20 Most Recent Stories From RSS

Wed 10th Mar 2010:

Commissioner will look to close cheque loophole.

Sharon Bowles MEP (South East of England), Chair of the European Parliament's Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, has won an assurance from the European Commissioner for the Internal Market that he will look into options for closing a loophole in cheque-cashing policy that has led to Britons abroad being defrauded to the tune of millions of pounds. In several EU countries it is still possible for individuals to cash a cheque into their personal account when it has been made out to a business. They can do this by simply signing the back of the cheque. Although this practice was banned in the UK in 2006, there are no common European rules.   Ms Bowles welcomed Commissioner Barnier's assurance: "Whether it is British citizens abroad or foreign nationals who are suffering from cheque fraud, the situation is unacceptable. "The UK has shown that this loophole can be closed. "Now we must do it across the whole of the EU. "This might be possible through a Commission directive or by coordinated action by individual member states - and Commissioner Barnier has agreed to look at all the options. "I am delighted that Commissioner Barnier shares my concerns and I look forward to working with him in future to safeguard citizens' money." NOTES TO EDITORS The issue of cheque loophole fraud was highlighted last year with the imprisonment of a British national in France. Graham Templeton was convicted of defrauding a group of British citizens living in the Dordogne in France (the total sum of the fraud was two million euros). Templeton persauded his victims to make out cheques to the Societe Generale bank, but he then signed the back and paid them into his personal account. To hear Sharon speaking to the BBC about this issue, please follow this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00pr5bb      

Welcome cut to red tape for Britain's small businesses.

Diana Wallis MEP (Yorkshire and the Humber) Liberal Democrat Spokeswoman on Legal Affairs, has welcomed today's European Parliament vote in favour of exempting struggling small businesses from producing onerous annual accounts.   The objective of the proposal is to reduce the bureaucratic burden on micro-entities in order to enhance their competitiveness in the wake of the financial crisis. Micro-entities are defined as businesses where two of the following three criteria apply: - 1. The balance sheet does not exceed €500.000; 2. The net turnover does not exceed € 1,000,000 and; 3. The average number of employees during the financial year is 10 or less.   Ms Wallis said: "This is a ray of light for small businesses at a very difficult time. "There are around two million businesses in the UK that have nine employees or less. "We can therefore be very confident that this proposal would allow many small British businesses the breathing space they need in a tough economic environment. "Under this measure small businesses must still keep records that show the company's business transactions and their financial situation. That is important to ensure good practice. "But they would no longer have to keep the same reporting rules as the big companies that have the time and money to produce annual accounts with ease. "EU governments now have the opportunity to endorse this proposal and give a helping hand to small businesses. I hope our Government will do its best to support it and seize this opportunity to lighten the bureaucratic burden". NOTE TO EDITORS Please find attached the European Parliament's report amending Council Directive 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies as regards micro-entities.          

Tue 9th Mar 2010:

Commission right to bring 30% emissions cut one big step close.

Chris Davies MEP (North West of England) has welcomed today's decision by the European Commission to change the requirements for the EU to increase its 2020 carbon emissions reduction goals from 20 to 30%.     The Commission's new document International climate policy post-Copenhagen has replaced the EU's commitment to cut emissions by 30% in the event of an international agreement being reached, and instead said that this should happen "if the conditions are right".   Replying to a question from Chris Davies, European Commissioner for Climate Action Connie Hedegaard confirmed that this is a substantive change on the part of the Commission. Davies said: "The failure at Copenhagen to secure an international agreement meant that the EU's requirement for revising its target could not be met "The Commission has today changed the rules and they are right to do so for two reasons. "First, we are never going to develop a green economy with new jobs unless we take action now: and if we don't, we will only slip further behind China in that race. "Second, due to the recession, a 30% cut in carbon emissions now costs the same as a 20% cut before the downturn. "The Commission's change of position is therefore very welcome"      

Sun 7th Mar 2010:

Icelanders' 'no' is not their last word.

Responding to the resounding 'No' vote Icelanders delivered in the referendum on the proposed deal to repay Britain and the Netherlands outstanding debts from the failed Icelandic bank Icesave, European Parliament Vice President Diana Wallis MEP said: 'The Icelandic people needed an opportunity to have their say.   "The result is no surprise. But what really matters is that the Icelanders, the Dutch and the British have kept negotiating in search of a lasting solution. Although there is no new agreement yet, they have moved on from the untenable package rejected by the Icelandic people. "The referendum result should be respected, but we are not a million miles from reaching a different and acceptable settlement. That would be the best answer to the referendum outcome.' NOTE TO EDITORS: Diana Wallis MEP is the European Parliament Vice President responsible for the Arctic and Nordic matters. She was recently in Iceland to deliver a key note lecture at the University of Iceland and to meet the Icelandic Prime Minister.          

Tue 2nd Mar 2010:

Farage: from stamping his feet to thumbing his nose.

Graham Watson MEP (South West of England and Gibraltar) has slammed anti-European MEP Nigel Farage for his refusal to apologise for insulting Herman Van Rompuy and the Belgian people.   Watson said:   "Farage has gone from stamping his feet to thumbing his nose. "The Parliament's President asked only for a simple apology. By refusing, Farage has added insult to injury. "His actions bring shame on himself and embarrassment to Britain". NOTES TO EDITORS Today, Jerzy Buzek - the European Parliament President - formally asked Farage for an apology for comments made in the European Parliament chamber last week. Farage has refused. Mr Buzek is now reportedly considering which alternative sanction to impose.    

Thu 25th Feb 2010:

Who is Herman Van Rompuy? .

With Europe’s economic and monetary union in a spin, it is a good time to ask what the new Lisbon treaty can do to help. In institutional terms, the most relevant innovation is the creation of the post of standing presidency of the European Council and the appointment to it of Herman van Rompuy.   In contrast to its detailed specification of Catherine Ashton’s job as foreign minister, the treaty is relatively vague about the role of the president of the European Council. Mr Van Rompuy, who has no vote, is to chair the institution and “drive forward its work”. He will “ensure the preparation and continuity” of its work, and “endeavour to facilitate cohesion and consensus”. In the field of foreign and security policy, he is to “ensure the external representation” of the EU “at his level and in that capacity”. Clearly, much of the detail was left, and was intended to be left by the drafters of the treaty, to be filled out by the first post-holder.   So who is Herman van Rompuy and what has he been up to so far? As a former Belgian prime minister he is perforce a federalist. He is a Flemish social Christian, aged 62, of modest demeanour. Born in Etterbeek, Brussels, he has degrees from Leuven Catholic University in philosophy and applied economics; he has a wife and four children. As speaker of the lower house of the Belgian parliament and then prime minister, Mr Van Rompuy brought welcome stability. He is known to be very diplomatic and a master of compromise. Of his new job, he says: “I will consider everyone’s interests and sensitivities. Even if our unity is our strength, our diversity remains our wealth. Every country should emerge victorious from negotiations. A negotiation that ends with a defeated party is never a good negotiation”. Mr Van Rompuy will not be the first Belgian to deploy the art of compromise on behalf of the European Union – although one recalls the remark of another former Belgian prime minister, Guy Verhofstadt, that a true Belgian compromise is a compromise which nobody can understand. Less than two months into the job, Mr Van Rompuy has already confounded those who said he would be weak. He has crisscrossed the EU, meeting each head of government. In a number of carefully calibrated public statements, the president of the European Council has spelled out how he plans to develop the role. It is clear he does not intend to be a mere non-executive chairman of the board. Nor will he confine himself to foreign policy. Instead, he initiated the informal European Council at the Bibliothèque Solvay, a 19th-century Brussels library, to tackle the economic crisis and the risk of a Greek default. Mr Van Rompuy advanced a seven point plan designed to deliver economic recovery. Here he trod boldly and directly into the sphere of economic policymaking which the president of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, might once have considered as his own preserve. Mr Van Rompuy and Mr Barroso are polite about each other but not effusive. There is no Blairite familiarity between them. How their relationship pans out will be the major factor in determining whether or not the experiment of a permanent presidency of the European Council is a success. They will be seeing a lot of each other. AIready they breakfast every week. Their pairing will be under particular scrutiny on their foreign travels, and especially at the next G20 summit in June in Toronto, where Mr Van Rompuy looks determined to be prominent. Mr Van Rompuy seeks to demarcate his work as follows: whereas the Commission president will be responsible for proposing the content of the Europe 2020 strategy for sustainable growth and jobs, he will be in charge of ‘governance’ issues. In other words, faithful to his brief of driving forward the work of the European Council, Mr Van Rompuy wants to shift the focus from what has to be done to how on earth to do it. “In the past,” he says, “there has been a lack of ownership, of monitoring, and of enforcement. There has also been a lack of focus. That must change.” Under the Van Rompuy doctrine, the European Council can give guidance to the Commission and Council of Ministers, but it remains itself ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the strategy. It will assess the performance of national economic policies as well as looking at the scope for concrete, quantifiable measures at the EU level. In seeking to get individual heads of government to take collective responsibility for the decisions of the European Council, Mr Van Rompuy is dead on target. The Lisbon treaty turns the European Council into an EU institution like any other. As such it must learn to abide by the rules of the game and the general principles of EU law. It must practice sincere co-operation with the classic trio of Commission, parliament and Council of Ministers. Expressly forbidden by the treaty from playing a legislative role, the European Council has got to get down to the job of providing consensual political leadership. Mr Van Rompuy has ambitions for his new baby. He astounded his colleagues on February 11 by proposing that from now on they meet each month. This upgrading of activity will quickly turn the European Council into acting, and feeling, like Europe’s cabinet government. Such a transformation would benefit a situation in which the EU played a part in running the Greek economy and where, in the foreign field, there are continually urgent issues of international security to be addressed at the EU level. The increased regularity of meetings at the top level will be especially welcome to the member states of the eurozone. It will be interesting to note how soon absenteeism creeps into the behaviour of certain prime ministers of nationalist bent from countries yet to adopt the single currency. The European parliament watches these developments with some amazement. Mr Van Rompuy is obliged to report to the parliament after the four formal annual meetings of the European Council as prescribed by the treaty. (His first appearance will be in April.) But he has said bluntly that he is not accountable to the parliament, and he has declined, with a disarming touch of arrogance, to answer written parliamentary questions from individual MEPs. No enhanced role is foreseen for the president of the parliament at meetings of the European Council. Yet most really hangs on how Mr Van Rompuy and Mr Barroso learn to get on. Get on they must if the Lisbon arrangements are to work. If they do not, we can already be fairly certain that in 2014 the successor to Herman van Rompuy as president of the European Council will be one and the same person who succeeds José Manuel Barroso as president of the European Commission. Andrew Duff MEP (Liberal Democrat/UK) is president of the Union of European Federalists.      

Iceland and the EU.

Commenting on the European Commission opinion on Iceland's bid to join the EU published today, Diana Wallis MEP, the European Parliament Vice President responsible for Arctic and the Nordic region, said in Brussels today:   "I am concerned that some in Iceland see joining the EU and in turn the Euro as a quick fix to sort out the country's economic problems. This may be true to some extent but I think Iceland needs to join for a whole range of reasons. I am hopeful therefore that the publication of the communication today starts a process which allows for a greater understanding and perhaps greater honesty on both sides. "Of course, Icesave is an issue that must be addressed but we cannot let one specific bilateral (with the UK and the Netherlands) issue derail Iceland's European future. "The application process should proceed at a respectful speed to allow both sides but, most importantly, the Icelandic people who have been through tough times to be at ease with this final decision." Diana Wallis, who was in Iceland last week, amongst other things, delivering a keynote lecture at the University of Iceland and meeting the Icelandic Prime Minister, continued: "I strongly believe that both sides have to be honest about what Iceland's membership means. This means the EU too saying why they would welcome Iceland as a member. All new member states bring something unique to the EU. Iceland has a lot to offer on fisheries, the very unique contribution in terms of sustainable energy resources and its strategic position as an Arctic nation. Iceland should be confident about what it can offer to the EU and the EU in turn needs to be positive in its approach to Iceland."        

Thu 11th Feb 2010:

EU on brink of new laws to tackle needlestick injuries .

The European Parliament today voted in favour of a resolution from Liberal Democrat European Employment and Social Affairs Spokesperson Liz Lynne MEP calling for the immediate adoption of binding legislation to tackle needle stick injuries in the workplace.   The resolution follows a 6 year long campaign from Liz Lynne MEP, alongside the Nurses groups and others, for legislation at EU level to tackle the problem.   Speaking after the vote Liz said: "There are over 1 million preventable needlestick injuries across the EU each year and many of those who are injured and their families face an agonising wait to find out whether they have contracted a blood borne infection such as HIV or Hepatitis C. "Healthcare workers dedicate their lives to saving others and it is unacceptable they are being exposed to life threatening risks on a daily basis just by doing their job. "This European Parliament resolution takes us one step closer to safer working practices and the mandatory use of medical devices that incorporate needle protection, changes I have campaigned to achieve for many years. Notes to Editors: For further information, comment or to book an interview, please contact Liz Lynne on 0032 2284 7521 or 07764 452725 Liz Lynne is Vice President of the European Parliament's Employment and Social Affairs Committee, which is responsible for Health and Safety in the Workplace. Liz has campaigned for 6 years for an amendment to existing EU legislation on Biological Agents to ensure mandatory standards in the workplace to better protect healthcare workers and ancillary workers, including a ban on re-sheathing. Background to the legislation In 2006 the European Parliament adopted a resolution on protecting European healthcare workers from blood-borne infections due to needle-stick injuries. The resolution requested the Commission ‘to submit to EP within three months of the date of adoption of the resolution, a legislative proposal for amending Directive 2000/54/EC on biological agents’. This did not happen. After years of pressure from the Parliament, the Commission did eventually draft an amendment to the biological agents directive last year, via a proposal for a directive, however this was dropped because the social partners (hospital employers and health worker unions) decided to enter formal negotiations, which they had no intention of doing until they knew that we had succeeded in getting the proposal through Parliament. The social partners adopted an agreement last year and Liz Lynne's report is giving the Parliament's support for this. Once this is adopted by Member States, they will then have 2 years to bring in the changes.  

Victory for Liz Lynne after resolution to stop horse cruelty adopted by European Parliament.

Liz Lynne MEP has welcomed news that her campaign to end the cruelty suffered by horses being transported long distance for slaughter has been adopted by the European Parliament at Strasbourg this morning. Her written declaration calling for action was signed by more than 369 Euro MPs from all over Europe, a majority of MEPs, by the deadline this morning, so it has now been adopted by Parliament. The declaration, supported by World Horse Welfare, was launched before Christmas to highlight the scandalous suffering endured by many horses as they are moved in lorries and trailers. Speaking at the Parliament in Strasbourg this morning, Liz said: "This is very good news for everyone campaigning to stop animal cruelty in Europe. The European Parliament has agreed with a petition signed by 120,000 citizens to demand action to end this appalling and unnecessary suffering of horses. "Euro MPs from all parties have looked at the evidence uncovered by charities that EU rules meant to protect the welfare of horses during long distance transport are being flouted, resulting in appalling cruelty." “Now that so many MEPs have signed up, the issue must now go forward to be debated in the Parliament so action can be taken. I would like to thank all the campaigners from the charity World Horse Welfare for their hard work.” Over 100,000 horses are transported long distance across the continent to slaughter every year, many of them in inhumane conditions, causing exhaustion, dehydration, injury and death. The abuse has been uncovered by a number of charities including World Horse Welfare. Late last year Liz hosted a reception in the European Parliament at which the World Horse Welfare petition, signed by over 120,000 EU citizens, was handed over to the European Commission calling for action to correctly implement EU animal welfare rules in this area. Among the abuses uncovered were examples of horses being denied rest stops, packed like sardines into steel lorries where temperatures can be above 40 degrees and not being properly fed and watered. Some of the horses suffer terrible injury or are dead on arrival at their destination. ENDS For photographs of Liz celebrating the result with campaigners, please see attached For further information, comment or an interview, contact Liz Lynne on 0776 445 2725

Wed 10th Feb 2010:

EU urges more shelters for trafficking victims.

The European Parliament today adopted a resolution co tabled by Liberal Democrat MEP Liz Lynne, which includes an amendment by Liz calling for more measures to support the victims of trafficking, including among other things the provision of accommodation and specialist support services. Currently there are only 54 beds available nationally for the victims of trafficking and none outside of London, Cardiff and Sheffield.       Speaking after the vote Liz said:     "The Government must do much more to treat trafficked people as victims of a horrific crime. All too often they are treated as criminals or illegal immigrants.     "It is a disgrace that we have so few specialist shelters for the victims of trafficking in this country. In the UK we only have 54 specialist spaces for victims. In the West Midlands, where we have seen many horrific cases of trafficking, we have none.   "This is in stark contrast to some of our European neighbours such as Sweden.     "My hope is the resolution we adopted today will send a clear message that we need better facilities in place to help the victims and we need to do that now.     "There are credible estimates that between 600 000 to 800 000 men, women and children are trafficked across international borders each year and this is only set to increase.     ENDS     For further information, comment or an interview, contact Liz Lynne on 0776 445 2725     Liz Lynne has campaigned against human trafficking for many years, as shadow rapporteur for a European Parliament report, the author of written declaration and parliamentary questions on the issue.   It is estimated that 4000 women, children and men are trafficked into the UK each year. The Poppy project in the UK is the only specialist charity currently providing 54 beds for the victims of trafficking in London , Cardiff and Sheffield .   Liz Lynne's amendment to the trafficking resolution (amended text is in bold)   Victims' protection, support and assistance         Calls for victims' protection and support to be· a priority in EU action in this field and to ensure that victims receive the maximum help as possible since the very first moment they are identified as victims including: o     the access to a temporary residence permit independently of the victim's willingness to cooperate in proceedings, o       access to appropriate and secure accommodation and specialist support services including the provision of a food/subsistence allowance, access to  emergency medical treatment, access to counselling services, translation and interpretation where appropriate, help contacting family and friends and access to education for children.  o       a facilitated access to the labour market to be implemented also through training and other forms of skills enhancement, o       a facilitated policy of family reunification,         Draws the attention to particularly vulnerable· victims such as children and women and calls for specific assistance and protection programmes for them;           Stresses that victims of trafficking should· receive the widest protection, support and assistance also in case they have not been trafficked in or to the EU but outside the EU;           Bearing in mind that victims have no financial· means and therefore would not have the resources to pay, calls for victims to get a professional help, including legal aid for free, which is essential in order to escape the forced situation in which victims are;    

Tue 9th Feb 2010:

We need this Commission to Succeed.

"With Parliament's approval, the new Commission will now take office, and the Parliament will use its new powers to hold it to account. "The challenges are great, and the stakes are high.  We need the new Commission - and its British High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Catherine Ashton - to succeed."

EU governments “headless chickens” over bank account access SWIFT agreement.

The European Parliament's justice & civil liberties committee is expected this afternoon to reject the interim agreement concluded by EU states with the US, to allow US authorities access to mass information on financial transactions of Europeans and routed through Europe.   The European Parliament is scheduled to vote on Thursday on whether to reject the interim agreement. Without substantive assurances on a timetable for negotiation for a long-term agreement and on stricter safeguards, MEPs are likely to confirm the committee-level rejection of last week.   Liberal Democrat European justice & human rights spokeswoman and London MEP Sarah Ludford, who is also vice chair of the European Parliament delegation to the US, said: “This US-EU bank access deal is a bad one for Europeans, a sellout of our privacy. The legitimate hunt for terrorists must not be an excuse to throw data protection to the winds. If the European Parliament has to show the red card, this will be because EU governments are proving unable to protect our citizens' human rights." "If a long-term SWIFT agreement is allowed to be formulated on the current basis, we will have sold the pass for ever on standards of privacy for transatlantic data-sharing." “EU ministers are acting like headless chickens. They can still prevent a train crash, but only if they convince us that genuinely better safeguards will follow soon in the planned long-term agreement and that they will treat us as a genuine partner in negotiations. The secrecy, delays and ineptness in the EU Council contrasts with much smarter footwork by the Americans." "Piecemeal US information demands and endless Washington-Brussels discussions on data protection must end. The urgent need is for a single comprehensive accord bracketing the targeted sharing of information for security and law enforcement with real reassurance that personal data will not be abused." ENDS Note to Editors The ‘SWIFT’ or ‘Terrorist Financing Tracking Programme’ agreement was signed by EU governments with the US authorities on 30 November 2009 and entered into force provisionally at the beginning of February for 9 months. It replaces an informal and until 2006 unknown arrangement whereby the US just issued administrative subpoenas to SWIFT, a private company that processes worldwide including European financial transactions. But the removal of a server to Europe, away from US territory and jurisdiction, necessitated a new legal agreement. Under the Lisbon treaty the agreement needs MEP consent in order to be formally 'concluded'; a rejection vote would terminate it. MEPs want EU governments to involve them in discussions for the mandate for the planned long-term agreement, not just give the Parliament a 'take-it-or-leave-it' role as now. The EU Council of Ministers waited until the end of January to reply to a series of letters going back to mid-December from European Parliament President Buzek; they have had 2 meetings in the last week but have been unable to agree on how to respond to MEPs' threat to torpedo the interim agreement.  

Thu 4th Feb 2010:

MEPs set to reject banking access agreement SWIFT.

The European Parliament's justice & civil liberties committee is expected this afternoon to reject the interim agreement concluded by EU states with the US, to allow US authorities access to mass information on financial transactions of Europeans and routed through Europe. This is the so-called 'SWIFT' agreement named after the name of the company which manages the flow, and otherwise called the 'TFTP' agreeement after the name of the US Treasury's Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme. It has been provisionally applied but needs MEP consent to stay in force. Liberal Democrat European justice & human rights spokeswoman Sarah Ludford MEP (UK Liberal Democrat, London) said: "The essential fight against terrorism can and must be conducted without unduly compromising respect for privacy. Major data protection weaknesses in the accord - such as the volume of information transferred, length of storage time, potential transfer to other agencies and third countries, and lack of rights to be informed or compensated for wrongful use - make it a bad deal for EU citizens." "If the committee votes for these reasons to reject the agreement, the  EU Commission and Council should act with speed to involve MEPs in negotiating guidelines for a long-term agreement which has better civil liberties safeguards. If they respond in this way, there is a chance that the Parliament could postpone its plenary vote and allow the interim agreement to remain in force." "In any case, security need not be compromised as US and EU authorities can use bilateral channels under legal assistance arrangements to secure information vital to counter-terrorism investigations, as the US ambassador has acknowledged."

Sun 31st Jan 2010:

Making body scanners safe.

Full-body scanners are coming to UK airports – but how can we safeguard privacy during the capture of 'naked' images? The attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines flight 253 over Detroit, for which Osama bin Laden has claimed responsibility, has caused governments on both sides of the Atlantic to scramble to increase airport security. Full-body scanners — or "digital strip-search" machines — are being introduced at Heathrow and other UK and European airports shortly, anticipating a possible EU regulation. But the debate on what safeguards are needed to ensure respect for privacy and civil liberties in the capture of "naked" images – including both the right to refuse naked body scanners and what happens to any resulting passenger images – must go on, in Brussels and national parliaments. As my colleague, Liberal Democrat shadow home secretary Chris Huhne, said on liberty central recently: "Safeguards must also be put in place to prevent staff members from copying or putting on the internet pictures of children, celebrities or those with strange body shapes. These assurances should be enshrined in a statutory code, rather than a mere code of conduct." The home secretary, Alan Johnson, told MPs that all images would be destroyed immediately after screening. But despite similar assurances in the US, the American data protection organisation Epic (Electronic Privacy Information Centre) has, through use of freedom of information laws, discovered that the US government has stipulated the need for body scanners to have storage and transfer capacity. The Transportation Security Administration, a division of the US Department for Homeland Security, reassures us that body scanners "cannot store, print, transmit or save the image... in fact, all machines are delivered to airports with these functions disabled". Epic's scrutiny of the TSA's private procurement and operational specifications for the equipment produces, however, a somewhat different picture. The TSA tender document obliges the installation of disc storage and "a high-capacity read/write drive... to permit uploads and downloads". Downloading of images to a – readily available – USB key would be possible. The image must be exportable in "raw" (presumably meaning without the computerised blurring of face and genitalia) as well as blurred form. An unknown number of users – among employees and outside contractors as well as law enforcement and intelligence personnel – will be able to send images having disabled privacy/modesty filters such as the obscuring of identity and detail. TSA maintains that these functions will only be used for training and evaluation. But how will this be policed and what happens if there is a breach? In the UK, there is not a great record on stopping and punishing data theft. Manufacturer Rapiscan has confirmed that their Secure 1000 body scanners delivered to airports across the UK have the data storage and transmission facilities disabled. But if the machines still have a network- and internet-friendly configuration, this does not rule out quite simple software changes being made to allow data to be retained and transferred. The capability for these scanners to store and export data is unnecessary in view of pledges of non-retention given on both sides of the Atlantic. Even if a possible suspect is detected, there is still no argument for picture storage, since the purpose is to identify those to be stopped and manually searched, not to provide evidence. So the Westminster parliament and European Union lawmakers (including MEPs) must not only guarantee to the travelling public that their images will be deleted. They must also ensure that body scanners will not be physically capable of storage and transmission. This seems the only way to guarantee that the state will not try to further invade our privacy in future, and that images of celebrities, children or others will not find their way onto the internet and TV. Our fundamental human right to a private life demands no less. guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 26 January 2010 17.00 GMT

Tue 26th Jan 2010:

Prime Minister, End the Spanish Land Grab Now.

Diana Wallis MEP (Yorkshire and the Humber) has personally asked the Spanish Prime Minister to put an end to the practice of "land grab" in his country, whereby foreign nationals in southern Spain are watching their homes being bulldozed. Speaking in today's European Parliament debate to mark the start of Spain's six-month EU presidency, Ms Wallis (Vice President of the European Parliament and Liberal Democrat spokesperson on legal affairs) asked Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to intervene and put an end to the practice of Spanish regional authorities' ordering for homes  bought in good faith to be demolished (see question transcript below).   Ms Wallis said:   "This is a burning issue for all citizens who have purchased homes in southern Spain.   "Most did so with all legal paperwork in good order: they have a right to security of property and peace of mind.   "It is unacceptable for British citizens - or anyone else - to live with the threat of a Spanish bulldozer ready to flatten their homes.   "I have asked Mr Zapatero to take action: that is his moral duty both as Spanish Prime Minister, and as a European leader."   ENDS.   NOTES TO EDITORS:   The Spanish land grab issue has arisen in instances where citizens have purchased properties in southern Spain in accordance with local law, after which regional authorities have informed them that any new property must be designed for specific purposes e.g. agricultural use: home owners are then required to bulldoze their own properties, otherwise the regional government will do so and charge them for the cost   The European Parliament resolution of 26 March 2009 on the impact of extensive urbanisation in Spain on individual rights of European citizens, on the environment and on the application of EU law, based upon petitions received (2008/2248(INI))- the Auken Report: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2009-0192   Transcript of Diana Wallis' question to the Prime Minister Zapatero (20 January 2010):   "Prime Minister, thank you very much for your very sincere and European speech at the opening of your Presidency. I have to turn to the issue of the many British citizens, and other European citizens, who face the risk of losing their homes in your country. I approach this from a pro-European perspective, where this Parliament has, time and time again, produced reports and held hearings through our Petitions Committee. Indeed, it is only because we are in Europe that we are able to raise this issue with you here today.   "It is a European problem. It is a problem of free movement, of European citizenship, of European justice, and access to civil justice. You made many wonderful comments about European citizenship, fairness and honesty. Please, I do hope that you will be able to translate those comments to those European citizens who face homelessness and the loss of their saving in your country because of what appears to this Parliament to have been administrative abuse."  

Mon 25th Jan 2010:

What do MEPs want from the new commissioners?

Like it or not, the European Union cannot work without the European Commission. And it never works well unless the Commission is strong. To deride the Commission as a bunch of faceless bureaucrats, as nationalist critics are wont to do, is wrong on both counts. The body is made up of real people, many of them already powerful politicians in their own right. Nor is it true that the Commission is unelected. Indeed, its election is taking place at this very moment. The outgoing Commission, appointed in 2004, was supposed to have left office at the end of October, but the late birth of the Lisbon treaty forced a delay. The old team has struggled on gamely, but much longer on the life-support machine and questions would be raised about the Commission’s legitimacy. In any case, President José Manuel Barroso has been unable to take the bold political initiatives which are needed in several areas while his colleagues are lame ducks. Renewal is now badly needed. Since the European Parliament forced the resignation of President Jacques Santer’s Commission in 1999 the role of MEPs in electing the Commission has steadily advanced. Parliament and Commission have agreed on an elaborate auditions procedures before Parliament takes a solemn vote (simple majority by roll call) on the election of the whole college. Each commissioner-designate, having been nominated by their national government and having had a portfolio distributed to them by President-elect Barroso, appears for a three-hour grilling before the appropriate parliamentary committee. Before the hearings start, the candidate publishes answers to five written questions from his or her committee. Only Mr Barroso, already elected for a second five-year term as president, escapes this particular ordeal (he has others). What is Parliament looking for? Probity, affinity with the goals of the treaty, general understanding of the role of the Commission, specific competence to master the given portfolio, and communication skills. On top of these criteria, MEPs are likely to express themselves on the overall distribution of posts and the question of gender balance. Implicit only will be Parliament’s assessment of the new college on the grounds of party balance. In 2004 Parliament forced the withdrawal of two candidates (Rocco Buttiglione from Italy and Ingrida Udre from Latvia), as well as obliging Mr Barroso to swap a portfolio around. Inevitably, the scent of spilt blood from last time makes some MEPs bloodthirsty this time. Weighing against the obvious temptation to upset the apple cart for a second time is the sense, widely shared among MEPs, that the investiture of a new Commission is urgently needed. It is arguable that this suddenly much more powerful Parliament might do well to moderate its criticisms of putative commissioners nominated, presumably in good faith, by the European Council. Used well by MEPs, the hearings are a good chance to shape not only the composition of the new Commission but also its political programme. It is certainly important for Parliament’s reputation that the hearings are conducted fairly and scrupulously according to the agreed procedure, and that the assassination of one candidate will not descend, by way of partisan tit-for-tat, into general slaughter. Everyone is mindful that the media will follow the hearings with grisly interest (they are all to be webstreamed on EP live). The EU has borrowed the idea of public auditions from the US and not from parliamentary experience in Europe. One hopes the press and public will not be disappointed if there are no sexy revelations about the private lives of hapless commissioners-designate. The European Parliament is not (or not yet) as cruel as the US Senate. But rigorous interrogation about potential conflicts of financial interest can certainly be expected, and competition between parties will sharpen the inquest. The hearings take place from January 11 to January 19. The plenary vote is scheduled for January 26 and will be prepared by a joint meeting of Parliament’s 20 committee chairs and seven party group leaders. The options before Parliament are these: rejection or approval of the whole “Barroso II” college, postponement of the vote until February to seek further information, or a behind-the-scenes negotiations with Mr Barroso about the future of any failing candidate. Foc the record, of Mr Barroso’s 26 commissioners-designate, 14 have previously been a commissioner. Eight have formerly been MEPs. The average age of the whole college is 53. Only nine of the 27 are women, including Catherine Ashton, vice-president, who doubles as high representative for foreign affairs. All speak English, although the German, Günther Oettinger, will try to speak German. Seven speak Russian. Thirteen are affiliated to the Christian Democrats, eight to the Liberals and only six to the Socialists. Neither the Greens nor Communists will have a commissioner of their own; nor will the new rightwing group to which the British Tories are so proud to belong. Andrew Duff MEP is the European Parliament’s rapporteur on the hearings process. He is president of the Union of European Federalists. Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.    

Tue 19th Jan 2010:

Rumiana Jeleva was not up to the job.

Andrew Duff MEP (UK, Liberal Democrats), Liberal Democrat spokesman on constitutional affairs and the Constitutional Affairs Committee spokesman on the Commissioners-designate hearings, has welcomed Rumiana Jeleva's withdrawal from consideration as Bulgaria's Commissioner-designate. Mr Duff said: "Quite simply, Ms Jeleva was not up to the job. "She failed to convince Parliament firstly of her probity and secondly of her competence. "A Commissioner is expected to serve for five years and Parliament and the public must have confidence that he or she will do that well. "Ms Jeleva was unconvincing: it is right and appropriate that her name has been taken off the table. "Cabinet appointments at Westminster are not checked in this way. Commission appointments are - putting paid to the frequent accusation from anti-EU people that the Commission is somehow unaccountable and 'faceless'." Commenting on Ms Jeleva's performance at her Committee hearing, Fiona Hall MEP (North East of England), Leader of the Liberal Democrat MEPs said: "Rumiana Jeleva showed extraordinary arrogance when she claimed that MEPs were asking the wrong questions. "It is the job of MEPs to ask questions of their choosing, and the role of the candidate to answer fully. "It is on behalf of the public that the European Parliament questions and approves Commissioners."    

Thu 7th Jan 2010:

Uyghurs must have fair trial.

Statement by Graham Watson MEP on the extradition of twenty Uyghurs from Cambodia to China and their need for a fair trial "Cambodia's sneaky decision to extradite twenty Uyghurs to China is a disgrace. The UNHCR was still in the process of investigating their cases: it should have had the chance to finish its work.   "China must now agree to allow representatives of the international community to be present at the trials of these poor people. It has a moral responsibility to treat them fairly, and should guarantee that there will be no executions. "The Cambodian government should give a proper account of why it chose to act in this way. It should also promise that the two Uyghurs who are currently missing will not be extradited when they are found. "Both Cambodia and China must understand that if they act brutally and by stealth, their own reputations will rightly suffer. "I am now seeking an urgency resolution in the European Parliament on this matter to show the seriousness with which we treat it." NOTE TO EDITORS Details of the extradition can be found at: http://www.unpo.org/content/view/10508/81/ Graham Watson is the UK Liberal Democrat MEP for South West England and Gibraltar.   Thursday 3 December 2009 marks the twenty fifth anniversary of the Bhopal disaste  

Fri 4th Dec 2009:

Stop the public unknowingly funding organised crime.

Bill Newton Dunn MEP (East Midlands) today challenged the EU to develop consumer centred responses that will protect citizens from increasingly convincing fake goods and services being sold in conventional supply lines across the EU. Newton Dunn, who is co-founder of the European Parliamentary Forum for the Combat of Counterfeit, Contraband and Organised Crime said, "Every time somebody buys a cheap fake, the money goes to criminals, some of whom are linked to terrorists." "With 27 new Commissioners now is the time to maximize the use of existing consumer protection, as well as supporting effective law enforcement. “Counterfeiting is like any other consumer deception. I’m excited to see the evolution of thinking in these terms at the Commission, in the private sector and in civil society. We need to develop effective responses based on the consumer, as well as on intellectual property rights.” Meeting with stakeholders in the European Parliament, Newton Dunn highlighted the need to raise awareness of these issues among MEPs and national parliamentarians, saying: "Next June we will host a counterfeiting exhibition that will show just how many goods are faked, and how far criminals will go. I hope that politicians and policy-makers will come to that exhibition and see for themselves the extent of the problem we face." ENDS. NOTES TO EDITORS Participants also discussed new research conducted by Edelman for Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (BASCAP), launched yesterday at the Global Congress Combatting Counterfeiting & Piracy yesterday. This 18-month study of consumer attitudes and behaviours towards counterfeiting and piracy has shown that a radical change in methods and more aggressive campaigns targeting consumers are needed, in order to convey the right messages to curb the demand for counterfeit goods and services.[1] At that same event the OECD revised their estimate of size of the cross border trade in counterfeits to $250bn per year - a sum greater than the annual GDP of more than 150 economies. Microsoft is today unveiling its own research highlighting the impact of counterfeit software on consumers. Microsoft has received over a 150,000 reports from consumers in the past two years detailing their negative experiences with counterfeit software. That number is double the amount from previous years. Counterfeit copies of software expose customers to viruses, fraud, data loss or damage, critical computer failures and more. In many instances malicious code was found to have been deliberately placed on counterfeit products at the point of manufacture, begging questions as to who is behind these operations, and with what intentions. The Forum on Counterfeit, Contraband and Organised Crime is a cross-party, multi-stakeholder body that aims to draw attention to the threats posed by contraband and counterfeit trade, particularly its links with international Organised Crime. The Forum's counterfeiting exhibition will be held in the week of 21-25 June 2010 in the European Parliament in Brussels.    

Thu 3rd Dec 2009:

Rein in bankers' bonuses.

Sharon Bowles MEP (South East of England), Chair of the European Parliament's Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, has called for a new system to calculate bankers' bonuses.   Speaking in light of the ongoing row over RBS bonuses, Ms Bowles said: "We have to end the current situation in which bankers are making massive bonuses on the basis of low interest rates rather than high skill. "Instead of rewarding bankers for easy profits based on cheap lending, they should instead be rewarded for real achievements. "That means bonuses should be linked to the cost of capital. No banker should take home a bonus worth more than half of what it costs to raise a loan. "Many British banks are now owned by the tax-payer, and they should not be funding big bonuses on the basis of precious little."          

Earlier Stories

Complete archive on the official site.