you'd like to know that - well, maybe not. Anyway M is for MEP in this month's column. Announcing myself as "MEP" when I arrive for a visit usually doesn't get me far with the receptionist, who often thinks it's some obscure company or abbreviation for a Government body. There are 87 of us from the UK, out of 626 in total, representing 7 different political parties. Of the 87, 21 are women, 7 have titles (Sir, Lord, Earl and Baroness, which cause much merriment amongst the other nationalities), ages range from 76 (Ian Paisley) to 29 (Catherine Stihler) , three are called Evans, and four are from ethnic minority groups (2 Labour – Neena Gill and Claude Moraes, and 2 Conservative – Bashir Khanbai and Nerj Deva). Most have university degrees and very few MEPs did manual work before becoming MEPs. Some of the Conservatives were formerly MPs and in some cases ministers. Not a particularly representative lot, then, but there are very few slackers or timewasters. The vast majority take the work seriously and since promotion in the European Parliament comes through merit and diligence rather than patronage it's easy for everyone to find a niche and make a good contribution. There's not the same bitter rivalry and jealousy that characterises the House of Commons – except perhaps at re-selection time where the new regional list system unfortunately guarantees difficulties between colleagues of the same party. Most MEPs would opt for a constituency-based system where they are accountable to their own electors rather than representing 5½ million people alongside 7 other colleagues. We work on a committee system and people get classified as 'the industry bunch' or the 'environmental lot', despite strong political differences. There are many tussles between the two groups I've mentioned, which get sorted out in the plenary votes. We're currently having problems with the labelling of genetically-modified foods and the promotion of biofuels. The 'Foreign Affairs people' are often former senior ministers or big shots in their countries of origin and reputedly spend hours 'solving' the world's problems, sometimes in areas of work where the European Parliament has no role whatsoever. To be fair they do also look at human rights abuses and crises where the EU can help. MEP terms last for 5 years and the date of the next election is known in advance (June 2004), which is helpful. Most people enjoy the work and seem to stay for as long as they can – some have been there 23 years, since the first direct elections. Some MEPs have moved to Westminster (Geoff Hoon and 3 Labour MEPs defeated in 1999, for example) and some to the House of Lords but the European Parliament is very satisfying in itself, despite the frequent travelling and lack of recognition. MEPs from other countries are very similar to ours, although some countries like Finland look for very well-known personalities from the world of sports or entertainment and some, like France, send very senior politicians who aren't always able to play much of a role because of duties at home. (Michel Rocard, former French Prime Minister, is a notable exception who is very conscientious.) All in all, a mixed bunch but interesting to work with! Don't hesitate to get in touch with me on any EU issue. My contact details are as follows: Mrs Eryl McNally, MEP, European Office, The Labour Party, 270 St Albans Road, Watford WD24 6PE or email: emcnally@europarl.eu.int
May 2002 The election results in France have caused consternation, as you can imagine. That there should be a run-off between Jacques Chirac and the dreadful Jean-Marie Le Pen of the National Front is shameful and French colleagues here in the European Parliament are mortified. Le Pen is a thoroughly nasty piece of work, who once beat up a young woman opponent and is always surrounded by thugs. I hate coming across him in the lift or corridors (he's an MEP, too). He's on my committee but thankfully never makes an appearance in committee meetings. Like others of the National Front he's an avowed racist and anti-Semite (the Holocaust is a mere "detail of history" according to him). I suspect that many French voters indulged themselves by voting for far-out candidates in the first round, imagining that they could vote more seriously in the second when they thought that Prime Minister Lionel Jospin would be the alternative to Chirac. Arlette Laguiller, another MEP, this time from the extreme revolutionary left, who's become a national institution after being a candidate umpteen times, took a lot of the half-joking votes of those who wanted to play around in the first round. Talk about a joke misfiring ! They're now on the streets saying "we didn't mean it ….No to Le Pen …. Come back Jospin…" Too late, unfortunately. There were other voters, however, who voted knowingly for an extreme right wing candidate like Le Pen and they mirror recent similar votes in Denmark, Belgium, Austria and Italy. In PR systems these votes matter and those of us from traditional large parties need to take very seriously the motivation of such voters. Often the candidates are "characters" with a good line in jokes and invective and an ability to seem like "ordinary blokes, on your side, not like the toffee-nosed politicians who think they're better than us". Adolf Hitler did that particular act very well, as German school children who analyse films of his speeches in their civics lessons nowadays are quick to realise. Conventional parties should remind citizens of what happens in practice when hatred of minorities becomes a legitimate policy – most people do have a lot of common-sense, after all, and do have some recall of history. The more absurd ideas should be exposed for the nonsense that they are and the idea that ignoring the threat from the extreme right will make it disappear should be quickly dropped. That doesn't mean adopting the agenda of the demagogues and just becoming "tough on crime", "tough on immigration", as a recipe for success – people who vote on those issues alone are a very small minority and parties would debase themselves by failing to offer more hope and vision. There'll
be hours of debate between now and the second round on May 5th.Something very
dirty has appeared on the political scene, however, and every politician and
citizen throughout the EU needs to prepare for the most rapid possible return to
decency.
April 2002 K in my alphabet has to be for the two most famous British people working in the EU – Glenys and Neil Kinnock. (Apart from them I don't think British people could name many MEPs or Commissioners and I'm pleased to say that I can do my shopping anywhere in my huge constituency without the slightest risk of being recognised. Those craving fame should avoid the European Parliament - you would have to spend your time inventing stunts and courting the press to be noticed at all and most of don't want to attack Tony Blair or have bizarre sex scandals, which would be another route, of course.) Neil and Glenys do completely different jobs. Neil is a Commissioner, an un-elected civil servant. He was nominated, alongside Chris Patten, by Tony Blair, just as all the other 19 Commissioners were nominated by their heads of government. The European Parliament then had to ratify (or not) the nominations and this time held very long hearings after issuing detailed questionnaires. Neil had been a very competent Commissioner for transport in his first five years so it was relatively easy for him to persuade the Parliament that he should be reappointed. This time he doesn't head a department but is in charge of reforming the Commission – making sure that jobs are allocated on merit, that conditions of service are made more reasonable and less extravagant and that dismissal is a real possibility in the case of incompetence or certainly in the case of corruption. He's had to be very stubborn in insisting upon these reforms despite the opposition of vested interests. Chris Patten, too, who is in charge of external assistance to countries throughout the world, is highly regarded and non-British members have now got used to his sardonic and very English wit. It's always risky to use irony when the interpreters may not convey the same tone in other languages. My favourite Commissioner (of those with whom I work) is the very clever and formidable French Commissioner for Trade, Pascal Lamy, who is a strong negotiator – very necessary if you're talking to the US – but appreciates the problems of poor countries. Glenys Kinnock is elected, unlike Neil, and is one of the five MEPs in Wales. She's just become Co-President of the "ACP" which is the body in which African, Caribbean and Pacific developing countries meet with the European Parliament and has always, long before she was a full-time politician, been a doughty fighter for the poorer parts of the world. Far from being "wife of" someone, she's very much a personality in her own right and never afraid to speak up for the oppressed. She's also very funny. (Click here to read more about her.) Confusion
between the jobs of the civil servants (Commission) and members of the European
Parliament is very common but the roles are quite different. Neil doesn't speak
for the Labour Party or even for the British government. Glenys is now a
full-time Labour politician, as he once was. Most Commissioners have been
involved in politics at some stage but not in their new jobs. You can find out
more about the reform agenda by clicking
here.
Late March 2002 So you think you'd like to work in the European Parliament I've met two groups of young people from the region this week in Brussels and as usual they were very taken with the informal and friendly atmosphere of the European Parliament. We tend to do without Black Rod processions, arcane bowing, division lobbies and racks to hang our swords on, as a twenty-three year old Parliament should. Very large numbers of people other than MEPs work here, of course, and since many of them are in their twenties and thirties, there's an international Summer school/University campus feel about the building. I thought you might like to know a bit about the jobs which are available in the Parliament, other than becoming an MEP. The most sought-after jobs are in the Parliament's civil service. They're very well paid and carry with them security, good pensions and other benefits. You can enter at several grades, usually via a competitive entrance exam, although secretarial qualifications are valued as long as several languages are offered. Thereby the snag, unfortunately, for many British people. You have no hope at all of working in Brussels institutions without two languages other than English and I really don't think this is made clear enough to our school and University students. I can give details about how to apply for these jobs (or the 5-month work experience placements in the Parliament or the Commission which can be a useful taster) to anyone who's interested. The European Parliament's interpreters are amongst the best in the world, all capable of interpret simultaneously from three or four languages into their mother tongues. The permanent team of English interpreters is smallish but freelance work is also available. Pay is very good – but it's not a cushy number. Some members speak like machine guns, others don't finish their sentences, start new ones halfway through, use slang expressions, rattle off complicated numbers or speak with broad regional accents. Translating work is less public but very important, even though machine translation is used for the first stage. The EU has the most advanced machine translation facilities anywhere but it's not the English we speak until it's checked by a human being. Another large group of workers are the MEPs' assistants. Most of them stay 2 years or so, although some are long-term fixtures that probably know as much as their bosses about Brussels work. They don't usually know as much about the work done in the constituency from Thursdays to Sundays, however. Most of the UK assistants are graduates with language skills and tend to work for MEPs who share their political views. I get a lot of CVs sent to me and sometimes you can strike lucky if an MEP happens to be looking for someone when you write. Adverts appear in political journals and newspapers from time to time. Naturally catering staff, cleaners, security officers (in frightening uniforms), drivers, printers, medical staff and many others work in the Parliament too. The drivers are sometimes ex military and trained to deal with kidnappings or attacks – we have some high-profile, high risk members, although most of us would find it hard to attract huge ransom payments, I fear ! The European Parliament is an integral part of lawmaking and the direct representation of European citizens. It's not a lavish or overstaffed institution but a place of work for many hard-working and conscientious people who want our future to be better than our past. Do get in touch if you wish to have the information about which I've talked. Click here to find out how. Early March 2002 I is for Ireland and Italy in my A to Z of the EU. Apart from being Catholic countries with flags which look identical in a poor light they don't have much in common but both are important members of the EU who illustrate some of the advantages of working together. Italy was there from the start, of course, and one of the earliest treaties of the then Common Market was signed in Rome. The current president of the Commission (the civil service) is Romano Prodi, an Italian economics professor who wouldn't win prizes for oratory but is doing his best to carry out the reform programme which is expected of him. Italian MEPs are represented in almost all of the Parliament's political groups and some seem to be among the most mobile of members, frequently announcing that they've changed groups. The proliferation of political parties in Italy takes some getting used to and our loyal Italian colleagues in the Socialist group must get fed up of our frequent requests for explanations. We find the rise of Prime Minister Berlusconi, a media magnate and football club owner, very worrying. It can't be right for a politician to have such a grip on TV and written press outlets, and Italian colleagues are hoping that the EU will make it impossible via competition laws. His links with Mussolini's successors and with those who want to separate the wealthy north of Italy from the poorer south are another concern. Despite this background I don't want to give the impression that Italian MEPs are suspect. We have distinguished, hardworking and competent Italians in our group who tell us that they would be very fearful without the EU. Italian style, design ability and thriving small businesses can certainly teach other countries many lessons. I enjoyed bringing Mrs Fiorella Ghilardotti, former president of Lombardy, to our region to meet the large Italian community living here. The new president of the Parliament, Mr Pat Cox, is the first Irish member to hold that very prestigious post. As you might guess from my surname, my husband's family is of Irish origin so I feel a third-hand pride in Ireland's achievements. Ireland joined the EU when we did, as a very poor country, provider at that time of economic migrants to the UK, the US and elsewhere. The special EU funding which they received undoubtedly helped the economic transformation that has led to a thriving university sector and food technology industry and created a confident country. Apart from Pat Cox, their best known members are two Greens who regularly raise the problems of Sellafield, and Dana (the ex singer) who specialises in "ethical" issues such as abortion and embryo research. Both Italy and Ireland have clearly retained their own characteristics, within the EU, but being members has enabled them to move away from unsatisfactory pasts and to work alongside other countries - with problems of their own - in an atmosphere of mutual respect. That isn't necessarily how things would have turned out without the EU.
Early March 2002 Television
and driving in Europe Despite brilliant American programmes like "The Sopranos", "ER", "West Wing" and "The Simpsons" - all unmissable when I get the chance to see them - I get depressed at the dominance of US culture and the increasing similarity between shopping centres, not just throughout our region but in towns all over the world. I don't like our copycat TV programmes but I'm very proud of "Eastenders", "Inspector Morse", "The Office", "Newsnight" and many other programmes. I'd far rather be faced with a week of UK television and radio programmes than their equivalents in Germany, France, Spain, Italy or the US. I certainly haven't come across the Belgian equivalent of Radio 4. I'm proud too of our road safety record and am relieved each week when I come home from Brussels or Strasbourg and realise that other drivers will help me to change lanes, or move onto a motorway rather than taking it as a personal insult. It's nice to drive with the car behind you further away than a yard, too. The German failure to impose a speed limit on motorways is terrifying, harms the environment and their accident statistics show that it's downright dangerous. The EU can do a great deal to help road safety (cars less likely to kill pedestrians are on the way) but driver behaviour is governed by national rules and habits. Of course we all know that other countries do some things better than us and I think it's great that so many British people travel widely and spend periods living abroad so that they can make comparisons with direct knowledge. I had a look at the "friendsreunited" web page for some of the pupils I taught in the 80s and was delighted to see that so many of them have worked abroad. Maybe the French and German I taught them did seem relevant in the end! I must say that the Government's intention to introduce languages at seven is wise, although their idea of some pupils dropping them at fourteen takes us straight back to the elitism which has discriminated against so many British in the past. "I wasn't clever enough to do languages" is a heartbreaker in today's world. We'll be voting on the gas and electricity liberalisation directives in my committee this week. 400 amendments, almost all trying to ensure that consumer rights, environmental protection, energy efficiency and safety all play a vital role as the market is opened up. The days of imagining that a free for all without regulation will be beneficial are long gone. California's power cuts taught us a salutary lesson - I said the US was influential!
H is for Hungary, one of the 12 applicant countries who are lining up to join the EU. As you know the original six became 15 - we joined with Ireland and Denmark in the 1970s, the three ex-dictatorships - Greece, Spain and Portugal were the next and in 1995 three countries with very high social and environmental standards - Austria, Finland and Sweden - came along. Each enlargement has meant adjustments and the new countries have brought with them fresh ideas, keen MEPs and interesting histories. Some of the Greek Socialist MEPs spent long periods in exile during the reign of the infamous Colonels, some Spanish and Portuguese were imprisoned under Franco and Salazar (others worked conscientiously for the dictators). They all know how fragile democracy can be, as do MEPs from East Germany, many of whom had files held by the Stasi (secret police) where their "friends" and neighbours reported them for supposed wrong thinking. Very large EU funds were used to help Spain, Greece, Portugal and Ireland, the then poorest countries in the EU, to adjust to new rules and build up their economies. They were given long periods to comply with all the environmental requirements and even the workers' rights legislation was phased-in, so that firms didn't have to change too rapidly. All this extra help paid off and now all four countries are able to be fully compliant members. They still get special funding though, and this is going to be a problem when countries like Hungary join. Apart from Malta, Cyprus and Slovenia, who are not particularly poor, the applicant countries are far poorer than existing members, with national incomes per head of about one third. Some of them have massive environmental problems, very unproductive agriculture compared with the EU members, some undemocratic hangovers from the days of communism and some industries in severe decline. To be a member of the EU you a) have to be in Europe (Turkey raises some doubts there), b) have a fully-functioning market economy, not over-dependent on state aids, c) show full respect for democracy and human rights (again a question-mark over Turkey, but also other countries where minority groups face discrimination) and d) be able to take on board within a reasonable time-frame all the laws passed so far by the EU (the jargon term is "acquis communautaire"). All applicant countries, including Hungary, have to fill in questionnaires (1500 pages long) to show that they qualify and they're then examined, chapter by chapter. Naturally this gets very tedious and frustrating and they often express their irritation at the long-winded procedures. One big problem is that the money which Spain and Co received (and carry on receiving) is not going to be available to the new countries on anything like the same scale so the transition will be much harder. Despite this, preparations are going ahead – I recently gave a talk to the Hungarian interpreters in training and have good contacts with Hungarian scientists, who are already taking part in the EU's science programmes. Hungarian miners came to live in my Welsh mining village after the 1956 revolution – my first contact with non-Welsh people, I think, and I was fascinated with their language. With any luck I'll be hearing much more of it from fellow MEPs before too long.
Spain calls for better understanding of Europe, life with the Euro - and more I've always resisted the temptation to use this column for attacks on the other political parties but if you'd like a hefty dose of Tory-bashing or attacks on the Libdems let me know - it can certainly be arranged! Unlike other contributors I prefer to tell you about my work in the European Parliament, although articles praising the government would not be hard to write, especially in the EU context. Everyone agrees that we're engaging with the problems and challenges rather than sitting in the corner sulking, exactly what was happening between 1994 to 1997, when I first became an MEP under a different government. That's enough of that, though. I've had several meetings with representatives of the Spanish government, since they began running the EU as President for the next six months. Their motto is "More Europe!" (Remember, by the way, that this is a Conservative government). They don't mean more powers for the EU, of course, but better understanding of how the current set-up works and more effective action in the fight against terrorism, economic and social reforms, preparation for enlargement, foreign and defence responsibilities and clarity about the future of Europe. There'll be a big heads of government summit in Barcelona, this March and the hope is that real progress will be made in agreeing these political priorities. It'll be up to the civil servants (the Commission) after that, to work out possible ways of bringing in the changes required. The Parliament and the Council of Ministers will then decide on which of these suggestions becomes law or what funding programmes are needed. We're all used to the Euro after three weeks and it certainly makes life easier. Working out francs and pesetas is a real chore for shopkeepers and you feel like someone who's been away rather a long time if you offer them in payment as legally you can until the end of this month. There's a swaps game going on in the Parliament as we each try to build up a complete set of the 12 different Euro coins as each country has its own design. Luxembourg, Greek and Finnish colleagues are much in demand as their Euros are the rarest. Comparing prices is a doddle now, compared to the sums involved in converting Italian lire to Greek drachmas. UK, Swedish and Danish MEPs feel out of all this, of course, as they're outside the Euro Zone. Although there'll be lots to discuss, should we have a referendum on joining the Euro, the everyday practicalities of the swapover are clearly not a problem. One thing I don't think the Parliament does well enough is scrutiny. Most local councils in our area now have teams of councillors to look at how the council's services work in practice, rather than in theory. A recent highly critical study of adult education services in one council in the region, for example, will certainly lead to big changes. I've always tried to emphasise this aspect of our work and instigated a monitoring system for budget lines in the Trade and Industry committee for which I'm the Socialist Group's Co-ordinator. I also managed to get our scrutiny duty inserted into the rules of the Parliament, but I'm still not satisfied with what we do. Any ideas?
January 2002 G is for Groups The European Parliament is the only directly elected international assembly in the world. Its 626 members are elected every five years, now by proportional representation (PR) methods. Countries are represented more or less according to their size, although some smaller countries get more members than they're entitled to. Luxembourg has six members, for example, for a population of only 230,000 but in due course as the EU expands it's likely that such over-representation will disappear. The UK has 87 members, as do France and Italy, while Germany has 99. Don't imagine that we all sit neatly in national blocks, displaying our flags, though - political differences are far more marked than country of origin - and this is reflected in the political workings of the European Parliament. It's G for Groups, then. It's fairly easy for MEPs from the long-established big national parties, like our Labour and Conservative Parties, to decide which group to join. British Labour MEPs (29 plus John Hume from the SDLP) all belong to the Party of European Socialists, now the second largest after poor results in 1999. We have 181 members. The largest group (232) is now the "European People's Party and European Democrats", a conservative group to which our British Conservatives (36) more or less belong. (I say this because some of the anti-European British Conservatives have occasional crises of conscience about associating with their pro-Europe counterparts in other countries and there are regular suggestions that they should leave.) So far, so straightforward, then. The next bit is less familiar in a country like ours, not used to PR and to very small political parties - a shade of what's to come? There are five other groups in the European Parliament - all much smaller, with some pretty weird titles. They are:- 1) The
European Liberal Democrats and Reform Party (52 members) to which our 11 UK
Liberal Democrats belong There's also a collection of 33 "not affiliated" members, including extremists and odd balls who don't have enough members or enough in common to form a group - Ian Paisley, the French National Front, the other 2 UK Independence Party MEPs and some Italian radicals, for example). In another article I'll tell you how all this works in practice - it's not as bizarre as it sounds! In the meantime every good wish for a very Happy New Year.
January 2002 A Euro Christmas I was stopped at Security control in Brussels when I came home for Christmas - they found it very odd that I really thought 6 Euro starter packs would make good Christmas presents - "You do know the UK's not joining, do you ?" - I was asked, incredulously. Still, it is a historic moment, the presents were appreciated, and I wish our fellow Europeans well with their new venture. I don't think the coins and notes we use are as important as whether or not we're making things or providing services that keep the economy healthy, with jobs for all who need them, in any case. Remember the Laeken summit? You'd qualify for some sort of prize or award if you did - probably not a very flattering one. It happened in early December as the culmination of the Belgian Presidency of the EU (it's Spain, now, until June, then Denmark), involved some awful squabbling about where various agencies should be sited, but much more usefully established a "Convention" to sort out exactly what the EU can do and put it down in a format everyone can understand. (They could have chosen a different title from "convention" for a start, but never mind). It's based on what happened in the USA in the eighteenth century, when people sat down to discuss exactly what form the constitution of their new country should take and what checks and balances were needed to prevent undue accumulation of power. Of course the EU isn't a new country, it's a first time experiment in joint government, for some issues only, and it's accumulated powers over the last 50 years without anyone being sure of how far it could, or more importantly should, go. I'll try to report back on what they're up to in the convention, over the next year. MEPs, national MPs from every country and government ministers will all be taking part, and consulting widely, I hope. I've been reading a very good book over Christmas - "Democracy in Europe" by Larry Siedentop (ISBN 0-14-028793-0), Penguin - which is much more thoughtful than the usual very pro- or anti- book on Europe and the EU. I thoroughly recommend it as it makes you think, not only about the EU but also about democracy in our country, taming globalisation and the risks of our present set-up. You can see what a jolly Christmas I had! I did do normal things, too, in case you think you've got a 100% Euro-anorak representing you in the European Parliament. It's the halfway stage of the current Parliament and there are bound to be some changes when we return in January. All posts have to be re-elected, a fair number of MEPs change committees and plan what work they're going to concentrate on. I'm not looking for much change - the "Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy" committee is fascinating. I hope I'll be re-elected as the Socialist Group's co-ordinator on that committee - a very influential position - but if not there'll still be plenty to do. Unlike national Parliaments, where you're very dependent on being in favour with the Leadership, you can make your own way in the European Parliament. You don't get stopped by autograph hunters but it's still satisfying. Happy New Year! December 2001 The most vehement criticism of the EU is always to do with money : how expensive it is, how the UK pays too much, how the money's wasted anyway or stolen by corrupt officials, and how there are no checks on spending. Even those who support working more closely with other countries have misgivings, so I thought that F for Finances would be a good topic for this month. This year the EU, covering 370 million people, will be spending £60 billion, slightly less than the British National Health Service. The UK's total public expenditure this year, for 60 million people, is estimated at £346 billion. These figures help, perhaps, to keep in perspective the sums involved. The EU budget is capped by treaty at 1.27% of GNP (Gross national product - the total value of all goods and services produced annually by a nation) and is currently less than that. Most members of the EU spend about 45% of their GNP on public services, although we spend a smaller proportion in the UK. The really big money, then, is spent by individual countries, not by the EU, not surprisingly since the EU has very few tasks, in comparison to them. The bulk of the EU's spending goes on two things - you all know that one is the Common Agricultural Policy, the other is the so-called "Cohesion" spending on the poorer countries and regions - the structural funds. You know already that I think the CAP should be dismantled as soon as possible - it's ridiculous that nearly 50% of the budget goes to 3% of the workforce. Developing countries suffer because of our subsidies and rich farmers do better than poor farmers. Reform is on the way and maybe then the structural funds can be increased to help poor rural areas. If you want to see what money is coming into our area, by the way, please click here. The structural funds are much more sensible and have useful spin offs since in order to get them you have to show that you've done your homework and know how to use the money most effectively. Hertfordshire County Council, District Councils and local organisations can bear witness to the work they've been able to do with EU funding. Their main complaint, by the way is not that the money is given out too easily - quite the opposite. The form-filling and detailed financial statements are very time consuming and detailed - mainly so that auditing can be done. The EU's money, by the way, comes from each country's VAT takings, from customs duties and from various sources of income such as fines and charges. There's a top up according to the size of GNP in individual countries, when necessary. The European Parliament is closely involved in the annual budget, both in spending decisions and in reviewing spending and deciding whether or not to "discharge" or sign off the books. That's what led to the Commission's resignation in 1999. I'll tell you more about the money in another article. In the meantime - Happy Christmas!
December 2001 The truth about life as an MEP - and this month's parliamentary business I'm a big fan of docu-soaps, particularly "Airport". Since I have to travel backwards and forwards from Heathrow or Gatwick every week, looking out for some of the people featured in the programme is a minor distraction from the tedium of flight delays and queues. I don't think viewing figures for a documentary about the European Parliament would be high but it would be good to be presented from time to time as human beings, not crazy lawmakers with our fingers in the till most of the time. It's a pretty lonely life, in some ways. We spend three or four days each week in Brussels or Strasbourg, and find our own accommodation, usually small flats in Brussels and hotels in Strasbourg. Triplicate sets of toothbrushes, shoes, kettles, underwear, medicines and the rest help to keep the illusion that you're at home – changing beds and time zones every three days isn't very relaxing. The Parliament does have a car pool so we can be picked up in the mornings and taken home at night if we want to. Those members who don't speak good French (a large number of British MEPs, unfortunately) have to cope with all the administration of everyday life in a foreign language - bills, tax returns, health formalities - which is fairly daunting. Time in the UK (Fridays and weekends) is spent in the constituency – school visits or speech days, pensioners' groups, visiting factories or farms or power stations or EU-funded projects. Since even sharing with my Labour colleague leaves me with all of Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire to cover, plenty of driving around or catching trains is called for. We're expected to speak to all sorts of groups, of course – it's part of the job and accountability is essential. You have to find time, too, during the weekend, to deal with letters and read reports. Normal activities like going to the cinema, gardening or cooking are obviously on hold, which doesn't make you the world's best mother or wife. Sadly many MEPs' marriages do break up. This all sounds like a doomed attempt to gain sympathy. I do know, before you write in, that many people have much tougher lives, in far worse conditions and with gnawing financial worries which we don't have. I'm just trying to give a flavour of the downside to what is always portrayed as a highly glamorous lifestyle. Back to business. The temporary committee on genetics, of which I was a member, had its report voted last week in a plenary session and the result was – no report. It wasn't possible to get a consensus on issues like stem cell research, the use of embryos for research or genetic testing and no-one was happy with the muddled report which managed to offend all points of view. I am in favour of stem cell research because of its potential benefits to sufferers from devastating diseases, don't think an early embryo is the same as a child and do think that people should not have to disclose the results of genetic tests to insurers. Many of you will disagree, but I prefer to be clear about what I did in the vote. Accountability
November 2001 In my A-Z of the EU, this month is E is for Environment, probably the least unpopular EU policy and one where Europe is a very good example of how standards can be raised internationally. The Parliament’s Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection committee is the busiest of all, with by far the biggest legislative programme and the most experience of “conciliation” which is the arm-wrestling between the Parliament and the Council of Ministers (15 on each side) on the finer details of the new laws. The Chair of this Committee is a fierce British Conservative woman called Caroline Jackson who more than meets her match, however, in the dreaded Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, a German Socialist. Both women need to be tough, since the reaction of most vested industrial and commercial interests to environmental legislation is hardly welcoming. I could write industrial lobbyists’ scripts for them, so often have I heard: “The costs will cripple our industry”, “There’s no science behind this”, “We’re doing it anyway”, “No-one else in the world has these rules”, “We need 15 years to prepare for this” etc etc etc. This doesn’t mean, by the way, that I support unnecessary laws or don’t want local industries to flourish, but crying wolf all the time isn’t the best way to get my support, especially since experience shows that the prophecies of doom don’t come to pass, the firms survive and we get cleaner water, better air and safer food. The Parliament often consults independent scientists when there’s a dispute. We did so recently, following a petition about the radioactive emissions from the nuclear re-processing plants at Sellafield and La Hague, in France. MEPs close to the nuclear industry didn’t like the conclusions of the independent report, and there was even an attempt to keep it secret, which immediately made it the most sought-after report ever, of course. It’s now, quite properly, to be published and you can see the short version on my website. (www.erylmcnallymep.org.uk). There are still huge environmental problems to be tackled, including climate change, where the EU negotiates on behalf of its 15 Member States, erosion of coastlines and the rapid disappearance of animal and plant species. There are concerns about emissions and the effects of some chemicals. We need to make decisions that some won’t like and it’s good to take those decisions alongside other countries, some of whom are well ahead of us, others of whom lag behind. It’s the way the world will have to operate from now on. November 2001 World trade, European Union research and other issues Security precautions are much tougher, as you’d expect, since the 11th September. My small sewing kit was confiscated at Heathrow, the whole of the ventilation system in the Strasbourg Parliament building was checked, armed police patrol the outside and while I was in plenary for the World Trade Organisation (WTO) debate a practice evacuation took place. The latter also reminded us just how many people work at the Parliament apart from MEPs and we must have looked like a bizarre set of demonstrators as we marched along the riverbank in the rain, covering our heads with any folders or speeches we could borrow. It’s a good reminder, however, of how scary the world has become even if we’re far from the bombs falling on Afghanistan. The Dalai Lama addressed a plenary session for the first time ever and got three standing ovations for his message of peace and forgiveness. Unusually he spoke in Tibetan, although his English is excellent – a tactful recognition of the politics of languages in Europe, I suppose. The WTO debate, interrupted by the evacuation, was interesting. There’s a quite different atmosphere from the Seattle debacle with much more recognition of the difficulties faced by developing countries and a far less hawkish approach on Intellectual Property Rights in the area of medicines. The US requirements for antibiotics to treat anthrax has perhaps made clearer to them the plight of the 25 million HIV positive people in sub-Saharan Africa, whose treatment depends on loosening of patent laws. There’ll be lot of talk about TRIPS (Trade-related intellectual property rights) in Doha, Qatar next week. On Monday night my committee (Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy) voted non-stop from 9 to midnight on the 700 or so amendments to the latest research framework programme. The amendments are to the Commission’s suggested programme. As spokesperson for the second largest political group in the Parliament – the Party of European Socialists – I had been over and over these amendments with colleagues including the rapporteur (MEP given responsibility for the Parliament’s response), a French Socialist, and we’d negotiated hard with other groups to ensure that we had a chance of getting our ideas through; with some compromises. My own amendments did quite well – more money for science and society, promotion of women researchers, no research on weapons, projects in developing countries, more research into renewable energy and others, but this is only the first reading. The next stage is a plenary vote in November; then we wait to see what the Council of Ministers, representing each member state, makes of our suggestions. They’ll produce their common position, accepting some of our amendments and rejecting others. We will then decide which rejected amendments to re-table and any which get support from an absolute majority of the Parliament (314, since there are 626 MEPs) are fought over in the six-week conciliation process when 15 of us line up against the 15 Ministers, more often civil servants representing them. The results of these discussions are then presented to the whole parliament for endorsement or (very rarely but it has happened) rejection. This may not sound like the most fun you’ve had since your summer holidays but those who are affected take it very seriously and MEPs really can make a difference. That’s why I get so fed up with the few MEPs who waste everyone’s time by saying they don’t understand what’s going on. Ask for your money back from their salaries!
October 2001 Naturally the horrible events in New York have dominated everyone's thoughts in the European Parliament. Every Strasbourg session for months has begun with silence for the latest victims of terrorism, often in Spain, earlier in the United Kingdom, but of course never on the scale in one incident of the World Trade Centre atrocity. The Parliament has delegations who liaise regularly with almost every country in the world - I'm a member of the South American delegation - so the complexity of world relationships is well known to us. We bring our own country's history and experiences to our work, too, and have to realise that they don't match those of other European countries. There is unanimity in appreciating the suffering of those directly affected by the events of September 11th but the long-term consequences of military reprisals aimed at a nebulous target could be very serious. A reader asks how MEPs can have any impact in the Parliament when speaking time is so limited - he quotes a member who was cut off in full flow after 90 seconds. (In fact you're told beforehand how much time you've got and there are huge electronic clocks with warning signals to show how much time you have left, so the member concerned obviously hadn't prepared properly.) It's true that speaking time in the full Parliamentary sessions is very limited - 5 minutes is generous, 2 or 3 minutes is usual and 1 minute not rare in popular debates. Given the volume of business, this makes sense, since the plenary session is the stage of proceedings when speakers need to summarise and highlight their main points, not indulge in long-winded oratory. The main arguments and sustained debate have taken place in the committee meetings, where there is no set speaking time and where you can speak as often as necessary to answer points or raise new questions. Alongside the committee meetings, there will have been extended discussions with the Commission, the Council of Ministers, lobbyists of all types and within the political groups. There are also possibilities for asking questions or raising matters of local interest in the plenary sessions. I raised the question of the Vauxhall closure in a plenary session as soon as it was announced, for example. Members can put down "written declarations" for others to sign, can take up cases for constituents with the Petitions committee or the Ombudsman, and can put forward resolutions on any subject. You can also give in writing your reasons for voting in a certain way. This explanation is published in the minutes. Inexperienced members don't always realise how they can be effective - it's certainly not through long speeches in the plenary. I have heard moving and powerful speeches lasting one minute, where the speaker has prepared properly and wants to make one important point. What doesn't work is to try and read a 2 minute speech at breakneck speed in 1 minute - the interpreters can't do justice to your words and you sound raving mad to those who do understand your language.
October 2001 In my A-Z of the EU, this month is 'D' for 'Development'. I was astonished when a Finnish MEP once told me with great satisfaction that at least the EU cuts Sweden down to size. My ignorance of Nordic history was such that I had never perceived Sweden as a threatening and very powerful neighbour but rather as a very pleasant and environmentally advanced smallish country. In fact, almost all members of the EU have been much-feared imperial powers at some time or other. One of the MEPs in the last Parliament was the elderly Otto Von Habsburg whose childhood was spent with a very different map of Europe. All over the world are former colonies which countries like the UK, France, Belgium and the Netherlands were ruling well within my lifetime. MEPs from Guadeloupe and Ile de la Reunion sit in the European Parliament as French members, since France has 5 overseas departments, wholly incorporated into France. The Azores and the Canary Islands are respectively Portuguese and Spanish and also represented in the Parliament, of course. The links with former colonies are very strong and in some cases based on guilt over the exploitative way in which European countries acted. The economies of many countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific are still very dependent on crops and mineral extraction established in colonial times. Levels of poverty are shocking, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, with widespread disease and malnutrition, lack of adequate education and conflict situations, often a consequence of past misrule by colonial powers. With this historical background it isn't surprising that the EU makes substantial efforts to improve life in the countries concerned, with aid, technical support, economic partnerships and favourable trade deals. There are agreements that last for several years with the so-called ACP countries (African, Caribbean and Pacific). The former 'Lome Convention' has been replaced by a partnership agreement signed in Cotonou, which is much less paternalistic and aimed at "sustainable, equitable and participatory" development. Since the EU provides half of the world's public aid and contains the main trading partners for most developing countries, it's crucial that the aid is delivered efficiently and effectively and that trading arrangements are fair. There have been problems in the past and one of the European Parliament's roles is to monitor expenditure on aid. I've heard some alarming tales, eg computers delivered to villages without electricity and where in any case no-one was taught how to use them, but I've also visited EU projects in shanty-towns providing health services and education in a way much appreciated by the local people with whom I spoke. The poorest countries in the world will have completely free access to all the EU's markets (once a protection period for sugar, rice and bananas has passed!) but it isn't at all clear that international trade is generally benefiting other developing countries. Interestingly, many groups of developing countries see the EU itself as a model for other regions of the world. Having been conquered and ruled from outside they see that only voluntary pooling of resources and authority with other countries is likely to work. That's what my Finnish friend meant, I think.
September 2001 In my last article I wrote about Brussels and bureaucrats. Heading up the professional civil servants of the European Commission are 20 so-called 'Commissioners' and they need an article to themselves, so it's C for Commissioner. Unlike the civil servants, the Commissioners come and go every five years and as you'll recall, the last lot resigned en masse following huge rows with the Parliament over the failure of some of them to cope with fraud in their departments and some pretty unsavoury practices by one in particular (Edith Cresson). The mass resignation was probably over-dramatic and certainly has led to a feeling amongst many of the public that everything about the EU is corrupt. (I still get people saying to me "I thought you'd all been sacked. How did you get your job back?" which is pretty infuriating when it was the Parliament who took action!) I'd make the comparison with a government - only the guilty minister resigns when there's a problem, not the whole of the Cabinet. How do you become a Commissioner ? Simple - every member state currently has one and the big countries (Germany, UK, France, Italy and Spain) have two, all appointed by their respective Prime Ministers. There's a convention that political balance is sought, so the UK has a Conservative and a Labour Commissioner, at the moment Chris Patten and Neil Kinnock respectively. Almost always Commissioners have past political experience and their political affiliations are known. They don't represent their Party or even their member state, however, when they're in post and have to work collectively, independent of those interests. Every Commissioner is given a department to head, like a Government Minister does. (Chris Patten heads up the External Relations department and Neil Kinnock who used to do Transport is now in charge of the reform programme.) It's their job to prepare legislation, by following the political lead of the Council of Ministers (Ministers from each country) but they do not decide whether it becomes law or not. Only the Council and the Parliament can vote on the laws. The Commissioners are then responsible for carrying out the laws and are subject to questioning by the Parliament on how they do it. Most Commissioners come very regularly to the Parliament's committees and plenary sessions and we form our own judgements on how competent they are. The rows that led to the resignation certainly improved the Parliament's determination to be tough. For example, I am currently very critical of Chris Patten for his very delayed arrival at the Energy committee to explain a bizarre scheme to pay for unnecessary and potentially risky nuclear facilities in Russia. I've brought two Commissioners to our region - Philippe Busquin (Research) and Erkki Liikannen (Enterprise and Telecommunications) and hope that Mrs Loyola de Palacio will come to look at our transport and energy initiatives. They'll make much better suggestions if they travel throughout the EU and hear from local people. It is good for us, too, to see that Commissioners are normal men and women, not crooks.
September 2001 The European Parliament and the debate about world trade Plus other forthcoming issues being discussed at the European Parliament Like everyone else MEPs were outraged at the behaviour of the Italian police in Genoa during the summer, when a young demonstrator was shot dead and scenes of police brutality (kicking and punching demonstrators) were shown on television. No MEP would excuse, either, the deliberate vandalism and violence of a tiny proportion of the demonstrators. We can expect more of the same, sadly, at all forthcoming meetings of world leaders or international organisations – Brussels will have more than its fair share this Autumn, during the Belgian presidency of the EU – and we have to accept that there's an apparent rejection, not just of world-wide capitalism, but also of those bodies who are meant to control it, such as the European Parliament and indeed national Parliaments. More coverage of our debates and votes might make it clearer that we are constantly taking on vested interests. In this month's Parliament session in Strasbourg we're voting on how to make works councils more effective, on safeguards for heavy lorries in the Alps, or air safety rules, access to education in the developing world, protection of privacy in electronic media, rules to ensure that blood transfusions are safe and calling for a Parliamentary enquiry into what happened at Genoa. If you want more details of any of these subject you can find them on the Internet www.europarl.eu.int. You can also check how your MEPs vote or indeed whether they do. Next year is the International Year of Mountains, according to the United Nations, which is a fat lot of use to our region, but never mind. I would love to know how these special years, weeks and days get chosen. Can just anyone announce them? I once learned that I was in the middle of National Oral Hygiene week but wasn't quite sure what to do about it. Anyway, this year is the European Year of Languages as I've mentioned before. Labour MEPs are doing a language challenge, to be performed in November. I'm doing a cookery demonstration in Portuguese, colleagues are singing in Icelandic and Welsh (not at the same time thank God), reciting in Irish Gaelic and doing interesting things in other languages, collecting money for a good cause through sponsorship. Details of how to do the challenge are available from CILT (The Centre for Information on Language Teaching) www.cilt.org.uk I know that many local schools and centres are participating and hope everyone enjoys the experience. We're also looking at the applicant countries, which have all been carefully monitored. MEPs will be reporting on their findings, which are mainly positive. I met some Slovakian would-be MEPs recently and they asked for advice on how to prepare, possibly for the 2004 elections. I wanted to suggest that they do a spell as a traffic warden, football referee or tax inspector to get a feeling for how popular MEPs are but thought that was unfair on those jobs. In fact the hardest thing at first is understanding how to be effective – it's different in an international Parliament. Human warmth is the same everywhere, though, and it's what I most value most in the job.
August 2001 Nothing like a new baby in the family to set you dreaming beyond the usual routines is there? My first grandchild was born last week and apart from considerable embarrassment at the name his parents chose for him (Leo, but after Leonardo da Vinci, honest, not a hopeless attempt to have his granny rehabilitated as a Blair babe) I'm full of hopes for him and all the other babies who are arriving day by day. When he asks why I work in another country and sometimes make phone calls in languages he can't understand it'll be hard to explain the full story. I suppose I could go back to the period when I was born, in the middle of the Second World War, when European countries saw each other as natural enemies and regular outbreaks of war as inevitable. The idea of sitting down with Germans and Italians to work out how to protect our environment or undertake joint research projects would have seemed absurd to my parents as they fitted my baby gas mask and lived in fear of bombs or violent death. That the justified and wise idealism of those who after the war set up what is now the EU has been forgotten is inevitable, I suppose, as memories fade. It had to be more than a single market, of course, as without the social rights, safety regulation and environmental standards brought in through negotiation it would have been an early example of mini-globalisation with all the bad side-effects which are so evident in today's wholescale version. I know from constant lobbying by industry that multi-national firms usually do all they can to avoid restrictions of any sort - it's the logic of money-making, after all - and that they would pick one European country off against another if we didn't work together. We have to find a way to help groups of countries elsewhere in the world make joint decisions on minimal standards, which is what the World Trade Organisation should turn its mind to. I will be at the next WTO meeting in Doha, as an observer member of the EU delegation and will be pleased that we represent 370 million people - enough to be influential in the world. It'll be some time before Leo is remotely interested in Romano Prodi's latest ideas on how the EU should be run but it's required reading for MEPs before we start back (August 27th, by the way - we work more days than any other Parliament in Europe!). I agree with Mr Prodi that words like "Commission" mean nothing at all to normal people and I would myself be happy to say that we have a European government (executive) and a European legislature (lawmakers, i.e. Council of Ministers and Parliament). This would probably get me strung up, however, and I want to be around as Leo and all the other new babies discover what we've done in the world so far and work out how to do it better.
April 2001 A federation - not a superstate The German Head of State - President Johannes Rau - made an excellent speech in the recent European Parliament session in which he set out clearly the future of the EU as a federation of member states rather than a superstate. He advocates a European constitution so that everyone knows the limits of the EU's powers and a President of the Commission elected by the two "Chambers" (Representatives of national governments and the directly elected Parliament). He got a standing ovation from all sides of the Parliament for saying so clearly what the vast majority of us think - that it makes sense to do some things together but for most things it's better to work as individual countries. Only Heads of State can address the Parliament, by the way, not Heads of Government, (unless they're present during their country's presidency of the EU). Her Majesty the Queen has addressed the Parliament, but Tony Blair's only chance was during the UK presidency in 1998, when he spoke on behalf of all EU countries, not just Britain. Until recently the words "Fievre Aphteuse" meant little to most MEPs but we're all familiar now with the French for foot and mouth disease and are used to stepping on disinfectant mats and being handed stern notices about importing food as we arrive in Strasbourg. There is great sympathy for our plight and the Parliament voted for funds to be set up for those industries hit by the epidemic. The other member states know that our prompt action has minimised the risk to their own livestock and obviously discussions on vaccination policy are well underway. You can see details of the discussions on the "Europarl" website along with other news of the plenary session. Thanks to all those of you who wrote about the banning of cosmetics manufactured with the use of animal tests. I voted with a majority of MEPs to impose the ban but we still have to persuade the Council (government ministers) to follow our lead, so keep up the pressure. The USA have banned the imports of dog and cat fur so there's a precedent for letting animal welfare overcome free trade rules. I promised some time ago that I'd answer some of the most frequently asked questions. "Why do you pass stupid rules about the shape of vegetables?" is a favourite. The reason is that in a free market "Class 1" and other labels have to be decipherable and subject to checks. Of course anyone who wants to can buy and eat the most misshape of fruit and veg, of whatever size they like. If you're selling something certified as perfect, however, it has to match the description. It's the fruit and veg wholesalers and importers who advise on the detailed descriptions which meet their requirements and which have to apply throughout the EU. It's consumer protection, which I assume most people want. Remember that before the EU customs documents (different for each country) were a costly nightmare and that agreeing standards makes things like maintaining quality much easier. Let me know what you think. Happy Easter!
March 2001 What
goes on in Strasbourg? With the other MEPs I spent 7 hours in my seat voting electronically on hundreds of amendments, following the voting list drawn up by the relevant coordinator from our political group, the Party of European Socialists. Other UK MEPs follow their European People’s Party (Conservatives), Greens, ELDR (Lib Dems) and “Europe of Differences and Diversities” (UK Independence Party, alongside the French hunters and shooters). As a coordinator myself on the Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy Committee I have to compile our voting lists and this week spent a long time ensuring that we voted sensibly on biotechnology, taking into account the misgivings of the public without opposing all scientific advances. Occasionally the UK Labour members vote differently from other Socialists but on the whole we agree with out colleagues much more than we do with political opponents from the UK. I had meetings with the Energy Commissioner, Mrs De Palacio, to discuss the new directive on opening up the electricity and gas markets, the European Science foundation - a group that is working on reform of the CAP, a WTO working party, a strategy meeting of Socialists on my committee, a discussion with Socialist coordinators on the suggestions for new ways to run the Commission (more contact with interested groups of the public, more voluntary agreements rather than directives etc) and many many others. I get to the Parliament at 8.00 each morning and don’t ever leave before 8.00 at night, often much later. This is not meant to sound like a hard-luck story – plenty of people work long hours for much less pay (my daughter and son for example who are respectively a midwife and a computer technician) but some MEPs do work harder than generally admitted by the anti-EU brigade. I enjoyed hosting a visit by the national
Cooperative Women’s Guild who were delighted that Glenys Kinnock accepted my
invitation to meet them, along with colleagues from other countries. It’s Fair
Trade fortnight and the visitors, all wearing Fair Trade tee-shirts, were very
interested in hearing about the way in which we’re tackling WTO issues. The
Qatar meeting in November - Seattle part 2 – has an enormous task if
confidence in free trade ever being fair trade is to be shown as a possibility.
February 2001 Science,
language learning... and more I went straight from the Royal Society to the Centre for Information on Language learning (CILT) to hear about activities for the European Year of Languages. Again there’s a website you can reach via mine. They want as many people as possible to enter for a language challenge of their choice. You can recite a poem in a new language, for example, or book a holiday abroad over the phone (I’d get some coaching for this one or you might find yourself having a very strange holiday!) As I’m hoping to be a grandmother for the first time in July I thought I’d learn some lullabies or nursery rhymes in unusual languages – the baby won’t know if I’m making awful mistakes. Please let me know if you’re organising something – as an ex languages teacher I’d love to come along and join in the fun. Young people who want to have access to some very good jobs in the future really should keep their languages up to scratch. I’m told that Rover workers were offered the chance to spend time at the BMW works in Germany but only 5 were prepared to do so since they would have to learn basic German. I don’t suggest for one moment that British car workers shouldn’t fight tooth and nail to keep jobs in this country, of course, and I fully support the Vauxhall workers in Luton, but a period working abroad can be very valuable, even if it just makes you realise the advantages of living here. We’ve started discussing the World Trade
Organisation in detail now that it looks as though there’ll be a Ministerial
meeting in Quatar later this year. Many of the apparently insoluble problems
remain but I do see a shift in the Common Agricultural Policy’s doughty
defenders' point of view. I think they are realising that export subsidies,
dumping produce on world markets and subsidising very rich farmers is
unsustainable. Good! January 2001 First of all, of course, very good wishes for the New Year, especially to my anti-EU penfriends - I hope we can continue the task of analysing the benefits and risks of the EU in the same objective way. I spent two days in Stockholm just before Christmas with other Socialist spokespeople from the European Parliament, discussing the Swedish Presidency (which has just started and will last six months) with the relevant Ministers. Their emphasis will be on the three Es - Enlargement, Employment and Environment, with Equality and Openness as strong sub-themes. Sweden is of course a very successful smallish country (population, not area) with civilised standards, thriving industry and excellent public services. High taxes, too, but Swedish people seem to see the connection between that and the benefits they enjoy. Their main fears of EU membership are that they might have to lower their standards - so far the fears have been ungrounded. The openness issue is very important. As you know, decisions in the EU are made, not by the civil servants in the Commission, but by the national government ministers who make up the Council, acting alongside the European Parliament. Knowing what goes on in the Parliament is straightforward. Our meetings are held in public, the minutes are available and votes are published. If you want to know how I voted on controversial issues you can look it up - or ask me. It's clear both in committee meetings and in plenary sessions how the votes are stacked - often the splits are within groups (UK Labour and Conservative members quite often vote against their group lines) or according to personal views - I've never managed as the responsible co-ordinator to get a unanimous group line on nuclear power, for example. I was alarmed, incidentally, to read in a recent column by the local United Kingdom Independence Party member that he doesn't understand what's going on in votes and hasn't managed to find out how you get amendments in English. Thank goodness most of us are better organised. In the Council of Ministers things are much less transparent. Their documents aren’t available as ours are and there is an ethos of secrecy which is most undemocratic. It leads to the suspicion that all sorts of horse-trading on unrelated matters is taking place and that some countries are hiding behind the secrecy to keep from their citizens what they’re up to in the meetings. Most MEPs will be very supportive of the Swedish determination to open up. As the US Act on Freedom of Information (the Sunshine Act) said “Sunshine is the best disinfectant"! I have of course been very concerned and angered at the sudden and unexpected announcement of the closure of the Vauxhall's car plant in Luton and raised the question in the Parliament. International firms have to be matched with international regulations, particularly when information and consultation of workers varies from country to country. I will be involving MEP colleagues from other countries where General Motors have plants, to ensure that every attempt is made to reverse this appalling decision.
December 2000 Top 10 questions asked to MEPs As Christmas approaches I can hardly imagine that the homes of our region are filled with excited conversations about the new Treaty which will follow the Nice summit, even less the implications of more qualified majority voting or Belgium's new number of votes compared to the Netherlands'. There'll be plenty of time for that on New Year's Eve. What better way to get the party going than a quiz on the Swedish presidency's aims or charades with titles of European directives instead of books or films ? (The Nice summit was a reasonable success, by the way, and will make enlargement easier, without causing fury in existing member states). While you're waiting I thought you might like to know the Top Ten questions asked of MEPs. We do meet large numbers of constituents and most of them are neither very enthusiastic nor very hostile about the EU but do want to know more and do have concerns. The same is true in every European country, as far as I can tell. 1. Why does the EU pass laws on ridiculous things like the shape of cucumbers? 2. Why don't you MEPs reform your expenses system? 3. How can I get European funding (preferably without filling in any forms)? 4. The EU has destroyed the British fishing industry, hasn't it? 5. Why don't we leave the EU? 6. We're the only country which obeys any of the EU laws, aren't we? 7. Why is it that only Spain, Greece and Ireland get EU money and put up signs to show it? 8. Are the economies of 'Euro' countries in dire trouble? 9. What do MEPs actually do? 10. Why are we ruled by Brussels bureaucrats? I'll tell you what answers I usually give to these questions in another article. The next presidency of the EU will be the Swedish, to be followed in July 2001 by the Belgians and I've already started attending preparatory meetings with their Ministers and officials. It's their first presidency and they want to ensure that some Swedish ways of working are reflected - much more openness and transparency about the Council of Ministers' work, an emphasis on environmental issues and family-friendly working practices. As an extremely successful economy with lots of innovative firms they will score highly on some of the comparisons between EU member states which are made since the Lisbon summit in March. They'll be a bit weak on winemaking and cricket, though, I guess. We are very highly placed for road safety, by the way, and for creative industries including pop music and films. Our anti-discrimination legislation is also more comprehensive than most other member states. The EU doesn't exist to eliminate national characteristics - just try doing that to the French - but tries to learn from them. We're having more and more meetings with people from Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and other candidate countries and are realising that they will be a real resource to the EU. That's why Nice was so important. A very Happy Christmas and New Year!
November 2000 I'm beginning to get lots of letters about the Nice Treaty (successor to Amsterdam, Maastricht etc), mostly complaining about the proposed change which will allow the European Commission to negotiate the WTO agreements on services, rather than individual member states. Those writing to me see this as an undemocratic move, which will allow secret deals, possible very damaging to developing countries, to pass unnoticed. They fear, too, that sensitive services such as health and education will be opened up to all comers and that we'll soon find ourselves completely subjected to the market. In such conditions they believe that poor and vulnerable people will be discarded as poor prospects for money-making and services will be targeted at the well to do. I take these letters very seriously and have been answering along the following lines:-
Sorry this is all a bit technical but I know many of you are interested in trade matters, especially as they impinge on poorer countries. You can find out much more from the EU's website by clicking here.
October 2000 "No surprise that British know least about EU" says Euro MP Local Labour Euro MP, Mrs Eryl McNally, says it's no surprise that people here know so little about the EU and its institutions. She puts much of the blame on newspapers, such as the Mail and Telegraph, for failing to provide objective information and also says schools should make room in their curriculum for more civic education. An official survey of public opinion recently disclosed that the British feel they are the least well informed about the EU's work. The EU's survey showed that, by almost every measure, the British were the most hostile towards Brussels, its institutions and its projects, but they also came bottom of the league when asked how much they knew about the EU. Mrs McNally, who represents the East of England Region, said " When you see serious matters treated in such a flippant manner in some of the tabloids and extremely misleading articles in so-called 'quality' papers it's no wonder British people feel confused or uninformed about the EU." "I am a frequent visitor to schools and whilst many make a real effort to educate their students about government at all its levels most just don't seem to be able to accommodate what might be called civics. Young people in school now will be the taxpayers of the future and they deserve to have an understanding of the institutions for which they will be paying." "In order to help schools across the region I will be issuing an information pack which I hope will go some way to helping teachers deal with the issue of the European Union. In addition, I'm always happy to provide specific information to schools as well as individuals." "Recent months have shown that the EU is far from perfect but my colleagues and I are working hard to establish transparency and accountability in all that its institutions do. Scare mongering in the papers won't help. If people are to form an objective view we need a balanced debate in the British media which informs voters and allows them to make a judgement based on fact not fiction." "If readers want information about the EU please click here to find out how to contact me by post or email."
September 2000 The TV programme "Yes Minister" was, I think, one of the best pieces of public political education ever shown, even if its portrayal of cunning civil servants outwitting vain and somewhat hapless politicians is uncomfortable. I don't know how much mileage there'd be for a similar programme set in the EU institutions but at least it would show British people the different roles of the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament, all of which are frequently confused into an amorphous and slightly threatening mass based in Brussels. When the first treaties set up the embryonic European co-operation initiatives, in the aftermath of the Second World War, there was obviously a need for some sort of international administration body - you can hardly combine the coal and steel industries of six countries, set up joint nuclear research and development, abolish customs and trade barriers and have a common agriculture programme without someone working out how to actually do it in practice. The European Commission was that body - civil servants from all of the countries involved, fluent in several languages, with the patience and determination required for combining national and sectoral interests in the way politicians asked them to. The last point is important. The Commission carries out policies decided upon by the national governments and the European Parliament. Current British Commissioners Neil Kinnock and Chris Patten, although both former politicians, (they do need to understand the world they're working with even if they're no longer part of it) are managers, not policy-makers. Let me give you a current example of the interplay between the Commission, Parliament and Council. I'm the "rapporteur" for a draft directive on Energy Efficiency for computing equipment. We're going to adopt a US system - "Energy Star" - and have to work out how. The member state governments long ago made energy efficiency a political priority, so the Commission is duty bound to suggest possible actions the EU could take, hence this idea. The young Italian Commission staff member dealing with this directive, a Mr Bertoldi, and I have had lots of meetings - he speaks excellent English luckily and I now can see what I think needs to be changed before the Parliament can agree to the directive. I'll draw up a report with suggested amendments, MEP colleagues from other political groups may add others and they'll be voted, first in the Energy committee, then by the whole Parliament. Once we've done that our views go to the Council of Ministers where all 15 energy Ministers decide what they think about our amendments. There's then a process of discussion but between politicians only - elected MEPs and Government Ministers - the Commission hovers around waiting for a result. When it's all over they then start work on getting the directive into place and checking up that each country is doing things properly. I've missed out all the consultations that take place with industry, environmental groups and academics but the process is as I described. As a UK MEP of course I make sure that I'm clear about the views of our government and our industrialists, but I'll tell you more about that in another article.
21 July 2000 Having a break from my weekly commute to Brussels or Strasbourg until the end of August is very welcome - the travelling part of our job is not glamorous or thrilling, although you do get plenty of opportunities to practice relaxation techniques, as the M25 traffic stops dead or the "delayed" sign goes up, again, for the Brussels flight. On my last flight out I spent some time at Brussels airport chatting to a representative from a UK energy utility about nuclear power, renewable energy and their relevance to climate change. We also discussed the way in which the French electricity company, EDF, is buying up whole tranches in other countries (including everything in the Czech electricity market and a large proportion of the UK's) whilst benefiting from the protection of a virtually closed market in France. This is mighty unfair, of course, and the opposite of what should happen in a liberalised market - hence the pending court case against the French government. This is not my week for giving ammunition to the anti-Europeans in a spirit of end of year reconciliation, by the way - their unremitting hostility is as unproductive as would be a naïve belief that everything in the EU works splendidly. Anyway, back to climate change. Bizarre weather events do seem to be increasing in line with CO2 emissions and there are very few scientists who don't think we should be taking action and smartish. We debated the issue in committee recently and many of us came to the following conclusions:-
I took part recently in an interesting seminar in Bedford about the hydrogen economy, organised by the local Renewable Energy Forum, so I know that there's plenty of interest in our region. The EU is very influential in energy matters so please let me have your views. It'll make a change from recent letters.
July 2000 Many of my letters come from people who are vaguely aware that "Europe" gives them some rights and who therefore think that I can help with a particular problem. Often I can, of course, and am happy to do so, especially since finding out who your MEP is can be very difficult - I would like all citizens to be given a card telling them exactly who represents them in Europe, Westminster and on their local councils. That would help us to be properly accountable and easily contactable. Anyway, back to European rights. There are two sorts - those you get as a citizen or resident of an EU country and the more famous and wider-spread (covering 40 plus countries) rights defended in Strasbourg by the European Court of Human Rights. (We go to Strasbourg once a month too, as you know, but to a different place and the court has nothing to do with the Parliament). The Strasbourg court covers very fundamental rights (freedom of thought, freedom from torture or imprisonment without trial etc) and shortly these rights will be defensible in British courts, which will make the process much cheaper and easier. It currently takes five years and costs about £30,000 to get a judgement in Strasbourg, after you've exhausted every possibility in your own country. Since there's so much confusion about rights, the EU is in the process of listing all the rights you get because of the EU - quite a long list actually, which should be better known and then better enforced. EU citizens can live, work, study and travel throughout the EU, for example, are protected from discrimination at work and can take advantage of the growing harmonisation of qualifications. I'm very well aware that there are some breaches of these rights but you do have redress and I'll help in any way I can if you contact me. The Charter of Fundamental Rights will be published at the end of the year. If you have any complaints about the way the EU institutions (Parliament, Council of Ministers or European Commission) are run, you can take a case to the Parliament's Ombudsman - a very competent Finn called Jacob Sodermann - and he will investigate for you. Contact me if you want to know how to do this. Finally (you know what happens when a speaker says this - you're in for another half-hour. It's normally as bad as "I'll be brief" which is always a lie, in my experience as a very practised listener to speeches. Thank God we only get two or three minutes in the Parliament plenary sessions before the mike goes off.) Finally let me leave you with three reminders:-
December 1999 What a legacy to be passing to future generations! At the end of Europe's worst ever century with world-wide wars and millions of destroyed families we have created another ray of hope, the European Union. This is a bold experiment of working together rather than fighting together created from the appalling experiences of this century. Previous attempts to bring countries together have involved tanks and bayonets or real coercion - this time it's all voluntary. There's no doubt that it's hard to tackle environmental problems, trade barriers, customs documentation, joint aid to developing countries, international treaties, help for poorer areas, international infrastructure plans and joint research projects taking into account the views and vested interests of 15 different countries but enormous progress has been made in all these areas. Unfortunately we tend to concentrate always on the problems and to forget just how much has been achieved - all without a shot being fired. Countries like Spain, Greece, Portugal and the former East Germany have been able to move from totalitarian regimes to full democracies because of the EU's framework - just as the poorer countries to the East - Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Estonia and later others hope to do. Yet we each preserve our identity - national pride and attachment to national cultures and traditions is universal. The EU flag does not supplant the national flags in the European Parliament but stands amongst them - uniting former rivals or enemies in the search for something extra - as well as, not instead of. We are entering the new millennium with real achievement in Europe. Some of the problems before us now are long-term. Global warming producing climate instability - more floods, hurricanes and diseases - and will take centuries of learning and adjustments of life-styles. The beginnings of 'sustainable' developments are part of the answers to this and other long-term problems such as oil and gas running out. The scientific discoveries that will increasingly enable human and other genes to be manipulated pose dangers and promise that will be significant in the near future and will perhaps have vast significance over the coming centuries. How will our children and grand-children deal with greatly extended lifetimes for example? Perhaps the greatest challenge is how we can continue to extend human spirit and potential. At the beginning of the last millennium most people lived impoverished, brutal and short lives. Now the vast majorities of people in the European Union have better health, are better fed and have wider opportunities. Many other parts of the world are not so lucky and how we help will be a measure of the growth of our civilisation. I look forward to my few years in the next millennium. We can all feel pride that we hand to our future generations the tools for a long-term future that we cannot imagine. From ashes of wars to a future of sunshine - probably not. But a future where difficult problems are resolved using co-operation and where all citizens are valued are good tools and a good legacy.
November 1999 As you probably know, we work on a four-weekly cycle - two weeks of our specialist committees, one week of political group meetings and one week of plenary sessions (in the dreaded Strasbourg). We also have occasional plenary sessions in Brussels and committee meetings are appearing more and more often during group weeks and Strasbourg weeks. This all keeps us away from the UK and means that our constituency duties take place on very hectic Fridays, Saturdays and sometimes Sundays. As our new constituency is larger and more populated than Denmark your chances of frequent one to one meetings with any of the 8 MEPs for the region are not high - even if you're married to one of them. My main committee - Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy - is currently debating the EU's stance at the forthcoming World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations in Seattle. MEPs will be participating in the talks as members of the EU's delegation so it's important that we're clear about the issues. The WTO is often painted as the main tool of marauding capitalism, which will destroy jobs, abolish workers' rights, ruin the environment and further impoverish the poorer parts of the world. It's certainly true that poorer countries, notably in some parts of Africa, have seen little benefit from the earlier talks, which set up the WTO, as it's true that workers' rights are ignored in some countries. The WTO process could be effective, however, in tackling these and other problems, but only if the agenda is properly set in Seattle and if we help developing countries to have the legal representation and expertise they need to be properly equipped for negotiation. Multi-national firms have to realise that they can't simply ignore world-wide agreements on environmental protection, health and safety and human rights when they operate in poor countries and WTO rules must reflect this. Without rules, the globalisation of the world's economy is very dangerous. Recent events such as the beef crisis have shown us the importance of EU law, as well as the need to respect scientific evidence even if it's inconvenient for politicians. No EU country has a monopoly on virtue, of course - all of them, including us, have had adverse judgements in the European Court of Justice which rules on breaches of EU law. France will appearing there soon if they don't open up their electricity markets to firms from outside, in line with the directive to which they agreed. Since the French electricity company, EDF, is busy buying up firms elsewhere, including here, it's completely unacceptable that their electricity is still an internal monopoly. We're on the case. It's just as daft to pretend that everything's perfect about the EU as to make the ridiculous claims which the anti-European headbangers love. If you hear any more of the "Europe's banning Rice Crispies" sort, by the way, let me know and I'll get you the real facts.
November 1999 Start of the Fifth European Parliament I'll be going to Seattle next week as part of the EU's delegation and I must say that negotiating on behalf of 370 million people gives us a strength and credibility vis a vis the USA, for example, which we would never attain as the 15 small countries which we are on our own. I think we're entering the new millennium with a real achievement in Europe. The start of the fifth European Parliament ( we only started in 1979, remember) has been complicated by the move to new premises in Strasbourg and the long-winded process of approving the new Commissioners, which included lengthy questionnaires to be read by MEPs in August and a 3 hour hearing for each of the 20 would-be Commissioners. Anyway we and they are now in place and determined that the next five years will be more positive and more understandable to the public than what's gone on before. The new Parliament building in Strasbourg doesn't help, actually. It's a monument to stupidity and waste. There is no rational need at all for us to pack up all our papers into tin trunks every month for transportation by lorry from Brussels to Strasbourg. It costs a fortune, disrupts our work and seems designed to ensure that MEPs can't do their scrutiny and law-making work efficiently. It certainly wasn't MEPs who decided upon this nonsense - the new building was conceded in a late night bargaining session in Edinburgh by the Council of Ministers. To add insult to injury it's an energy-wasting, badly designed building with depressing black and maroon inside walls and an entrance which looks like an exercise yard from a prison in the former Soviet Union. Still, the chamber where we have our debates and votes is bright and pleasant and the hemicycle shape makes for consensus rather than confrontation. I spoke three times in the current session - twice on clean energy and once on the accident in the Japanese nuclear plant where there are clearly lessons for us. Our plenary (full parliament) speeches are never lengthy - as a rule you get one, two or three minutes- and it's good training to make your points in a concise way. In committee meetings, however, which is where you do the detailed work of law-making, you can take longer to explain your views. Most of my visitors recently have been concerned about the WTO (World Trade Organization) negotiations which will be starting in Seattle this November. They include people from the toy industry who are worried about cheap imports produced in bad conditions, Trade Unionists who want basic standards for workers accepted as prerequisites for trade, groups representing the poorest countries who are suspicious of disguised protectionism by the rich world in the form of environmental and other conditions for goods. There are obviously some contradictions to be sorted out and the EU will be doing the negotiating for all its members. The French refusal to accept British beef is causing real irritation in that their "scientific" evidence seems spurious to our Ministers and experts. Food safety was one of the big topics this week, following several scandals - including one in France, by the way - and it's clearly going to be one of the main jobs of the EU to develop "tests of tests" so that the public isn't hoodwinked by vested interests. Great news at the end of the week in that very big EU (hundreds of millions) money is coming to our region for the first time, to help areas of high unemployment. Look out for the European flag, coming shortly.
October 1999 The European Parliament Elections Are you an unusual person? You certainly are if you voted in last June's European Parliament elections. Much more probably you're one of the 75% of registered voters who didn't vote, for a range of reasons - "I want nothing to do with Europe, I'm British", "The whole thing's corrupt and all the candidates are crooks", "The Parliament's only a talking-shop with no powers", "I don't like the new regional list system", "I'm against the Euro" and, very commonly indeed - "I don't know anything about it". As one of the eight MEPs who was elected to represent the East of England (Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Essex, Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Suffolk) for the next five years I feel very concerned at the lack of interest in the work we do, not because of personal vanity but because it's dangerous when democracy is neglected and because a well-informed citizenry is a fundamental requirement of this democracy. The European Parliament is 20 years old this year. Until 1979 there was no directly-elected body involved in what is now the European Union - decisions were made by Government Ministers and carried out by unelected (and largely unsupervised) civil servants in the European Commission, with delegations of national parliamentarians meeting in a very relaxed way. The Parliament proper has now entered its fifth term - a mandate lasts five years - and has acquired important legislative, budgetary, scrutiny and assent powers. MEPs make and amend EU laws, alongside the Council of Ministers (one from each of the 15 member states, according to the subject-matter of the law concerned), decide jointly on the annual budget and keep an eye on the Commission. You will recall that earlier this year the whole Commission resigned, following criticism by the Parliament and the current mood of reform is tangible. It's not true, however, that the whole system is corrupt. Most organisations have flaws and contain small numbers of dishonest people - the EU is no exception. Member states manage directly over 80% of EU funds and all, including the UK, throw up examples of careless accounting or downright misuse of money, but the Court of Auditors highlights these in its annual reports and makes recommendations which are taken very seriously, especially in the current climate - created by the European Parliament. MEPs themselves are paid the same salaries as their national counterparts and receive allowances for travel, accommodation abroad, staff and office costs. Our accounts are audited and subject to strict rules, quite rightly, since this is public money - your money. Very very few MEPs are other than hard working and honest, whatever the popular press would make of us as scapegoats and we have always wanted transparent and clear systems of payment. Having got that off my chest, let's look at the EU as we near the end of Europe's worst ever century and see how far the very bold experiment of working together on some issues has succeeded and failed. Previous attempts to bring countries together have involved tanks and bayonets or real coercion - this time it's all been voluntary. There's no doubt that it's hard to tackle environmental problems, trade barriers, customs documentation, joint aid to developing countries, international treaties, help for poorer areas, international infrastructure plans and joint research projects taking into account the views and vested interests of 15 different countries but enormous progress has been made in all these areas. We tend to concentrate always on the problems associated with international negotiations and to forget just how much has been achieved - all without a shot being fired. Countries like Spain, Greece, Portugal and the former East Germany have been able to move from totalitarian regimes to full democracies because of the EU's framework - just as the poorer countries to the East - Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Estonia and later others hope to do. The single currency is another example of achievement, whether or not you think the UK should become a member. It is worth remembering that the Republic of Ireland is a founding member of "Euroland" alongside the other 10 countries involved. I anticipate that there will be enough positive evidence of the benefits of a single currency by the time we have a referendum, if we do, to make the decision fairly clear. In another article I will go through the arguments usually put by both opponents and supporters of our entry. One of the weakest arguments against is that of "I want to be British, not European" as if the two were mutually exclusive. I have never met a French person who wants to be anything but French and the same is true of every single country in the EU - national pride and attachment to national cultures and traditions is universal. The EU flag does not supplant the national flags in the European Parliament but stands amongst them - uniting former rivals or enemies in the search for something extra - as well as, not instead of.
|