Thu 17th Jul 2008:

Lobbyists should join transparency register.

Since the European Commission's voluntary register for lobbyists was opened on 23 June 2008, to date, 174 organisations have registered with the Commission, providing a certain amount of financial disclosure. However, only 9 public affairs consultancies have registered with the Commission. The bulk of registrants are professional organisations and NGOs. Commenting, Liberal Democrat Diana Wallis MEP, the European Parliament's Vice-President responsible for transparency, said "If the Commission's register is to properly serve its purpose, we need registration across the board from interest representatives. "It is very surprising to note that a vast majority of public affairs consultancies have so far refrained from registering. "If such significant interest representatives remain voluntarily outside of the register and its modest financial disclosure requirements, then I have no doubt that the Parliament will strongly repeat calls for a mandatory common register - one which also includes the Council. We have already seen that some sectors of industry, such as the mobile phone operators, have learnt the hard way when they have arrogantly ignored any kind of voluntary measures. "All interest representatives must realise that it is in their interests to work transparently, and I will certainly be encouraging them to do so on an individual basis, as and when they approach me."   Notes to Editors: The European Parliament adopted a report on 8 May calling for a "one-stop shop" where lobbyists could register with both the Commission and Parliament and called for a common mandatory register for interest representatives. 11. Welcomes in principle the Commission's proposal for a interinstitutional agreement on a common mandatory register between the Council, the Commission and Parliament that would be applicable in all institutions and include full financial disclosure, a common mechanism of expulsion from the register and a common code of ethical behaviour; recalls, however, the essential differences between the Council, the Commission and Parliament as institutions; reserves, therefore, the right to evaluate the Commission's proposal when it is finalised and, only then, to decide on whether or not to support it; Browse list of lobbyists accredited to the European Parliament: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/expert/lobbyAlphaOrderByOrg.do?language=EN   Links to the Commission register: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin/welcome.do https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin/consultation/statistics.do;REGRINSID=rX6tL25JCWhQqs26wJSn1LJ2pQJGxtTpTPDy8WMLLcpBy75LRCyQ!1870215978

MEPs call for UK government to respond over Equitable Life.

On the day the UK Parliamentary Ombudsman, Ann Abraham, published her report into the Equitable Life affair, MEPs have repeated their call on the UK government to respond to the findings of the European Parliament’s inquiry, adopted in June 2007. MEPs invited Ms Abraham to address the EP Petitions Committee in October. Diana Wallis (ALDE, UK), rapporteur for the EP inquiry, said: "I congratulate Ms. Abraham on her detailed work, and for including all EU policyholders of Equitable Life in her findings.” "Ms. Abraham's findings of serial maladministration and injustice should trigger more than an apology. This is a damning indictment of UK financial regulation throughout the nineties. In the case of Equitable Life, such regulation fell well below domestic and EU standards. "Her conclusions, similar to the ones drawn in my report adopted by the European Parliament last year, make the case for a comprehensive, transparent and simple compensation scheme irresistible. I also hope that both reports combined will deliver a huge jolt to our institutions about our regulatory and lawmaking processes. "I now call on the UK Government to take a clear position on the European Parliament's findings."

Tue 15th Jul 2008:

Reforms already underway will address substance of Ombudsman’s concerns.

“The European Parliament has already adopted a series of major reforms to its system of allowances for Members.  These amount to a substantial increase in transparency and will largely address the spirit of the Ombudsman’s remarks,” said Diana Wallis, EP Vice President responsible for transparency. She continued: “Parliament has noted with interest the comments of the European Ombudsman in his decision on a complaint from a Maltese journalist.  The report comes at a time when major changes to the expenses and allowances system are being introduced.” The changes already underway include: ·         a new MEPs’ statute from the 2009 elections, with a common salary, coupled with a new system for travel expenses, based directly on reimbursement of ticket prices; ·         a major change to the system for employment of assistants after the elections, with those working in Parliament’s main places of work (Strasbourg, Brussels and Luxembourg) employed under the EU staffing system and qualified paying agents handling the pay and social security arrangements for most assistance requirements of MEPs in their Member States; ·         with immediate effect, no close family members will be given new contracts as assistants, although existing contracts may be extended over no more than one Parliamentary term if this is noted in the MEP’s public declaration of interests; ·         the secondary pension scheme is to be phased out from 2009; ·         Parliament’s bureau has already decided to increase the transparency of the expenses system by publishing shortly on the EP website information on the expenses and allowances for Members, including the sums available under each category. The Ombudsman welcomed this in his decision. This information has in any case been provided on request for some time. A difference of interpretation The Ombudsman’s interpretation of the legislation in force differs from that of Parliament on the balance to be struck between protection of personal data and public access to documents.  Parliament remains confident that it is fully observing its obligations under the legislation.  The Ombudsman points out that a separate case involving the Commission and dealing with a similar point of law is still the subject of litigation before the Court of Justice. A survey of national Parliaments in the EU showed that most, like the EP, do not publish the detail of individual payments under their allowances schemes. Parliament’s view is that publishing complete details of individual payments expenses and allowances would breach its duty to protect personal data (for example by making public the precise salaries of individual Members’ assistants, who are currently employed under private law contracts) and could compromise the free and independent exercise of the mandate of an MEP. Proper controls over the use of public money are in place Expenditure under the allowances system is subject to a series of controls and checks, both internally (by Parliament’s administration, through the internal audit process and via the Committee on Budgetary Control) and externally (by the EU Court of Auditors).  Where these checks reveal weaknesses, changes are made, as at present.

Mobile phone operators have only themselves to blame.

Fiona Hall comments on today's announcement from the European Commission that it will dramatically reduce the cost of mobile data such as texting. Commenting on today's announcement from the European Commission that it will dramatically reduce the cost of mobile data such as texting, whilst abroad, Fiona Hall MEP, Liberal Democrat Industry Spokesperson, said: "Since the European Commission was forced to introduce caps on roaming voice calls in 2007, we have tried to warn the mobile phone operators that unless they showed more willingness to bring down the cost of roaming data and sms, similar measures would follow. Action at an EU level has come to the rescue of consumers, who had been exploited and manipulated by the mobile phone companies for far too long."   Notes to Editors: A copy of the European Commission's proposal and press release can be found here: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1144&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

MEPs reject criminalising 'public provocation' of terrorism.

In an echo of the controversial Westminster parliament debate 2 years ago in which Liberal Democrats and other advocates of free speech opposed making the 'glorification' of terrorism a criminal offence, Euro-MPs on the European Parliament's civil liberties committee have today rejected a proposal to criminalise throughout the EU the 'public provocation' of a terrorist act. Commenting, Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP, Liberal Democrats European Justice Spokeswoman, said: "It is wrong to pass legislation that is vague and subjective, thus having a chilling effect on free speech and legitimate discussion of the causes of a conflict. This would both undermine fundamental rights and alienate those who we aim to prevent being recruited into terrorism."    Notes to Editors:  MEPs have voted for a much more precise wording, whereby only 'public incitement clearly and intentionally advocating the commission' of a terrorist act should be criminalised in EU law. The Labour government got its way and the 2006 Terrorism Act, enacted after hasty remarks of then Prime Minister Tony Blair in the wake of the July 2005 London bombings, did indeed make encouragement and 'glorification' of terrorism a criminal offence: 1 Encouragement of terrorism (1) ........a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism........... [including a statement which] (a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and (b) is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances.

Sun 13th Jul 2008:

ALDE mourns the death of a friend and a great European.

Learning today of the untimely death of Bronislaw Geremek, European Liberal Democrat Leader, Graham Watson said: "With the tragic departure of Bronislaw Geremek Poland loses one of its heroes, a tireless architect of its independence but also of the national reconciliation." "Europe also loses one of its most ardent proponents who by the power of his conviction helped enlargement become a political success. Europe mourns a symbol of its reunification. I am proud to have had such a man among the ranks of Liberals and Democrats in the European Parliament and among my friends. A man of culture, who saw the coming together of peoples possible only through sharing and collaboration; a man whose faith was forged on the anvil of Europe’s 20th century dramas; a humanist who will serve as an example for generations to come. Even with the passage of time his memory will never be erased nor his marvellous and mischievous smile obscured."

Thu 10th Jul 2008:

EU biometric visa system must be secure and reliable.

The European Parliament has today adopted a report concerning its requirements for the collection of biometric data from applicants for Schengen visas - digital photos and fingerprints - to make the EU Visa Information System operational. MEPs have so far been unable to reach an accord with the Council of Ministers representing EU governments so there has been no 'first reading agreement'. Differences include the governments' desire to fingerprint children from the age of 6, where MEPs have worries on principle but also concerning reliability and inconvenience to families, and issues around data security such as the outsourcing of the collection of biometrics to private companies outside diplomatic premises Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP, the European Parliament's rapporteur and Liberal Democrat Justice and Home Affairs spokesperson, said: "I am disappointed that we have been unable to reach agreement, but the Council and Commission have not sufficiently thought through how their proposals would work. No decision to require fingerprints from 6 year olds should be made without taking into account doubts over reliability due to rapid change in young childrens' prints, and the significant costs and inconvenience for their parents if the solution is to impose collection every 2 years instead of 5. "That is why MEPs are making the reasonable proposal of starting with 12 years old for fingerprinting and re-examining age limits after a 3-year study. I want the Visa Information System to succeed, and we cannot afford to make it into one vast experiment with 70 million entries at any one time. "This law deals with sensitive biometric personal data, thus MEPs are extremely vigilant about protection against data misuse and security against loss. Member States have so far rejected the idea of private contracted firms operating in premises under diplomatic protection, which would ensure material is protected from seizure. If they were willing to explore forms of cooperation, such as co-location of consulates or 'Common Application Centres', they might be able to save costs, increase convenience for applicants and deliver data security all at once. The UK will not be bound by this EU legislation as it has an 'opt-out' from EU borders and visa policies, but it is developing its own biometric visa system and there is likely to be a 'pipeline' agreed to exchange data, so the data protection and security measures are relevant. In addition, the UK government has a habit of suggesting that it must follow EU standards, even when there is absolutely no legal requirement to do so. It certainly did that on biometric passports."  

A historical breakthrough in the fight against the death penalty.

On July 2 2008, the Pakistani Federal Cabinet has adopted a proposal to commute the death penalty to life imprisonment. This proposal is subjected to approval by the President Pervez Musharraf before it enters into force. This will benefit the 7000 death row prisoners in Pakistan. Commenting, Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne MEP, Liberal Democrat Foreign Affiars Spokesperson, said: “We welcome this important step forward, which goes in the sense of the worldwide trend to end capital punishment. The UN General Assembly resolution of December 2007 calling for a global moratorium on executions was an important milestone underlining this trend. “We now call upon president Musharraf to approve the cabinet’s proposal. The deterrent effect of capital punishment has never been demonstrated and the application of death penalty in Pakistan falls far below international standards. At every step, from arrest to trial to execution, the safeguards against miscarriage of justice are weak or non-existent, and the possibility that innocents will be executed is frighteningly high .  

Indonesian Government decree abhorrent.

On June 9, the Indonesian government issued a decree threatening Ahmadiyah sect followers with five years imprisonment for "activities that are not in accordance with interpretations of the religion of Islam. " It remains unclear how strictly the measure will be enforced, but the decision has been denounced by Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne MEP, Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs Spokesperson, who said: "It is sad that President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has made this move to shore up support for his run for a second term next year. This decision must be reversed immediately, without question."  

Zimbabwe: Responsibility now rests with African neighbours.

A resolution, passed by the European Parliament today, on the situation in Zimbabwe says that a transitional government of national unity would help end the climate of terror sweeping through Zimbabwe since the presidential elections campaign started.  The resolution also asks to tighten up sanctions against members of the Mugabe regime and others responsible for grave violations of human rights, if mediation efforts by the Southern African Development Community are not accepted and the state-sponsored violence is not ended, and to press for sanctions to be adopted at UN level, including an arms embargo. Commenting, Graham Watson MEP, Leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, said: "It is high time that the African Union took real action. No longer can this conspiracy of silence continue. One wonders why the International Criminal Court has not yet issued a warrant for Mugabe's arrest." Fiona Hall MEP, Liberal Democrat Development Spokesperson, added: "In addition to the strengthening of sanctions the EU should offer diplomatic support to those seeking to find a way forward via an interim transitional government that involves all parties and civil society and respects the results of the first round of elections. "A transitional coalition is an African approach that has worked over the years in a number of other countries such as Togo and the Democratic Republic of Congo. But President Mbeki's diplomacy has failed, and a different African neighbour respected by all sides should assist with brokering such negotiations. International accompaniment to the negotiations would also be helpful. The Commission and Member States should start planning ahead for the day when Zimbabwe has a legitimate government and will need a broad package of international support. But ordinary Zimbabweans are in desperate straits and need basic aid now, just to survive".  

DIANA WALLIS MEP "overjoyed" at the European Parliament's call for a Europe-wide alert system for missing children.

As the holiday season begins we become even more aware of the danger for children to go missing. Most of the time this is just a temporary absence: - of a few seconds, minutes or hours. Diana Wallis said: "Most parents and grand-parents will have experienced that heart-stopping moment in their lives when they just do not know where their little one is. Lost in a crowd, on the beach, or out of sight in the local park - whatever the situation is, the fear is the same. Hours really do count when trying to find missing children. "So, on those rare occasions when a child has really gone missing, parents want to know that the best alert systems are in place to help find their missing child. "Mostly alert systems would work at a local or national level, but occasionally neighbouring countries' emergency services will need to co-operate cross-border to ensure that all that can be is being done. This is a good example of MEPs working together to make Europe work for us". ENDS Notes to Editors: Diana is a co-author of a Written Declaration in the European Parliament which calls on the countries in the European Union to set-up a version of the US "Amber Alert" system. The Written Declaration was launched in April and today, Thursday 10 July 2008, reached the required number of signatures for it to be presented to the European Commission and the Council of Ministers requesting action be taken. Evidence indicates that such a system has proven to be extremely successful and worthwhile on a national basis in both the USA and France. 393 children have been recovered alive in the USA since its inception (90% in last 5 years); 68 children recovered directly as a result of the Amber Alert system in 2007; 'Alerte Enlevement' in France introduced in 2006- used 5 times- all the children have been recovered alive. Kate and Gerry McCann met Diana in Strasbourg recently as part of the campaign for the introduction of a European version of the US Amber Alert system which enables an early warning to be given via the media across the country when police confirm a child has been abducted. ENDS Written Declaration 36/2008 The European Parliament, – having regard to Rule 116 of its Rules of Procedure, A. whereas the abduction of a child is amongst the most inhumane of crimes, B. whereas the commission of such crimes is increasing in Europe and may involve transporting victims across state borders, C. whereas the prospects of saving the life of an abducted child decrease as time passes, D. whereas there is no Europe-wide alert system for child disappearances nor any local or national systems throughout much of the European Union, 1. Calls on Member States to introduce a missing child alert system, the activation of which would require the immediate forwarding to the relevant news media, border authorities and customs and law enforcement agencies of details of: – the missing child, with a photograph if available – information relevant to the disappearance and/or the suspected abductor(s) – a telephone number to call with information (116 000 where operational); 2. Calls on the Member States to reach cooperation agreements with all bordering states to ensure the capacity to raise an alert rapidly across any relevant territories; 3. Calls for the development of a common organisation to provide assistance and training to national bodies; 4. Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories, to the Commission and the Council.  

Wed 9th Jul 2008:

EU environment chief promises vigilance on Heathrow air pollution.

After meeting EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas along with leaders of the '2M' group of local authorities whose objective is to stop air pollution from Heathrow expansion affecting the local people, London Liberal Democrat MEP Baroness Sarah Ludford said: "I was very encouraged by Commissioner Dimas' grasp of the situation and his commitment to ensuring that London's elected representatives, both MEPs and London council leaders, would be consulted in any assessment of a UK bid to 'stretch' the limits." The aim of the meeting was to seek an assurance that the European Commission will hold the UK to its obligation to comply with EU air quality laws and in particular the ceiling of 40µg m-3 of nitrogen dioxide that applies from 2010. The UK government however is expected to seek a 5-year postponement of the deadline. Sarah Ludford added: “This is not just an issue for the environment but an issue of health and wellbeing for London’s residents. Improvement in air quality due to restraint on Heathrow would also contribute to reducing the 1,000 premature deaths in London annually from respiratory disease. "Heathrow is surrounded by dense residential development, schools and other facilities. EU pollution controls - ones the UK signed up to - cannot just be swept aside. I am confident that Commissioner Dimas will take very seriously his watchdog role."  

We need a proper, functioning market for energy.

The European Parliament has voted on a key legislative proposal today that will open up gas markets across the European Union. This legislation has the potential to be of benefit to consumers and gas providers alike. Although the UK gas market has been fully liberalised, UK gas companies do not have the opportunity to invest in other countries markets in the way that foreign owned gas companies can invest in the UK market. The legislation also includes some key consumer protection provisions: and consumers will have the right to withdraw from contracts with a gas provider without charge, the right to change suppliers within two weeks and the right to compensation if service quality levels are not met. Commenting after of the vote, Fiona Hall MEP, Liberal Democrat Energy Spokesperson and the European Parliament's rapporteur on energy efficiency, said: "It is about time that the rest of Europe caught up with the UK in terms of ownership unbundling. The need to separate supply and production has not been an idea universally held by all Member States. But it is long overdue and will be of benefit to consumers across the EU. "The aim of this proposal is to ensure a well-functioning internal market of gas, which could help the EU achieve more secure, competitive and sustainable energy. The so-called "Independent Transmission Operators", whilst not the complete liberalisation we would have wanted is necessary because many smaller eastern European providers would have been vulnerable to the ever looming Gazprom which would lead to a worse situation than we are in currently. This compromise is very different from the original "third-way" proposed by the French and Germans and we have the diligence of liberal forces in the parliament to thank for that. "  

MEP Calls for Better EU Training for National Judges.

Diana Wallis' (LibDem, UK) own-initiative report on "the Role of the National Judge in the European Judicial System" will be adopted today with an overwhelming majority by the full European Parliament. The report follows over a year of detailed investigation and dialogue with national judges, national authorities and European institutions. Speaking ahead of the vote, the rapporteur, Diana WALLIS said: "As a co-legislator, the Parliament is keen ensure that the laws adopted at EU level are properly implemented, including by national judges. National judges are on the frontline of European law, and have a duty to uphold individual rights conferred by it. They also have a duty to recognise and enforce judgments in other Member States and therefore trust needs to be developed between national judges. "I received over two thousand personal responses from individual judges in all 27 Member States. There is a general feeling, from Lisbon to Vilnius, that European law is rather distant and too complex. National judges are not given the time or the means to overcome this complexity. This must be counteracted. "National judges must be properly equipped legally and linguistically to deal with the challenges of an enlarged EU legal order. We need better treatment of EU law in national training courses for judges, more judicial exchanges, increased language training, and finally a European judicial academy. These elements properly combined could foster a common judicial culture. "I am glad that the French presidency is treating this issue as a priority, and call on all Member States to take a very proactive stance on judicial training." ENDS Notes to editors: Following the adoption of a series of compromises in the Legal Affairs Committee, only three amendments have been tabled by the Rapporteur to the plenary, at least two of which are expected to be approved. The report also makes a series of suggestions as to how to better tailor EU laws to application by national judges, taking into account their suggestions.  

Composition of political groups: a detrimental decision to democracy and parliamentary efficiency.

At today's plenary session of the European Parliament, Liberals and Democrats have opposed the adoption of a modification to the internal rules of the House, aimed at hardening the preconditions to forming a parliamentary group. These new provisions mean a de facto dissolution of the UEN and Ind/Dem groups. ALDE is hostile to these measures for reasons of democratic principles but also for practical reasons linked to the good functioning of the parliamentary Institution. "The Liberal group is a reformist group: we want to change the Parliament so that it becomes the place where post-national democratic politics takes shape. I simply do not accept that the existence of seven groups causes a particular problem for this Parliament. Lessons drawn from national parliaments are limited: here we should reflect the more complex and wider spread of opinion from 27 countries. In fact, it is critical at this delicate phase of European integration that all sorts of minority opinion has the chance to organize itself in an articulate way in the assembly. Groups contribute to and do not impede the effective development of Parliament. Especially at a time when the size of the House is being reduced, perhaps from 785 to 736 seats, it is not right to raise the threshold for the formation of political groups," Andrew DUFF (Lib Dem, UK), ALDE Constitutional Affairs Coordinator, explained. Andrew Duff believes that moreover, this modification of the internal rules could backfire on its main authors, i.e. on PPE and PSE, the two main political groups. ""If we closed small groups, their members would be forced to join a larger group, thereby adding to the incoherence of those groups, or would swell the ranks of the non-inscrits," he said in the pubilc debate last Monday, considering that the proposal should have been voted down for the benefit of efficiency, pluralism, and parliamentary coherence.  

Tue 8th Jul 2008:

Parliament to thoroughly control the nomination of Commissioners.

The European Parliament has today adopted a report by Andrew Duff (LibDem, UK) modifying its internal rules with regard to the procedure of approval of the European Commission. By this move, Parliament has taken a step forward in this crucial question for EU democracy. The report tightens and codifies presently applied empiric practices, mainly those that became obvious in 2004 when Mr Barroso's Commission was designated. Consequently, future Commission candidates will have to prove their European commitment and their independence. They will have to communicate their financial interests beforehand; at present, this obligation is complied with a posteriori. Should there be any doubts about an applicant's integrity, from the side of the committee(s) responsible of the respective audit(s), a vote could be organised to possibly refuse the candidate. The new internal rules also foresee that Parliament, via its elected President, will be able to pronounce itself on the distribution of the portfolios. "It is possible that the designation of the next Commission falls under the Nice Treaty provisions, and not under those of the Lisbon Treaty", Andrew Duff, ALDE Constitutional Affairs Coordinator commented. "It's a pity for European democracy since the Council will feel less obliged to the outcome of the European elections. However, our citizens should at least know that their MEPs commit themselves to work out who is the best person for a post, or not nominate a person at all in case Member States stubbornly consider Brussels to be a place where to recycle incompetent or clearly eurosceptic politicians whose careers have been interrupted at home. The European Commission is neither a nursing home nor a recycling factory", Mr Duff added.  

Valid concerns remain over Baltic gas pipeline.

The European Parliament has backed a report from the Petitions Committee, signed by 30,000 citizens, that highlights the environmental concerns of a planned Baltic gas pipeline linking Russia and Germany. ALDE members share the environmental concerns but also underline and deplore the politico-strategic dimension to the project which has led Russia to negotiate a bilateral deal with one Member State to avoid seeking approval and paying transit fees for a land-based pipeline and thus disregarding the concerns of neighbouring Baltic states. Diana Wallis MEP (Lib Dem, UK), ALDE Shadow rapporteur, commented: “In the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe we are seeking to adopt a ‘European approach’ in three ways. “First, by underlining the need for a truly European energy policy where all EU Members states co-operate; the Nordstream project could very well form a part of that. Second, by making sure that, in what is undoubtedly a vulnerable area, European standards of environmental protection are met. Finally, by using the challenges occasioned by this pipe-line project as an opportunity to enhance the EU / Russia working relationship through the Northern Dimension partnership.” Henrik Lax MEP (Finland, Svenska Folkpartiet) added: "The earlier hearing in the petitions committee and the debate in plenary today has proven to be of great importance. The confidence building measures sought by the European Parliament have gradually materialized. Nordstream has agreed to carry out a thorough environmental impact assessment. But this is not enough. Since the Baltic Sea is recognized as an environmentally extremely vulnerable area, Russia must ratify the Espoo convention before an authorization to build the pipeline can be given. The future of the Baltic Sea cannot be put at any risk." Grazyna Staniszewska MEP (PD, Poland) concluded: "The EU reaction on the Northern gas pipeline project is a test for the quality of the European Union; this will be an answer to the question if the EU undertakings are indeed based on the principle of solidarity. This is also a test for the presumably unquestionable basis of environmental protection. "In future, we must make sure that we consider all options and proposals and choose the o0ne that will do the least damage to the environment."  

More transparency for airline ticket prices.

The European Parliament will endorse tomorrow a Liberal Democrat bill imposing strict price transparency rules on airline companies. Taxes, additional charges such as fuel supplements and actual ticket costs will have to be clearly indicated whether the ticket is purchased online or through an agent.   Commenting, Graham Watson MEP, European Liberal Democrat Leader, said:   "Tomorrow's vote will make sure that as early as December, passengers will be able to see how much their air trip will cost them before rather than after purchasing a ticket. No longer will people be tricked by flashy rates which later prove to be only a fraction of the actual cost. The bill which we saw through the House guarantees price transparency and the consumers' right to information."   The new bill will also defend passengers in case of airline bankruptcy by allowing close oversight of companies' financial situation.     "With rising oil prices weakening aviation sector's outlook, it is important that EU governments and the European Commission can act before it's too late. By allowing intervention once companies veer close to bankruptcy, we can prevent people being stranded away from home or buying tickets which later become void", added Graham Watson.

Aviation in EU Emissions Trading System.

Today the European Parliament endorsed the compromise agreemenALDE´s environment spokesperson Chris Davies (LibDem, UK) commented: "MEPs have responded to the spectacular pace of air traffic growth by calling for a tougher approach than proposed by the Commission. Air travel across Europe has never been so cheap as it is now, but the real price will be paid by future generations if we don't apply pressure to curb the rise in carbon emissions." ALDE´s environment spokesperson Chris Davies (LibDem, UK) commented: "MEPs have responded to the spectacular pace of air traffic growth by calling for a tougher approach than proposed by the Commission. Air travel across Europe has never been so cheap as it is now, but the real price will be paid by future generations if we don't apply pressure to curb the rise in carbon emissions." The compromise entails that from 1st January 2012 all flights starting and/or landing in Europe will be included in the ETS. 85 Percent of the emissions certificates will be allocated for free and 15 percent will be auctioned. In the first period, until 2012, airline emissions are to be cut by three percent, and from 2013 onwards the emissions will have to decrease by 5 percent. The revenues generated from the auctioning should be used to fund climate change mitigation, research on clean aircraft, anti-deforestation measures in the developing world or low-emission transport.  

Liberal Democrat MEP proposals to eliminate VAT fraud overwhelmingly backed.

The European Parliament's Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee has backed a report by UK Liberal Democrat Sharon Bowles that aims to break a prolonged EU deadlock over fighting VAT fraud with a radical proposal to levy the tax on all trade among the 27 countries. The report is proposing to levy VAT of 15% on all EU trade on goods and services. Under the proposals, Member States would be allowed to charge a top up rate to bring the total VAT charge in line with current levels within their own countries. For example, the UK which has a VAT rate of 17.5% would be allowed to charge 2.5% on all imports under the new system. The 15% levied by the exporting Member State would also be paid to the UK. Commenting on the vote, Sharon said: "It is clear by the overwhelming majority that backed the report today that this issue has transcended political and geographical boundaries. Clearly, many people have been motivated by the sheer loss of revenue that fiscal fraud causes government's every year. The total annual loss, estimated at around EUR 200-250 billion, is double the annual budget of the European Union. VAT fraud alone is said by the European Commission to cost exchequers EUR 40bn (£31bn) a year, roughly the same as the EU spends on the Common Agricultural Policy. In the United Kingdom, HM Revenue and Customs estimate that in the tax year 2005-2006 VAT revenue losses amounted to £14.4 bn. "It is now for the European Council to stop dragging its feet and show genuine political will in achieving the elimination of such costly fraud. We need greater trust between national administrative authorities when it comes to sharing information on fiscal fraud, only then can we establish recommendations for the method of collection to be as similar as possible across Member States. This is simply not a problem that can be solved at member State level and it is for this reason why I am highlighting as a priority for the EU." ENDS Notes to Editors: A copy of the draft report (unamended) can be found here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/pr/719/719564/719564en.pdf  

Thu 3rd Jul 2008:

US racial profiling is a slippery slope.

The US justice department is set to allow the FBI to single out Muslims, Arabs and other minority ethnic groups as potential terrorist suspects. Agents would be able to open preliminary terrorism investigations after mining public records and intelligence to build a profile of traits that, taken together, were deemed suspicious. Race could be one factor, as could travel to regions of the world known for terrorist activity. Commenting, Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP, Liberal Democrat Justice and Human Rights Spokeswoman, who is also the European Parliament rapporteur responsible for drawing up a report on the use of ‘profiling’ in law enforcement and border control, said: “President Bush’s earlier pledge regarding racial profiling, ‘It's wrong, and we will end it in America”, is obviously as unreliable as his pledges about observing the rule of law and rejecting the practice of torture. He should take heed of the warning by the US Congress that it is unclear how the FBI could compile suspect profiles so as to avoid needless intrusions into the privacy of innocent citizens and without wasting time and money chasing down false leads. "Profiling means junking the presumption of innocence, the foundation of the legal system of democratic countries, since someone is judged suspicious not on the basis of their own conduct but on the basis of a stereotype or profile of what a terrorist is or does. Meanwhile, the real terrorists evade capture by altering the people they select, as we have seen with the use of female suicide bombers. “Since the EU these days tends to follow lamely down the illiberal trail blazed by the US on ‘security’ measures, we need to be very worried by this US move. The bottom line is that it is counter-productive as well as ineffective to single out racial and religious minorities, since the very communities whose cooperation with police is needed will be alienated through discrimination. Since European human rights and data protection law is muddled on the acceptability of racial or behavioural profiling, my report in the European Parliament is designed to explore the legal and practical pitfalls."  

Wed 2nd Jul 2008:

Coal becomes a hard political option.

EU Environment Ministers meeting in Paris tomorrow (Thursday 3 July) will be told they must set a timetable to end the building of conventional coal power stations. British Euro-MP Chris Davies, the European Parliament's lead negotiator on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), will warn ministers that the use of coal now comes at a heavy political price. He will caution:  "Across Europe we are going to see more and more protests every time a coal-fired power station gets approved. Maybe we are just talking about letters of condemnation.  Or maybe we are talking about mass civil protest, sabotage of contractors' equipment, years and years of disruption." The MEP will argue that Europe must take a lead in developing CCS if it is to persuade China and India to stop building conventional coal-fired power stations as part of an international agreement to curb global warming. The French Presidency of the European Commission has given a commitment to prepare a CCS action plan and Mr Davies will call on Ministers to ensure that it includes: ·       IIdentification of CCS demonstration projects - In spring last year the EU Heads of Government committed themselves to support 10-12 large scale projects.  Sixteen months later not a single one has yet been identified, although the UK is further advanced than any other Member State. ·         Establishment of a funding mechanism to bridge the initial gap between CCS innovation and commercial viability.  Chris Davies is proposing the granting of tradable carbon allowances for every tonne of CO2 buried deep underground. ·        Setting a 2015 date for making CCS a mandatory requirement for new coal power stations.  Mr Davies will challenge Ministers to explain if they are prepared to allow conventional coal-fired power stations to continue being opened as late as 2022 or beyond, with each one wiping out the benefits of energy saving and development of renewables.   Notes to Editors: Below is a copy of the speech to be given by Liberal Democrat MEP Chris Davies to EU Environment Ministers tomorrow (Thursday 3 July). Chris Davies MEP European Parliament Rapporteur EU Directive on the Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide The world needs coal; there is no getting away from that fact. China, India and the USA are said to be planning 850 new coal-fired power stations. The International Energy Agency says world coal use will increase by 70% over the next 20 years. It begs the question: "How do we curb carbon emissions if we carry on this way?" In Europe too we are still hugely dependent on coal. Britain gets a third of its electricity from coal; Germany, Greece and the Czech Republic 50%, Poland 94%. We need coal to keep the lights on. But coal now comes at a high political price. Across Europe we are going to see more and more protests every time a coal-fired power station gets approved. Maybe we are just talking about letters of condemnation. Or maybe we are talking about mass civil protest, sabotage of contractors' equipment, years and years of disruption. If we have to use coal, we must at least ensure that its emissions do not escape into the atmosphere. That's why we have to accelerate the development of carbon capture and storage technology. CCS may only be a stopgap measure, but we need it to buy time to develop better forms of low carbon power generation. You sometimes hear that burying CO2 deep underground is not safe.  But the Norwegian Government has just announced that after ten years of monitoring at Sleipner the CO2 beneath the North Sea is confined securely.  In any case, what are the real risks from CO2?  It's inert.  We breathe it.  We drink it. Compare it to an explosive gas like methane.  Not only do we bury it in underground reservoirs but we pipe it into people's homes, where we actually set light to it!  Can you imagine giving permission for that to start now? We manage risks every day and we cannot afford to have hundreds and thousands more conventional coal fired power stations built across the world.  We have to ensure that CCS is at the heart of the international agreement to fight climate change. It's our task to lead by example, to convince the Chinese and others that we are serious, and to persuade them to make a commitment to curb emissions from coal. The potential exists for us to make rapid progress. By December this year we can reach agreement on the framework Directive for the geological storage of CO2. But we need to go further and that's why I am pleased that the French Presidency has given a commitment to prepare a CCS Action Plan. In my view it should have three elements. In spring last year the Council committed itself to supporting 10-12 large scale commercial demonstration projects.  Sixteen months later not a single one has been identified.  We need now to establish how the technologies will be chosen and the contractors selected. Second, we need to determine a funding mechanism to bridge the gap between innovation and commercial viability.  The Parliament will propose the use of allowances from the surplus within the new entrants' reserve of the Emissions Trading System.  These can be traded only when CO2 has actually been sequestrated underground. It's the best mechanism available.  It can be delivered at a European level, it gives investors certainty, and it can be determined almost immediately. Finally we need to look to making CCS a mandatory requirement. Don't be put off by those who say the technology is immature.  Of course it will get better with time, but General Electric says IGCC pre-combustion systems are ready NOW, and Alstom and Hitachi say post-combustion systems will be commercially available from 2015. Authorisation from 2015?  That means an operating date of 2021 or 2022.   We can do that.  Our entire experience of introducing environmental regulation shows that it accelerates development and brings down costs. And can we afford NOT to make CCS mandatory? Are we really going to allow conventional coal-fired power stations to start operating in 2022, pouring out the CO2 into the atmosphere, wiping out all the benefits gained from energy saving and the construction of renewables? What message will that send out to China and India, and will our citizens allow it to happen without demanding payment of a high political price? The French Presidency has the opportunity to drive forward the CCS agenda. Over the next six months we need to raise our sights and lift our ambitions. Over the next six months we can really make a difference.

ALDE: Cross border health package first important step.

Today the European Commission presented its package on Patients' rights in cross-border healthcare. Liberal Democrats are delighted that Commission Vassiliou has shown courage by coming forward with her proposal. The Liberals and Democrats regard this proposal as a first important step toward a free European patient area. Commenting, ALDE Group Leader Graham Watson, said: "Today's proposal places legislative authority firmly within the remit of the European Parliament, so people's right to timely medical attention will no longer be subject to the outcome of EU-level litigation. This will deliver to our citizens "medecine sans frontiers. "Although it will not create new entitlements, this directive will make it easier for patients to exercise their rights and will ensure equal access to cross-border healthcare. For Liberals and Democrats this long-overdue directive is a step towards the free movement of patients - a step we hope to make before the end of the Parliament's mandate". The directive gives patients the right to non-hospitalisation care in other Member States to the extent that they would be covered in their own Member State. They do not need prior authorisation and will be reimbursed by their own social security system. Patients may also seek hospital care in another Member State and get the costs reimbursed, but in this case the Member States can require prior authorisation. The directive ensures free movement of and better information for patients. Furthermore, it will increase cooperation between health care systems by sharing expertise, innovation and information.

Liberals and democrats make their mark on the Commission's anti-discrimination directive.

After strong representation and argumentation from the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, the Commission has finally announced today a proposal for a "horizontal" directive on the fight against discrimination in the European Union. This directive is called "horizontal" because it widens the existing legal framework to include all types of discrimination (not just disability but also age, sexual orientation and religion) and enlarges the various fields of application (from the workplace to goods and services and social protection). ALDE is proud to have reached this result, having been heavily involved from the outset of this initiative by the Commission, which will now be adopted under the legal base (art. 13, TCE) which unfortunately marginalizes completely the European Parliament as the Council will decide by unanimity. Graham Watson, leader of the ALDE group in the European Parliament declared " The European Parliament approved the current Commission on the basis that it honours its pledge to champion fundamental rights. Although it took some time to finalize, this week's proposal is a welcome sign that citizen's equality remains its priority. Liberal Democrats in both the European Parliament and the Commission have successfully acted to ensure that the draft directive covers all grounds of discrimination in all walks of life: a victory for equality and anti-discrimination". Liz LYNNE (LibDem, United Kingdom), whose own initiative report on this subject was adopted in last may by the European Parliament, and which has played a crucial role in this proposal, added:" "I am delighted that because of my report and the tenacity shown by MEPs and NGOs, the European Commission has now announced it will bring forward comprehensive legislation covering all areas currently excluded, including disability, age, sexual orientation and religion or belief. I've been campaigning for years on disabled people's rights and on age, but I became totally convinced that we need a comprehensive directive so that no-one is left out. Non-discrimination and equal treatment are principles that lie at the heart of the European Union's treaties and my report succeeded in getting the message across to the Commission and Member States that there could be no hierarchy of discrimination with some forms considered more acceptable than others."

Mep backs legal bid to end mandatory retirement age.

The MEP who first helped to ensure that age discrimination in the workplace was outlawed across the EU has said she hopes the European Court of Justice will decide the UK Government is wrong to let people in the UK still get the sack simply because they are over 65.  Liberal Democrat MEP, Liz Lynne, who is the Liberal Democrat Employment Spokesperson in the European Parliament and was shadow rapporteur for the Employment Directive 2000, which forced the Government to introduce anti age discrimination legislation in the UK in 2006, said:   "In 2000, I worked hard in the European Parliament to ensure that age was included in the original European Directive, which forced the Government to bring in workplace age discrimination legislation in the UK.  "Sadly, the Government's interpretation of the law has led to a contradictory situation whereby employers cannot discriminate on the basis of age, but as soon as an employee reaches 65 they can be sacked for no reason other than their age.  "The Government has said it will look at the situation in 2011 - this is far too late for the thousands of people who will want to stay in work in the meantime.  "I hope the European Courts will rule that the Government's interpretation of this valuable European legislation is not acceptable, let us hope the review marks the end of this outdated and unfair practice. "We must end the sudden cliff edge of retirement that forces people to stop working at a certain age whether they want to or not, whilst ensuring that individuals still remain entitled to a state pension at an agreed statutory age.”    Notes :  The European Court of Justice will today begin to examine whether the government has properly implemented the EU `s 2000 employment framework directive by still allowing employers to compulsory retire people at 65. A ruling from the European Courts is expected later this year. It is estimated that over 25,000 people in the UK are forced to retire at the age of 65, whereas recent surveys by the heyday group have shown that over 60% of people would like the choice about whether they continue working past this age.  For further information, comment or to book an interview, please contact Liz Lynne on 0032 2284 7521 (Brussels office) or 0776 445 2725 (mobile).

Tue 1st Jul 2008:

European judges overturn EU ministers' secrecy reflex.

In a resounding judgement, judges in the European Court of Justice, the EU's court, have struck a blow for openness by overturning a refusal by the Council of Ministers to grant a freedom of information request for an opinion of its legal service on EU asylum law. The case was brought by Maurizio Turco, former MEP, now Italian MP, from Italy's Radical party which is allied to the UK Liberal Democrats. In 2002 the Council, which groups the 27 governments, refused his request for a copy of legal advice relating to legislation on treatment of asylum-seekers. Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP, Liberal Democrat European Justice & Human Rights Spokeswoman, welcomed the judgement in which the court said the transparency of the legislative process and the strengthening of the democratic rights of European citizens are capable of constituting an overriding public interest which justifies the disclosure of legal advice. She said: "All opinion polls and indeed votes, such as the recent referendum in Ireland, show that European citizens see the EU as remote and opaque. It is therefore hugely refreshing that the court has rejected the secrecy reflex of EU governments. "Experience shows that open government leads to better laws enjoying more public support. Let us hope that the Council is now shamed into consistently practising the belief in democracy and participation that it preaches. "All credit to my colleague Maurizio Turco for his persistence and championing of liberal values. These must now be reflected in revised EU legislation on access to documents."

Mon 30th Jun 2008:

Elspeth Attwooll's monthly column.

May ended with the Fisheries Committee visit to the north of Norway. It was effectively light for twenty four hours, although clouds meant that we did not actually see any midnight sun. We did, though, have a very useful visit, learning about their efforts to combat illegal fishing and the operation of their ban on discarding fish. Travelling home, I encountered no immigration controls between Oslo and Amsterdam, only ones between Amsterdam and Glasgow: Norway, though not part of the EU, belongs to Schengen (the passport free area) – whereas the UK does not, even though it is part of the EU. Following Sunday at home, a Brussels week brought a meeting with Scotland Europa (business people out to learn more about our workings), a visitor group from the Open University, my sister-in-law staying with me for a few days and a “mini-plenary” session, with speaking time on illegal fishing. The debate started over an hour late, so instead of the nice dinner I had planned, we had to make do with a trip to the local “friterie” and a sausage supper instead. The following week began in Edinburgh, at a conference organised by the Centre for Scottish Public Policy. From there to Brussels for a group meeting, then on to Paris, to talk with government ministers about plans for their six months of presiding over Council meetings. Just time for a cup of coffee with a friend I had not seen for many years before the plane to Edinburgh and a meeting of the European Members Information & Liaison Exchange. Next to Strasbourg, for the usual debates and votes, but with much discussion on the fate of the Lisbon Treaty as well. I was lucky enough to get speaking time again, in a debate on the crisis in the fishing industry caused by increases in fuel prices. June is to finish back in Brussels, chairing a discussion on the effects of environmental laws on fisheries and aquaculture, and Fisheries and Regional Development committees. In the latter I am engaged in a friendly dispute with a Finnish colleague about his view that peat counts as a renewable fuel. Finally Oxfam to see on the Thursday night, a visit to a Veterans Concert on the Friday and the plans for Haddington farmers’ market on the Saturday. On these or any other issues, write to Elspeth Attwooll MEP, 142 Queen Street, Glasgow, G1 3BU, or telephone 0141 243 2421.

Thu 26th Jun 2008:

Age Discrimination Legislation Welcome Says EU's "Equality Rapporteur".

Liberal Democrat MEP Liz Lynne has welcomed today’s expected announcement by the Government that it will bring forward legislation to combat discrimination on the grounds of age in access to goods and services ahead of European legislation in this field that was on the cards. Liz Lynne was dubbed the "EU's equality rapporteur" after recently securing the adoption of a European Parliament report calling for an EU Directive to outlaw discrimination in access to goods and services covering all areas presently excluded, including disability, age, religion or belief and sexual orientation. The European Commission has since agreed to bring forward legislation to this end. Commenting, Liz Lynne MEP, who is Vice President of the Employment and Social Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, said: “I am delighted that the Government has seen sense and will bring forward long overdue legislation to outlaw age discrimination in access to goods and services. These measures are vital if we are to put an end to the current hierarchy of rights and the ridiculous idea that it is alright to discriminate against one section of society. "I have always said, for instance, it is wrong for the health service to be able to refuse treatment on the grounds of age alone. I now hope with this new bill that no patient will be refused a transplant or any other procedure, which has happened in the past. Medical professionals, I hope will now have to take into account more factors than just age when assessing the need for treatment of a patient. “This debate is echoed across the European Union and the European Parliament, in adopting my recent report, sent a strong signal to the UK and other Member States that their could be no compromise when it comes to anti-discrimination and human rights, which I believe is the basis on which the European Union was founded. "My hope is the UK Government will now lobby other Member States to support the European Commission's decision to bring forward comprehensive EU legislation to outlaw discrimination in access to goods and services on all grounds currently not covered, including disability, age, religion or belief and sexual orientation.”    Notes to Editors: Text of Liz Lynne’s report as adopted by the European Parliament last month; http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2008-0159&language=EN Liz Lynne’s campaign and petition to persuade the Commission and member States to press ahead with a comprehensive directive can be found here: www.signtostopdiscrimination.org  Current EU anti-discrimination laws prohibit discrimination in the workplace on all grounds (Employment Directive 2000) but only provides protection against discrimination in access to goods and services on the basis of gender and race (Equal Treatment Directive and the Race Directive respectively).  UK age-discrimination legislation currently only covers the workplace. In contrast, laws that combat discrimination on racial grounds or on grounds of sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, religion or belief are much broader, extending protection to individuals in their dealings with suppliers of goods and services.

Tue 24th Jun 2008:

Kashmir mass grave allegations must be investigated.

Reports of mass graves in Indian-controlled Kashmir must be thoroughly investigated if there is to be any progress towards peace in the troubled region, according to a Liberal Democrat MEP.  Recently a report by the Srinagar-based Association of the Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP) detailed the existence of graves, which because of their proximity to the Line of Control are not accessible without Indian Army permission. The report claims over 8000 people have gone missing in Jammu and Kashmir since 1989. Liz Lynne MEP (ALDE, UK) is a member of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations with the Countries of South Asia and the Human Rights Subcommittee and has campaigned for many years on the rights of the Kashmiri people. Speaking at the start of the EU’s Kashmir Week, she said:  “The claims in this report are horrific. If the authorities are to gain any credibility in the eyes of local people these allegations must be investigated and if crimes have been committed, the perpetrators must be punished. The rule of law must apply to everyone present in the region.” On moves towards peace in Kashmir and the role of the EU, Liz added: "Kashmir Week here in Brussels gives us the opportunity to meet a range of opinion formers who share deep concerns about the ongoing conflict in the region. “I am encouraged by the continued dialogue between India and Pakistan and credit must be given to both sides on this. I very much hope that following the recent political changes in Pakistan a fresh and hopeful dialogue can continue. The EU can play its part by acting as a facilitator for further talks involving India, Pakistan and the Kashmiri people. “This has been going on for over sixty years and we must now at long last try to find a just solution. The Kashmiri people have waited long enough.”   Notes to Editors:  Liz Lynne MEP has for many years campaigned for a peaceful solution to the conflict in Kashmir. She has travelled to the region and also discussed the issue with Pakistani leader General Pervez Musharraf and the Prime Minister of Pakistani-administered Kashmir, Sardar Attique Ahmed Khan. She also submitted many amendments in favour of Kashmiri self-determination for last year’s European Parliamentary report on the troubled region. Earlier this year she co-chaired the Global Discourse on Kashmir 2008 at the European Parliament in Brussels.  For further information, comment or to book an interview, please contact Liz Lynne on 0776 445 2725 or +32 2 284 7521.

Tue 17th Jun 2008:

European Commission to honour plans for anti-discrimination directive.

The European Commission has agreed to bring forward a new comprehensive anti-discrimination directive, despite objections from some Member States, after a fierce lobbying campaign by European Parliamentarians and NGOs. This campaign culminated in the adoption of a key report in the European Parliament last month by Liberal Democrat MEP Liz Lynne (ALDE,UK), which called on the European Commission to honour its plans for a comprehensive directive.Promised by the Commission in it's 2008 Work Programme, the directive will outlaw discrimination in access to goods and services covering all areas presently excluded, including disability, age, religion or belief and sexual orientation. Liz Lynne MEP, Vice President of the Employment and Social Affairs Committee, who also recently launched a public petition in support of a new directive, said: “I am delighted that the President of the Commission has now seen sense. I know Commissioner Spidla has been working towards this end and I am pleased that the European Commission will now deliver on its promise to bring forward a comprehensive directive to outlaw discrimination in access to goods and services on all grounds currently not covered under Article 13 legislation, including disability, age, religion or belief and sexual orientation. “The European Parliament, in adopting my recent report, sent a strong signal to the Commission and Member States that their could be no backtracking when it comes to anti-discrimination and human rights, which I believe is the basis on which the European Union was founded; "The challenge now is to ensure that the proposal is workable and achieves its aims and I will be urging the Commission to look at successful national legislation across Member States for examples of best practice in this field; there is no need to reinvent the wheel. "My hope is those business organisations and Member States who have opposed this directive will now look at these proposals in detail and can be convinced of the need for this legislation, which I believe is vital if we are to put and end to the current hierarchy of rights and the ridiculous idea that it is alright to discriminate against one section of society.”   Notes: Text of Liz Lynne’s report as adopted by the European Parliament last month; http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2008-0159&language=EN Current EU anti-discrimination laws prohibit discrimination in the workplace on all grounds (Employment Directive 2000) but only provides protection against discrimination in access to goods and services on the basis of gender and race (Equal Treatment Directive and the Race Directive respectively). Liz Lynne’s campaign and petition to persuade the Commission and member States to press ahead with a horizontal directive can be found here: www.signtostopdiscrimination.org For further information, comment or to book an interview, please contact Liz Lynne on 0033 388 177521 or 0044 776 445 2725.

UK refusal to join EU deportation standards regrettable.

MEPs will vote tomorrow  (Wednesday June 18th) on whether to approve a compromise text of the controversial 'Return directive' on which European Parliament negotiators and the Council of Ministers have reached agreement after 3 years of negotiation. It establishes EU-wide rules on conditions for detention and deportation of foreign illegal immigrants including visa overstayers and rejected asylum-seekers.  The new directive promotes voluntary returns as far as possible but provides a wide range of safeguards, such as limits on detention, provision for appeals, constraining the use of force, special provision for lone children, respect for best interest of the child, family life and state of health, and caveats for imposition of a re-entry ban. Commenting on the directive and the refusal of the UK government to 'opt in' to it, Liberal Democrat European Justice Spokeswoman Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP, said: “It is ironic and deplorable that in UK Refugee Week and just as the world prepares to celebrate World Refugee Day on Friday June 20th, the UK government is refusing to sign up to this EU law which will oblige national standards on deportation to be raised. The European Parliament secured considerable human rights improvements from unwilling national governments. "No doubt the UK refuses to participate because it does not want its hands tied in the way it detains families including young children for long periods without the prospect of imminent removal, locks up immigration detainees with convicted criminals, and fails to give migrants adequate appeal rights or legal aid. "This Directive, while imperfect, provides rules where none exist at present in 9 EU Member states and thus enhances human rights. While the concerns expressed by respected NGOs are understandable, the stance of others - that there should never be involuntary returns - is unrealistic if we want well-managed borders and refugee procedures which gain public confidence. "As part of a comprehensive EU approach to migration, which must include a fair asylum system and a rational legal immigration policy as well as measures to combat illegal migration, we have to be able to return people, even against their will."

Full liberalisation of electricity markets for all of Europe, say Lib Dems.

The European Parliament is to vote on a key legislative proposal tomorrow that will seek to open up electricity markets across all EU Member States. This legislation has the potential to be of benefit to consumers and electricity providers alike. Although the UK electricity market has been fully liberalised, UK electricity companies do not have the opportunity to invest on other countries markets in the way that foreign owned electricity companies can invest in the UK market. The legislation also includes some key consumer protection provisions: all homes should have access to smart meters within 10 years, and consumers will have the right to withdraw from contracts with an electricity provider without charge, the right to change suppliers within two weeks and the access to information on the environmental impact from the electricity produced by the supplier. Commenting ahead of the vote, Fiona Hall MEP, Liberal Democrat Energy Spokesperson and the European Parliament's rapporteur on energy efficiency, said: "It is about time that the rest of Europe caught up with the UK in terms of ownership unbundling. The need to separate ownership of electricity generation from transmission unfortunately has not been an idea universally held by all Member States. But it is long overdue and will be of benefit to consumers across the EU. "It is encouraging that a binding requirement to introduce smart meters is included in this new legislation as earlier requirements have been largely ignored. "In anticipation of the Renewables Directive currently being discussed in Parliament, electricity from renewable sources will have priority access to the grid. This will put an end to energy giants blocking access to smaller and more environmentally-friendly forms of electricity generation.

Salvage Operation, By Andrew Duff - Financial Times.

Nobody who knows Irish politics can have been truly surprised by Ireland’s rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. There are many causes. Ireland is a place where nationalist identity is strong. Its post-colonial relationship with the UK is inevitably complicated. Less obvious is its love-hate affair with the US Although the Irish republican cause relied on US support, Sinn Féin is the fiercest defender of Irish ‘neutrality’ vis-à-vis Nato (and Anglo-US imperialism). Meanwhile, the Irish Right has borrowed the language (and money) of American neo-conservatism in the belief that a strong European Union imperils Nato and the transatlantic partnership. Former Taoiseach Garret Fitzgerald complains that the Irish are too courteous to mention their disgust at corruption in high places. They are also too polite to speak openly about their hostility to immigration, mainly from other EU countries. Both factors played their part in turning voters against the Dublin political establishment and hence against the Lisbon Treaty. The pro-Lisbon political parties ran a poor campaign: late, fractious and lacking in verve. At no time during the campaign were the true consequences for Ireland and Europe of a No vote starkly spelled out. Whatever the reasons, the result is devastating for the EU both internally and externally. It has stalled in a dramatic way the efforts of the EU, going back several years, to settle its constitutional future. Above all, it is a setback for the growth of European parliamentary democracy. Plans to make the governance of the Union more efficient and transparent are lost. And the EU will not, after all, enjoy the greater role in international affairs that was prescribed by Lisbon. Global leadership in climate change will be hard to assert. Progress in building common policies in justice and interior affairs, including asylum and immigration, will be negligible. Enlargement of the membership of the EU beyond Croatia is now impossible. Assertions from Berlin and Paris that the Irish No is an Irish problem that needs to be resolved in Ireland are unhelpful. The Irish establishment has been badly, if deservedly dished; it will take a long time to recover its nerve. Ireland will not be bullied into holding another referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon. If there was one common thread running through the complaints of the nay-sayers it was that the Brussels juggernaut sweeps all before it regardless of democratic decisions. That typical eurosceptic sentiment is shared widely elsewhere, especially in Britain, and it would be hugely aggravated by a decision of the leaders of the larger states or the EU institutions to carry on regardless. In legal terms, Ireland’s No is just as important as a Yes from its 26 partners. Every EU government has fixed itself with superglue to its veto rights on treaty amendment. Even France and Germany upheld the national veto during the treaty negotiations: it ill behoves them now to question the validity of Ireland’s veto. So a delicate but large-scale salvage operation is needed. Irish prime minister Brian Cowen will not be able to bring to the European Council on 19 June worked-out proposals for a renegotiation of the Treaty of Lisbon that would allow him to win another referendum at home. Non-binding declarations glued on to the back of the treaty are unlikely to convince anyone. Binding protocols, however, would need ratification all over again in 27 member states - a prospect that few of his fellow heads of government are prepared to contemplate. The only concrete decision that the European Council could take would be to declare that they will, in the event, exercise the discretion that they have under Lisbon not to reduce the size of the Commission in 2014. The potential loss of an Irish Commissioner mattered in the referendum campaign - notwithstanding the fact that they stand to lose one anyway under the Treaty of Nice as early as 2009. Ireland’s rejection of a reformed and strengthened Union means that the Union is stuck with the vastly inferior Treaty of Nice, possibly for several years to come. Among the many weak points of Nice, the so-called ’enhanced cooperation’ clauses do not really facilitate the creation of core groups of more integrationist minded states - and, in any case, they preclude the formation of a core group in the area of security and defence policy where it is so badly needed. One can be sure that once the inadequacies of the Treaty of Nice, signed in December 2000, get to be fully appreciated in other European capitals, frustration with the Irish will rise. The European Council would be wise to give Mr Cowen only until its October meeting to come up with a clear proposal on how he wishes to proceed. Meanwhile, every other member state has the right to make its own choice about the Treaty of Lisbon. Most, perhaps all of those which have not yet ratified, will wish to do so - not least in order to make a tacit objection to some Franco-German fantasies about forming immediately a federalist core group. The decision of the UK to complete its parliamentary ratification of Lisbon on 18 June will go some way to restore its moral authority and political credibility in EU circles. The other laggard states are Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden. If the Irish veto really proves to be intractable, however, other solutions will be found. A mini-treaty, for example, could establish legal bases for common policies on energy supply and climate change; and the important changes mooted by Lisbon in the field of justice and interior affairs - from which Ireland has an opt-out - could be reintroduced. A treaty on security and defence could be imagined outside the EU framework, realising the greater part of Lisbon’s ambitions in this area and, naturally, excluding Ireland. Certain other changes, such as the citizens’ initiative to propose legislation, could probably be brought in under the terms of Nice. The longer term constitutional settlement would have to be postponed until after 2014. Come the autumn, it will be essential for the European Council to act definitively on the fate of Lisbon. Nobody can brook another long and indecisive period of reflection. For Ireland, that will be the time for the biggest decision of all. Andrew Duff MEP (Liberal/UK) is the chairman of the Federalist Intergroup of the European Parliament. www.andrewduffmep.org. Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008 "FT" and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times. Privacy policy | Terms © Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2008  

Tue 10th Jun 2008:

Government must now reign in labour MEPs on working time and temporary agencies.

Years of wrangling amoung EU Member States over draft EU rules on Working Time and Temporary Agency Workers came to an end early this morning after Employment Ministers met in Luxembourg to hammer out an agreement. Liberal Democrat European Employment and Social Affairs spokesperson Liz Lynne MEP has welcomed the retention of the UKs opt out of the Working Time Directive, but warned today that both directives could face a rough ride when they return to the European Parliament. Liz Lynne MEP commented today: "The Governments hard won deal now runs the danger of being ripped apart by Socialist MEPs who have for years been waiting for these controversial dossiers to return to the European Parliament. On the Working Time Directive in particular Liz Lynne commented: "The retention of the UK's opt out with more stringent conditions on its use is vital, anyone whose work does not have a direct consequence on life and death decisions should have a free choice as to what hours they work, so long as this is truly voluntary. "But Gordon Brown now faces a huge test of his leadership in securing the support of his own Labour MEPs, who have consistently voted to remove the UK's opt out of the 48 hour week." On EU proposals to regulate Temporary Agency Workers Liz said: "Gordon Brown's u-turn on proposed EU temporary agency rules is a short minded concession to the left wing of his party at a time when his popularity is plummeting. "One-size-fits-all legislation at a EU level in this area is unnecessary as it fails to recognise the wide range of different practices across the EU, from Greece, which only made temporary worker agencies legal in the past few years, to the UK and Netherlands where it has long been established practice."   Notes: Liz Lynne MEP (UK, ALDE) is the shadow rapporteur for the Liberal and Democrat Group in the European Parliament for both the Working Time Directive and the Temporary Agency Workers Directive. Both directives on Working Time and Temporary Agency are subject to the co-decision procedure, with the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament having equal power to amend legislation. As the agreement was reached in the Council of Ministers meeting last night, then both directives will now return to Parliament for a second reading, where the Parliament has the power to amend any legislative text. For further information, comment or to book an interview, please contact Liz Lynne on 0776 445 2725 or 0032 2284 7521.

Mon 9th Jun 2008:

EU rules on working time and temporary agencies set to return.

Years of wrangling amoung EU Member States over draft EU rules on Working Time and Temporary Agency Workers could come to an end this evening as Employment Ministers meet in Luxembourg to hammer out an agreement. Liberal Democrat European Employment and Social Affairs spokesperson Liz Lynne MEP has called on the British Government to stand firm on the UKs opt out of the Working Time Directive and warned today that both directives could face a rough ride if an agreement is reached and they return to the European Parliament. Liz Lynne MEP commented: "The Government must remember that any agreement ministers sign up to this evening runs the danger of being ripped apart by Socialist MEPs who have for years been waiting for these controversial dossiers to return to the European Parliament. On the Working Time Directive in particular Liz Lynne commented: "I welcome attempts to retain the UK's opt out with more stringent conditions on its use, anyone whose work does not have a direct consequence on life and death decisions should have a free choice as to what hours they work, so long as this is truly voluntary. "But the Government must stand firm and ensure flexibility for the UK's labour force. There is one thing Brown can't rely on, should any deal be reached on working time and it returns to the European Parliament; the support of his own Labour MEPs." On EU proposals to regulate Temporary Agency Workers Liz said: "Gordon Brown's u-turn on proposed EU temporary agency rules is a short minded concession to the left wing of his party at a time when his popularity is plummeting. "One-size-fits-all legislation at a EU level in this area is unnecessary as it fails to recognise the wide range of different practices across the EU, from Greece, which only made temporary worker agencies legal in the past few years, to the UK and Netherlands where it has long been established practice."   Notes: Liz Lynne MEP (UK, ALDE) is the shadow rapporteur for the Liberal and Democrat Group in the European Parliament for both the Working Time Directive and the Temporary Agency Workers Directive. Both directives on Working Time and Temporary Agency are subject to the co-decision procedure, with the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament having equal power to amend legislation. If an agreement is reached in the Council of Ministers tonight then both directives will return to Parliament for a second reading, where the Parliament has the power to amend any legislative text. For further information, comment or to book an interview, please contact Liz Lynne on 0776 445 2725 or 0032 2284 7521.

Thu 5th Jun 2008:

Complacency Still Rife On European Security and Defence Policy.

The European Parliament has debated and endorsed an annual report on the European security strategy and the European security and defence policy. Commenting on the substance of the report, Andrew Duff MEP, Security and Defence Spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, said: "Member states are dreadfully complacent about the present state of the EU's common foreign and security policy. It's all very well having a grand European security strategy, but it should be followed. In fact EU governments have ignored their own strategy. The UK and France have failed to deliver what the 1999 St Malo agreement promised in terms of integration. Other countries have insisted on miserly and self-defeating policy that military costs should 'lie where they fall'. What is the point of that when the aim is to share the burden? European armies are not being modernised. Only 20% of EU armed forces (almost 2 million troops) can actually fight. ESDP missions are improvised and amateurish and the fact that there is no European HQ fragments command and impairs the pooling of intelligence and resources. The EU has so far failed to learn from its mistakes. Just tweaking the European Security Strategy, as Mr Solana proposes, won't make the difference."

Tackle Illegal Fishing Globally.

Elspeth Attwooll MEP has welcomed a new European Parliament report on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, saying that it represents an important step in the right direction on a problem that has to be tackled globally if it is to be solved properly.   The Lib Dem MEP for Scotland said: “Illegal fishing is something that needs to be tackled on a global basis, as more localised measures often have negative impacts on other areas. We have to do more than just displace the problem. It’s also important to make sure that we assist in the improvement of inspection and control mechanisms in developing countries, and not just those with which we have fisheries partnership agreements. EU measures are definitely an important step in the right direction. I hope that the Commission, Parliament and Council alike will now be active in promoting the adoption of a binding convention to tackle the problem at United Nations level.” Notes: Illegal fishing forms an astounding part of all fish caught each year, and is second only to the huge annual haul of the Chinese fishing fleet. The Aubert Report develops the Commission proposal for a Community system “to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing”. It is available here:  

Sex trafficking worries as Euro 2008 Begins.

LibDem MEP Liz Lynne is urging football fans travelling to Euro 2008 to watch out for possible cases of human trafficking for sexual exploitation, and tell the Swiss and Austrian authorities if they suspect anything. It is estimated that tens of thousands of women, children and some men are smuggled into the EU each year and then forced into prostitution. In Switzerland the figure is thought to be in the thousands. It is thought that football fans travelling to Euro 2008 could boost demand for paid sex, which is legal in both the host countries. Liz Lynne, Vice President of the European Parliament’s Employment and Social Affairs Committee, who also sits on the Human Rights Subcommittee, has often campaigned on the need to better protect the victims of trafficking. Speaking from Brussels today, Liz Lynne said: “We are not talking about prostitution, where the prostitute knows what she, or he, is doing. We're talking about a modern slave trade where women, children and some men, have no choice whether they work as prostitutes or not, and are forced to do it against their will. “In Switzerland, which has a particularly hard policy towards illegal immigration, many victims of trafficking are criminalised and deported. Only if they are prepared to give evidence in court are they allowed to stay, but because they are the victims of abuse and exploitation, many are too terrified to do so. “Switzerland must join Austria in signing and ratifying the Council of Europe’s Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, which came into force earlier this year. Implementing this Convention will mean that safe havens have to be provided for the victims and a 30-day breathing space so that they can decide whether or not to help in their abusers’ prosecution. It also allows for renewable residence permits for victims. Sending the victims of trafficking home as criminals, as happens too often, does nothing to help, as quite often they are just re-trafficked. “I welcome the advertising campaign which will run at the matches and hope that this will give a strong message to potential customers of these victims, as did the campaigns at the World Cup two years ago. I hope all the fans, footballers and sports associations, will help to stamp out this evil trade."  

Wed 28th May 2008:

Cluster bomb ban must mean no U.S. stockpiling in UK.

The UK government’s apparent willingness to sign a treaty banning cluster bombs is good news, but the treaty would be undermined if the weapons could still be kept at US bases in this country, according to a Liberal Democrat MEP. Over 100 countries are in Dublin to agree the text of a treaty on cluster bombs, the majority of which want to see the weapons banned. However some of the biggest producers and stockpilers, including the US, Israel, Russia, China, India and Pakistan are not officially participating. Liz Lynne MEP sits on the European Parliament’s Human Rights Subcommittee and has long campaigned against the weapons. Speaking today she said: “If, as now seems likely, the UK will sign up to a treaty decommissioning these weapons, we have to send a strong signal that we do not want these weapons stored in US bases on our territory. The government must use its influence to limit the use of these weapons by US and other forces in the field, and ultimately do all we can to bring these countries within the remit any treaty. “It is also vital that EU Member States stand together as one bloc, to let the rest of the world know that collectively we do not want these weapons made, stockpiled, exported or used ever again. The European Parliament has already adopted a resolution to this effect. A joint voice should encourage wavering states to come on board and give a strong message to some notable non-participants, such as the US which is trying to undermine this treaty, that a ban is the only way forward. “These are, after all, weapons which indiscriminately kill and maim and leave a deadly legacy behind, long after military conflict has ended. Unexploded bomblets are no different to the landmines banned a decade ago and are continuing to kill children in places like Iraq and Lebanon. Not to sign a treaty banning cluster bombs or watering it down with endless exemptions is to condemn a new generation of civilians to horrific injury and death.” Notes: To see the European Parliamentary resolution on banning cluster bombs co-authored by Liz Lynne in October 2007 click here. She also launched a Written Declaration on the subject in March 2007, in part to mark the 8th anniversary of the Ottawa treaty on landmines, because despite unexploded bomblets having much the same effect as landmines, they were not included in this treaty. She also ran a petition in her West Midlands region constituency asking individuals to protest to the Prime Minister against the use of cluster munitions which received an encouraging response from her constituents. For further information, comment or to book an interview, please contact Liz Lynne on 0776 445 2725 (mobile) or Christian Senior on 01789 262785 or 07709 255675.  

Tue 27th May 2008:

ALDE denounces the undemocratic behaviour of the two big groups.

The Constitutional Affairs committee of the European Parliament rejected this morning, a proposal by the Socialist Group aimed at  limiting the number of parliamentary groups in the future. Only the absenteeism of the PPE and PSE resulted in this proposal falling, enabled also in part due to the mobilisation of the ALDE MEPs. Nonetheless the two biggest groups in the committee, through a loophole in the procedure, manoeuvred to get this report which will modify the rules of procedure, on the agenda of a forthcoming plenary session.  The issue will come before Conference of Presidents when the session agenda for July is approved. ALDE still hope that the two largest political groups will not push ahead with this threat to democratic pluralism. "The PPE and PSE carried out this indelicate manoeuvre this morning which supersedes any legitimate concerns one may have with the text, and which will alienate European citizens even more.  It is not by insulting our voters that we encourage them to come to the polls to vote in the European elections.", declared Andrew Duff, ALDE Spokesman for Constitutional Affairs. "All political voices must be heard in the European Parliament and have the right to form a group, as is the case in our national parliaments.  Whilst the Lisbon Treaty should bring us closer to real political debate in Europe, the PPE and the PSE want to reduce the European Parliament to a rubber stamp of the Council of Ministers", added Marielle de Sarnez (MoDem, France), vice-President of ALDE. "The PPE and PSE have come together to try to block change.  They made an agreement to change everything in order to change nothing.  The reality is, that their  problem this time was not the obstruction by the smaller political groups but the absenteeism of their own members." commented Gianluca Susta (Partito democratico, Italy).  

Mon 26th May 2008:

Small political groups must not be banned from European Parliament.

Andrew Duff, spokesman on constitutional affairs for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE), is to oppose a move to cut the number of party political groups in the European Parliament from the beginning of the next legislature. In a vote on Tuesday, the Constitutional Affairs Committee will decide on whether to raise the threshold for the formation of groups in the Parliament. At present Rule 29 of the Parliament's Rules of Procedure says that political groups shall comprise at least 20 MEPs from one fifth of the member states. The proposal from rapporteur Richard Corbett (PES/UK) is to raise these criteria to one quarter and 30, respectively, in the next Parliament. Andrew Duff says that the effect of this measure in the present Parliament would be to shut down the UEN and the Ind Dem groups. "Whatever one's views about their politics," said Duff, "it cannot be argued that these small groups do not represent a strand of European public opinion. We live in a diverse Europe, and if the European Parliament is to be the legitimate forum for post-national democracy, all sorts of minority opinions have to be given effective, if proportionate representation. "Mr Corbett's proposal should be resisted. It would not look well for the two large groups of PPE and PSE to be domineering. They already have a lot of power to determine how the House is run and to influence legislation. "Other procedural reforms taking place have effectively limited the capacity of extremist minorities to disrupt the activities of the House. I do not think we need to go further, and I am not sure what remaining problems Mr Corbett's proposals are actually meant to address. "If small groups disappear, MEPs with widely divergent opinions will either be forced to join larger groups or to join the ranks of the Non-aligned. Either way the result will be increased incoherence."  

Wed 21st May 2008:

MEP's to call for global ban on uranium weapons.

MEPs are expected to adopt a resolution tomorrow calling for an EU and NATO moratorium on weapons containing depleted uranium, and for Member States to work towards a global ban. The resolution claims that their use in warfare contradicts the rules and principles of international, humanitarian and environmental law. The weapons are widely suspected of leaving people exposed to them with illness and disability in the aftermath of conflict, as has long been claimed by soldiers and civilians involved in the first Gulf War. The resolution also calls for EU Member States to share information on personnel exposed to uranium-depleted weapons and environmental data on contaminated areas, as well as for financial assistance for victims and clean-up operations. Liz Lynne MEP, (ALDE, UK), who sits on the Human Rights Subcommittee and co-signed the resolution, will speak in the debate on the subject later today, saying: “Depleted Uranium is both chemically toxic and radioactive. Nevertheless, it has been used widely in conflicts in Iraq, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, not to mention its continuing suspected use, as we speak, in Afghanistan. “Scientific evidence shows that depleted Uranium poses a severe risk to soldiers and civilians alike. In the UK hundreds of veterans' believe that exposure to depleted uranium in the first Gulf War has left them with chronic illnesses and disabilities. “My fear is the use of depleted uranium by the UK and other countries has in itself blighted the lives of the very same people who were prepared to fight and die for their country. This is a travesty and yet the UK Government continues to deny any link. “But it is not just soldiers who now suffer. In Iraq, there is evidence that the use of depleted uranium has caused increases in the phenomenon of anophtalmos: babies who have been born with only one eye or who are missing both eyes. “This is a rare disability, which normally exists in 1 out of 50 million births. Specialist Iraqi doctors however, have reported 9 cases in 2 years with 8 babies missing both eyes. Seven of the eight babies missing both eyes had fathers who were exposed to depleted uranium during the war in Iraq in 1991. Why should innocent children be expected to live for the rest of their lives with this kind of disability? “Yet at least 17 countries are known to have depleted uranium weapons in their military arsenals including three EU Member States: France, Greece and the United Kingdom. These countries must be named and shamed. “I welcome the law passed in Belgium last year banning the use of uranium in conventional weapon systems. We now urgently need an international treaty establishing an immediate moratorium on the use, development production, stockpiling, transfer and testing of depleted uranium weapons as well as the destruction or recycling of existing stocks.”  The text of the resolution can be found here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sidesSearch/search.do?type=MOTION&language=EN&term=6&author=4541, then click on: 19 May 2008, joint motion for a resolution on (depleted) uranium weapons and their effect on human health and the environment For further information, comment or to book an interview, please contact Liz Lynne on 0033 388 177521 (Strasbourg Office) or 0776 445 2725 (