View from Strasbourg
View from Strasbourg, July 2010
It is often the case that the plenary sessions in Strasbourg before the European Parliament’s summer recess are extremely busy, and last week was no exception. Frequently the negotiation process between the different political groups and between MEPs and the other institutions leads to delays and postponements, causing a hurry to get through all the various reports before the summer break.
At the top of the log jam this month was Parliament’s vote to ban the sale of illegally harvested timber. Illegal deforestation has devastating effects. On a global level, deforestation as a whole is estimated to contribute 20% of greenhouse gas emissions. Where it occurs, soil degradation, loss of biodiversity and landslides are all potential problems. The plunder of this natural resource also hits forest-dependent peoples and the economies of developing countries.
The new legislation bans illegally-harvested timber or timber products from being placed on the EU market. This will prevent such wood from effectively being laundered once it reaches the EU. Currently, at least 20% of timber and timber products reaching the EU market are estimated to come from illegal sources.
Member States will be responsible for applying sanctions to operators who break the rules. The legislation sets out guidelines for imposing fines covering the environmental damage caused, the value of the timber and lost tax revenue and EU countries can also impose criminal-law penalties on unscrupulous dealers. To ensure traceability, each operator along the supply chain will need to declare from whom they bought timber and to whom they sold it.
I have kept a close eye on this piece of legislation, frequently meeting with NGO representatives who share my concerns about the disastrous effects of trade in illegal timber and from my point of view this vote could not come soon enough, we can only hope that the rest of the world takes a leaf out of the EU’s (recycled) book and follows suit in adopting similar measures themselves.
*With over 33 million people living with AIDS world wide, it is a real problem that access to antiretroviral treatments remains so poor. Last week Conservative MEPs submitted a resolution (a non-legislative text which officially expresses on record the opinion of the European Parliament) calling on governments to pass new laws ensuring more affordable medication for those suffering from HIV.
The resolution stresses the existing higher levels of infection among key groups such as sex workers, homosexuals, transgender people, prisoners, injecting drug users, migrants, refugees and mobile workers, and calls for specific targeted actions to ensure their access to public health and fight their discrimination and stigmatisation by society.
This opinion was specifically targeted at sending a strong message before the International AIDS conference in Vienna on the 18th to 23rd July. There is currently an ongoing debate across a whole range of legislative texts, in particular trade agreements, as to how best we can protect the ability of Europe’s scientists to develop new drugs and market them while ensuring that those who need them most can afford them.
In the International Trade Committee this is particularly the case with the negotiations surrounding the Free Trade Agreement with India and the Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), both of which are ongoing. Trade is an area where the EU works best, and it is essential that we get this right. If we come down too strongly on the side of the pharmaceutical companies we could prevent access to life saving medicines, which is unacceptable.
*Elsewhere, the Parliament also agreed on new rules for bankers’ bonuses, which I believe to be both fair and proportionate. Caps will be imposed on upfront cash bonuses and at least half of any bonus will have to be paid in contingent capital and shares. MEPs also toughened rules on the capital reserves that banks must hold to guard against any risks from their trading activities and from their exposure to highly complex securities.
There is a consensus that while the bonuses may not have been the main cause of the crisis, they certainly contributed. We need to prevent a future situation where the pay and bonus culture at our biggest investment banks do not encourage the kind of risks which led us to ruin and recession, and that includes other European banks taking risks on our markets.
That’s it from me until September when we have two voting sessions, so until then I would like to wish you all the best of summers, and of course if you ever have any questions about my work, or the Parliament in general, please do not hesitate to get in touch.
________________________________________________________________________________
View from Strasbourg, March 2010
Returning to Strasbourg for a sitting made me reflect about how the European Union started, and where we are now. A young Dutch Liberal initiated a debate regarding the Strasbourg seat, arguing that it was time to do away with the current arrangement and to conduct business full time from Brussels. I thought that I would share with you the main points of discussion.
The Parliament was originally based in Alsace and grew from the old European Coal and Steel Community and its “Common Assembly” was located in Strasbourg, an arrangement designed to prevent further Franco-German conflict. However, these reasons are no longer relevant in modern day Europe and Strasbourg. It has become an expensive anachronism, costing tax payers hundreds of millions of pounds each year for MEP and staff travel, as well as the exorbitant cost of maintaining the buildings; the roof caved in last summer, and was found to contain large amounts of asbestos.
Conservative MEPs are constantly campaigning to retreat. There are two types of opponents to change – those who wish to see the current situation continue, and those who agree that one seat would be more efficient, but want that seat to be in Strasbourg. The latter can be quickly discounted; Strasbourg lacks the required facilities to host the Parliament full-time, whereas Brussels already has everything needed, including a voting chamber. So what then of the case for maintaining the status quo?
One argument proposed by opponents is that the abolition of one seat will lead to increased centralisation, and that a concentration power would be more likely to result in abuse of powers. This is nonsense as we have already seen a whole litany of abuses with the current system in place. The executive of the Union, the European Commission, is based solely in Brussels. Most associated business is based in Brussels, and the headquarters of the European Council is in Brussels. By abolishing the Strasbourg session, MEPs would merely be moving a process, namely that of voting, which would in no way have any impact on the workings of the Union. Besides, is not the EU already by its very nature a massive centralisation of national powers anyway?
Strasbourg also lacks many of the transport links needed and it is not easily accessible. Members from Eastern Europe are frequently forced to taxi from German airports, again at great expense to the taxpayer. Furthermore, the Strasbourg buildings sit empty for most of the year, a monument to EU waste and excessive bureaucracy. And what of all the greenhouse gases needlessly emitted by all the transport of all the papers and people from Brussels to Strasbourg? If the European Parliament is serious about climate change, it should start by putting its own house in order!
It might seem like a no-brainer to most, but it is a simple matter of common sense. Unfortunately, the political reality is rather different. The French are very protectionist and are unwilling to give up their parliament, and why would they? After all, the rest of Europe picks up the tab while France gains a valuable source of income from the influx of MEPs and staff. I do not think it is a coincidence that most of the MEPs who support the Strasbourg seat are French! The Parliament is the goose that lays the golden egg. I am confident that most of the people who live in the member states of the union want to see an end to this circus, and such a move would do much to promote transparency and democracy, as well as cutting millions of pounds from taxpayers’ bills.
Elsewhere, I signed a European Parliament resolution regarding the ongoing negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). This will criminalise the possession and use of copyright materials by unlicensed owners, and is aimed at stopping the illegal downloads, of films, songs, games and software.
As ECR coordinator for International Trade and Vice-Chairman of the International Trade Committee I have been following this issue very closely. The negotiations have been strongly criticised by many stakeholders who regard the ACTA deal as an attempt to restrict civil liberties and infringe privacy rights. The resolution is aimed at allaying those fears, and I believe this regulation is long overdue.
________________________________________________________________________
Strasbourg report, February 2010
Sometimes I despair of politicians, I really do. I have always been a believer in simple, reasonable and sensible policies. So my confidence in my fellow MEPs was really shaken by some recent new developments. You may remember the farcical “bendy bananas” and “curvy cucumber” rules dreamt up by Brussels bureaucrats and only recently scrapped. I was delighted about this, and know many of my constituents felt the same. Disappointingly, I have learnt that we could be returning to those ludicrous rules again – at least if Spanish EPP and Socialist MEPs get their way.
It was a major triumph last year for Conservative MEPs when the European Commission finally overturned the ban of mis-shapen fruit and veg which had been widely ridiculed in the press. Prior to the U-turn, strict marketing standards were imposed for 26 types of fruit and vegetables governing their size and shape. I deplored the fact that bananas which curved too much, as well as oversized apples and knobbly carrots, could not be sold and instead had to be thrown away, wasting a huge amount of healthy food and driving prices up. I have seen a lot of stupid rules come out of Brussels in my time as an MEP, but however. this ranks among the worst.
Consumers agreed with my beliefs that we should be able to decide what we want our food to look like; we should not be dictated about this from Brussels. Our farmers, of course, were also delighted as it meant they could sell perfectly good produce, whatever its shape or size. We need to let the market decide on this one, not the European Parliament.
Conservative MEPs will continue to rigorously oppose any plans to return to those “ban the bendy banana” days!
*Elsewhere this week, we had the big vote on the new European Commissioners who will oversee the various departments of the European Commission for the next five years. The ECR group, having been central to the re-election of President Barroso for a second five year term, was faced with a tough decision. The idea that we as MEPs can vote on the whole College of Commissioners as a whole is utterly ridiculous. If you want to reject a single candidate, you have to vote against the entire group. This “take it or leave” approach means that we were unable to voice our support of the candidates we endorsed, and unable to act against the weak candidates we would have opposed.
I felt that several of the Commissioners were simply not good enough for the demands of their roles. Firstly, the European Commission is massively powerful and the idea that we might appoint people who were not up to the job should be of great concern. Secondly, many of the candidates expressed their support for EU powers in the field of taxation, but this is unacceptable to me. Finally, I failed to see why it was necessary to move several of the existing Commissioners to new portfolios, despite them having performed extremely well in their previous positions. Because of the limitations imposed by the approval system, I reluctantly decided, along my fellow Conservative MEPs, to abstain from voting rather vote in some Commissioners I could not support.
*There was some welcome news about how the European Parliament has thrown its support behind a World Horse Welfare initiative that seeks to end the cruel long distance transport of horses. I signed a written declaration expressing my support for an urgent review of EU legislation governing the welfare of animals during transport to slaughter. Latest figures estimate that 100,000 horses are transported in atrocious conditions across Europe to slaughter. Imagine a 12 hour journey from Bulgaria or Romania to Italy, often without rest, water or food, and in the stifling heat. Journeys such as these are inhumane and can lead to exhaustion, injury, pain suffering and stress for the horse. Most of these journeys are completely unnecessary as slaughter facilities exist across Europe, so why are these horses being transported around like this? I sincerely hope that this is the beginning of the end of this scandal; it is precisely this sort of issue where the EU can do a lot of good.
________________________________________________________________________
CHRISTMAS message 2009
Firstly, I would just like to say a big thank you to all those who turned out at the polls in June and voted for the Conservative Party. It has always been a great honour to serve in the European Parliament and I must thank all those who kept their faith even after the expenses scandal in Westminster. Politicians must demonstrate humility and sincerity to win back the trust of the voters, while at the same time moving forward.
2009 was the year that the European Parliament passed tough new rules governing the use of pesticides for European farmers. The Parliament voted to support a compromise package negotiated between the Commission, the Council and MEPs, with 577 in favour, 61 against and just 11 abstentions. For me, this was one of the most important issues in my 15 years as an MEP and the vote came as a massive disappointment, not only for me, but for East Anglia’s farmers, gardeners, grounds men, consumers and everyone else who contacted me expressing their considerable concerns regarding this Directive. The proposals were watered down considerably from those originally proposed but the compromise still went too far, despite the active campaigning I led against it, including a letter of protest to 10 Downing Street with Shadow Agriculture Minister, Jim Paice.
The issue of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) was also a large part of my workload this year. EPAs are agreements between the EU and ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) countries. Helping countries from poverty has often felt like uphill struggle; no matter how much aid has been given, it hasn’t had the effect we hoped and sadly, many African countries are much poorer than they were at independence, despite the vast sums of money they have received. Problems of accountability and traceability have always been a problem. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, then EPAs are long overdue. I work actively on this issue as the European Conservative and Reformists Group Spokesman on International Trade and I believe we need market liberalisation tied to structural aid to help less developed countries trade their
way out of poverty, enabling them to take advantage of preferential treatment and to develop both sustainably and quickly. With drought conditions and food security adding to their huge difficulties, caused by climate change, it is more important than ever that we do all we can and as quickly as possible to help ACP countries.
But what of 2010? The first priority for the New Year is to ensure that the new Commission is held to account. Belgium’s Karel de Gucht recently received Manuel Barroso’s nod for the Trade post, vacated by the outgoing Baroness Ashton and I will be working closely with him. It will be interesting to see the stance he takes as he most certainly has to demonstrate a commitment to free trade as the last thing we all need is someone who resorts to protectionism. Free trade is vital to end the world’s economic depression, which we have still not escaped. A sad sign of this ongoing crisis was GM’s recent announcement that 350 employees from the Luton Vauxhall plant are to be made redundant, demonstrating a further demise of our manufacturing industry. My sympathies are with all those who lost jobs particularly in the run-up to Christmas.
But the New Year also brings with it new ideas and new opportunities. We hope to have a Conservative Government come June and after 12 disastrous years of Labour in power this cannot happen soon enough.
I shall, of course, continue doing my bit in Brussels, Strasbourg and the constituency to make sure that the Eastern Region is represented at the European table. I shall also continue to help all those who write to me with questions and problems to the best of my ability, so please do not hesitate to get in touch.
Finally, may I wish you a Merry Christmas and a healthy and prosperous New Year.
_________________________________________________________________________
View from Strasbourg, November 2009
In the end it was all a bit of a damp squib. After weeks of feverous speculation in which just about everyone short of Shergar was mentioned, Baroness Ashton was appointed Foreign Minister and former Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy (much to the delight of headline writers at The Sun) became the first President of the European Council. Firstly I would like to congratulate both Commissioner Ashton and Mr Van Rompuy; if forging a consensus among different nationalities in the Parliament is anything to go by, they are going to have their work cut out! The real story, however, was to be found elsewhere.
While “stitch-up” is perhaps a little harsh to describe the situation as everyone was in on the deal apart from us, we were certainly caught napping, if not fast asleep. The EU’s three top economic job – Internal Market, International Trade and Competition – have been given to the French, Belgian and Spanish Commissioners, which could mean that the EU is about to take a protectionist turn, something that would not be in our interest. The benefits of open markets are the most important factor in fostering a recovery from the seismic shocks generated by the financial crisis. The lessons of economic history are clear: protectionist policies are not a sustainable means of protecting jobs in the EU. It is clear that a future Conservative government will have plenty to do to ensure Britain’s interests are well represented in Brussels. I will be doing my bit by closely monitoring the policies of Trade Commissioner designate Karel De Gucht and am looking forward to questioning him when he comes before the International Trade Committee in January.
But what of Baroness Ashton? As Vice-President of the International Trade Committee, I have been working very closely with her since she took over the job vacated by Peter Mandelson just over a year ago. There is no doubt that she did a very good job as Trade Commissioner, but you have to question whether she has the experience and qualifications required for the role of High Representative. Can you imagine High Representative Ashton holding her own at a table with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? But maybe that is the point. Europe, particularly Germany and France, does not want a powerful High Representative with a big name, but rather one who will quietly go about doing the bidding of the 27 member states. The same goes for the President, with appointment of someone lacking in recognition and charisma demonstrating that for the moment, the member state holds sway over a possible EU superstate, but vigilance must be maintained.
Either way Ashton she has to prove that she is worth the money. She will have control of the new European external action service, starting with 5,000 staff already engaged on “external relations”, based in delegations in 130 countries – and the service is expected to grow rapidly. The current EU foreign policy representative, Javier Solana, believes that the service would become “the biggest diplomatic service in the world” and would cost taxpayers £45 billion between now and 2013. By contrast, the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office has an annual budget of
£2 billion — which the Treasury hopes to cut by 20% over the next two years!
Despite all the commotion surrounding the new Commission appointments, I still had the day to day parliamentary business to attend to. I was delighted by the recent decision by a European Council Committee to reject extending both a 16.5 percent and a 10 percent tariff on shoes from China and Vietnam respectively for another 15 months. The duties, which were introduced by Lord Mandelson in 2006 when he was Trade Commissioner, have had a detrimental effect on consumers and retailers across Europe. For example, Clarks Shoes says they have cost it around €800m in import costs since 2006, which has led to a hike in the prices paid by us in the shops. However, my happiness was tempered by the fact that the Commission plans to go to the European Council to overturn this vote. The new Commissioner must not attempt to overrule today’s vote in an EU trade committee which would cause the price of shoes from China and Vietnam to fall. We should be one step ahead on this, and not dragging our heels.
________________________________________________________________________
Strasbourg report, September 2009
This was the first meeting of the Parliament since the summer break. While it was lovely to catch up with several friends in Strasbourg, it was catching up that could have been done just as easily in Brussels! Still, while it was a bad week for those unconvinced by the need for the Parliament in Strasbourg, it was a good week for Jose Manuel Barroso, the incumbent President of the European Commission, who won a second term in office after securing the backing of a majority of MEPs.
There was for a moment a worry among those of the centre-right that Mr Barroso might not secure the requisite 369 votes needed for an absolute majority. But a split in the Socialist vote led to many offering their support against the wishes of their political leaders, allowing Mr Barroso a sigh of relief.
Following the Opposition’s collapse, the vote in the chamber ended amidst farcical scenes with Daniel Cohn-Bendit (better known as Danny the Red, and up until this point, one of Barroso’s fiercest critics) handing Mr Barroso a large bouquet of flowers. Wreathed in smiles, which stemmed from I do not know where, Mr Cohn-Bendit announced without a hint of irony or embarrassment that he had achieved a victory for the Greens! This was despite the fact that he had failed in his bid to scupper Mr Barroso’s re-election, failed to find a candidate himself and failed to secure any sort of concessions from the new President, who in the end had no need for the support of Mr Cohn-Bendit’s Green MEPs!
Now, while I broadly support Mr Barroso’s appointment, I think I should at this juncture sound a note of caution. While as a centre-right politician Mr Barroso shares many of the Conservatives’ political beliefs, he still remains firmly attached to the federalist and integrationist ideals which are firmly opposed by my new group in the Parliament, the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR). While Mr Barroso is likely to support our ideas regarding free markets and liberalisation, it is less likely that he will support our more “Euro-realist” sentiments regarding integration. It is this area where we will have our work cut out, ensuring that no more powers are removed from Westminster to Brussels.
*Elsewhere Europe’s dairy farmers have been strongly urging the European Commission to show support for the milk market to avoid permanent damage to the European dairy industry. Protesting dairy farmers have become increasingly vocal in recent weeks, as the market price of a pint of milk fell to less then half of what it costs to produce.
To highlight their plight, farmers across Europe joined forces to dump milk on fields, roads and in cities in an attempt to force the Commission to intervene. While one option available is that of a “super-levy” for individual farmers; I think this would send the wrong message to those efficient farmers who are planning to stay in the industry in the long term.
While I have always supported efforts to make EU agriculture more responsible to market forces, there is a massive problem currently destroying European agriculture which is not of the farmers’ making.
In the last three years dairy producers have seen their product prices drop 40%. Yet in the same three years, consumer prices have risen by 14%. This comparison clearly shows that the role of supermarkets in the supply chain is posing a big problem, not only to European dairy farmers, but to farmers of other agricultural products such as wheat.
The Agriculture Commissioner has acknowledged the problem, but so far the Commission have done little or nothing to stop large buyers from forcing prices down whilst failing to pass on any savings to the consumer. This is a situation where the only ones to benefit are the large supermarkets; they are driving many farmers out of business while ensuring that prices for consumers remain unchanged. This is the most pressing problem in European agriculture and it is one which I will be following very closely in the coming months as Europe emerges from recession
_____________________________________________________________________________
Strasbourg report, July 2009
First of all I would like to say a big thank you to everyone who turned out to vote in the European elections on 4th June. It has always been a massive honour to serve the people of East Anglia and I was absolutely delighted to be trusted once again to represent you all in Brussels, Strasbourg and, of course, back home. Last week was the official opening of the Parliament’s term in Strasbourg and this message is the first of many I will be sending in the next five years, keeping you all up to date on the latest events that will have an effect on East Anglia.
The first sight greeting all MEPs upon their arrival was that of a large green net stretched across the roof of the building, the latest development in the ongoing saga of the Strasbourg Parliament. Following last year’s collapse and the discovery of asbestos, it was recently realised that the roof was in fact not fire proofed, a fact many found quite astonishing given the amount of hot air issued by MEPs in the hemicycle chamber! Unfortunately, we were unable to transfer to Brussels on this occasion, where the Parliament is more than capable of holding all the necessary meetings.
The main event dominating my time last week was the election of the European Conservatives and Reformists new group Chairman. Earlier this year, David Cameron decided to withdraw the Conservatives from the European Peoples’ Party (EPP-ED) and form a new group, the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR). Of course, the Conservatives will maintain good ties with our former colleagues, continuing to work together in areas of mutual interest, but the new group will allow me to concentrate on our region’s economic recovery, improving growth and competitiveness, reducing red tape and making sure that the EU represents value for money for the Eastern Region’s tax payers.
The move away from the EPP and the creation of the ECR generated much media controversy and a great deal of misinformation. Contrary to many reports, which said we would never build a group, and that if we did, we would be sitting with extremists and would fall apart almost as soon as we formed, the ECR has emerged as a group of mainstream national parties dedicated to European reform.
These countries share our view, as well as that of a large proportion of the Eastern Region’s electorate, that the EU should not continue down the path towards ever greater federal union, but rather should respect the right of sovereign nations and their citizens. I do not think I am alone when I say that the EU must become more open, democratic and accountable; this is the mandate upon which I was elected, and this is the platform which I shall follow. I made a promise to all those who voted for me and I fully intend to keep it.
However, as some of your may be aware a colleague of mine, Edward McMillan-Scott, decided that he would stand for the position of Vice-President of the Parliament, against the wishes of the new group, which had agreed as a unit that Michal Kaminski would be our sole candidate for the job. Edward, a colleague of mine for the past 15 years, refused to remove his candidacy, even after receiving a call from David Cameron informing him that he would lose the whip. In the end Michal lost and Edward won.
The Poles were incandescent with rage, arguing that Michal had lost his bid as a direct result of Edward’s renegade actions. They demanded the Chairmanship of the ECR in its place. It had been previously agreed that this was a job which would be held for the first two-and-a- half years of the group’s existence by a British Conservative. However, Michal’s loss changed all this. The two other candidates for the leadership, Timothy Kirkhope and Geoffrey Van Orden both stood aside and it was agreed that Michal would become group Chairman.
By this time it was around 11pm, and fatigue was evident on the faces of most in the ECR meeting. While I fully support the election of Mr Kaminski as leader, who I am sure will do a sterling job for the next two and a half years, I was very disappointed with the actions of some of my Conservative colleagues, who, instead of allowing an overnight period in order to restore calm and consult the leadership in London so we might present a united front, voted to hasten the decision making-process. This was the first opportunity to show how the group could – and should – be run, and with one element effectively holding all the others to ransom it did not bode well. If in future we stand together and make united, informed and unrushed decisions as a group, we will flourish.
Only a united front will enable us to go from strength to strength and fulfil the promises we made to our respective constituents.
I look forward to representing you over the next five years.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Strasbourg report, March 2009
I believe that legislation should be judged not merely by its intentions, but by its results. Indeed, good intentions can sometimes do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding. An excellent example of this has been the European Commission’s directive on Industrial Emissions Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) which we voted on last week in Strasbourg. The IPPC legislation will merge seven existing directives on industrial pollution into one whilst extending the scope of the law. The directive creates a permit system to prevent and limit pollution from supposedly large-scale industrial installations. Yet a directive that was originally targeted at reducing industrial emissions instead threatened not only to force hospitals to shut down their boilers, but also to have a profound impact upon the Eastern Region’s agricultural sector.
Firstly, with regard to the NHS, concerns were raised that the new directive would result in around 70 hospitals across the country being forced to pay oppressive costs for their boilers. Hospitals require significant amounts of spare boiler capacity to cope with emergencies in case of technical failures. The IPPC directive would have assessed their boilers in light of their potential emissions as opposed to their actual emissions, incurring the NHS, and thus the British taxpayer substantial costs. The outcome of this was potentially catastrophic.
The British Conservatives submitted an amendment that that was passed by 471 votes to 169 that will allow such boilers to be subject to emission controls based solely on the amount of time they run rather than on notional full time running. This will save the NHS large amounts of money that can be much better spent on patient care rather than appeasing Brussels bureaucrats. It was a triumph for fairness and commonsense led by Conservative MEPs.
The IPPC was also a threat to smaller poultry farms. The Commission proposed applying the directive’s pollution controls to premises “with 40,000 places for broilers, or places for laying hens or 24,000 places for ducks or 11,500 places for turkeys”. The amendments replace this with the words “40,000 places for poultry”. The British National Farmers Union expressed concerns that this “will not benefit the EU poultry industry, consumers or the environment…Disproportionately stringent requirements will not bring added-value to the protection of the environment in the EU and have no scientific basis.”
I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. This legislation would have burdened a vitally important regional sector without tangible environmental benefit; all that it would have served to do was to tangle smaller poultry units in unnecessary red tape and added to their costs. Yet unfortunately, despite our best efforts we were not as successful when it came to the pig sector. An amendment we proposed to alter the manner in which (and forgive me for getting technical here) nitrogen excretion equivalent rates is calculated was not adopted – potentially adding £25,000 to the costs of a permit for pig farmers.
*Elsewhere sea passengers will be better protected and European waters made safer after MEPs adopted the EU’s third maritime package. Passengers will benefit from a new pan-European level of accident liability and insurance which means ship operators are liable for lost or damaged luggage and any physical harm caused by neglect. Previously liability has been set at different, and often insufficient, levels in member states according to their own national laws. I am delighted that passengers will be receiving greater protection when travelling by sea, a victory that has been achieved without burdening ferry companies with bureaucracy and red tape. This legislation now means that foreign ships entering EU ports are required to meet the same standards as our ships and face fines should they repeatedly fail to do so.
___________________________________________________________________________
Letter from Europe, March 2009
EU leaders met last weekend for an emergency summit in Brussels about the global economic decline. I was greatly pleased to see that EU leaders committed themselves to a multilateral free trade approach, rejecting protectionism and reaffirming their commitments to the European Single Market and sending a powerful message to our partners across the Atlantic. It is crucial to the future of the world economy that we maintain liberal policies; we must learn from the lessons of the Great Depression of the 1930s and emerge stronger on the other side.
Yet in times of economic crisis similar to which we are now experiencing, it becomes all too easy to turn a blind eye to those living in regions which are less fortunate than our own. One can become anaesthetised by repeated headlines of doom and gloom and not consider that in faraway continents, people are still struggling to have their fair share of the globalisation pie.
For these less developed countries, free trade has become even more urgent; if developed countries retreat behind the walls of protectionism they stand to lose much too, a particularly bitter injustice for them considering it was the developed world which created this mess.
I was delighted with the outcome last week’s marathon four hour voting session of the European Parliament’s International Trade Committee, which I represent as a coordinator for the EPP-ED group. MEPs were voting on a series of resolutions regarding the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) currently being negotiated by the EU with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. I want to do all I can to help these countries get a fair deal. EPAs are designed to ensure that ACP countries can continue to enjoy unhindered and protection free access to EU markets within the framework of the Word Trade Organisation.
The benefits of open markets and the opportunities it can deliver to the ACP are huge, as well as liberating. EPAs will form the first stage of incorporating the ACP into the world economy, fostering agricultural development and industry diversification. This represents the best chance in a generation to restructure ACP trade relations, making certain that where previously ACP nations were unable to utilise trade as a vehicle for development, they will now be able to build a sustainable partnership within the EU.
*In my last column I reported on the European Commission’s proposal to force member states to establish a fishing quota solely for recreational fisherman. To propose regulation that not only complicates current legislation, but also targets an innocent minority that enjoy angling for pleasure, was yet another example of the Commission’s floundering attempts at regulation. Following intense lobbying by myself and my colleagues, Fisheries Commissioner Joe Borg informed the Fisheries Committee that he had no intention of bringing recreational fishermen under the scope of the CFP.
I was delighted to learn that the Commissioner was very clear in ruling out any extension to “recreational anglers who catch a few kilos of fish, even recovery stocks like cod, and take it home for their own use.” He went on to promise that he would fine tune the legislation so that its sole targets are sea anglers who catch and sellrecovery stocks for profit, a decision I think that all of us who enjoy fishing the region’s seas will welcome.
_______________________________________________________________________
Letter from Europe, 29 January 2009
The European Commission is muddying our waters again unnecessarily.
This time, it is our recreational sea anglers who face the full extent of their ridiculous bureaucracy which could have a considerable impact in the Eastern region.
It follows the announcement by the European Commission that it wants to impose quotas on recreational fishermen limiting the number of fish they may catch. They say it is intended to protect endangered species, such as cod, pollack and shark.
East Anglia has some of the finest fishing coastline in the country and sea angling, in particular, has seen a huge surge in popularity in the last decade. Now it is proposed that these quotas will be included in the total quota allowed to individual Member States. I just can’t see that happening.
Although I welcome reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, which has to date been bad for British fishermen, I believe this proposal is ludicrous and will be totally unworkable. Introducing reforms that will require further micro-management from Brussels will only exacerbate the present problems. To me, this is totally unworkable and cannot be managed.
To propose regulations that target an innocent minority enjoying his leisurely pursuit is only going to alienate our electorate, particularly our anglers who genuinely enjoy fishing for pleasure, and make us a laughing stock. It will complicate current legislation and I shall vigorously oppose it.
When will Brussels realise that this heavy handed approach will not only result in a bureaucratic nightmare if it becomes law, but would actually do very little to meet its objectives in the recovery of fishing stocks, as well as damaging tourism in these coastal regions. That is something I certainly do want to see happen in East Anglia.
I believe if the European Commission is serious about wanting to protect our fish stocks, it should launch a total and effective review of the CFP, and not target the harmless recreational sea angler.
*”Some folk want their luck buttered,” Thomas Hardy once said. And the luck for EU farmers seems to be getting better. This week it was announced that the EU is buying 30,000 tonnes of unsalted butter to put into cold storage, as well as up to 109,000 tonnes of milk powder. Just so you understand exactly the full extent of this, this weight is around the same as 75 jumbo jets. Inexplicably, this is happening at a time when the EU is committed to wholesale reform of its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), resolving the problems that had led to the now infamous “mountains” and food and “lakes” of oil and wine, and is a massive step backwards.
The reason given for this extraordinary action is protection. EU farmers have suffered from a massive drop in demand in their main butter markets (especially in Russia as a result of the crash of the rouble) which in turn has resulted in a price crash. This action undermines all our efforts to move away from the protectionist policies of the past.
At a time of ongoing financial crisis, we should be fully liberalising markets and placing Europeans on an equal playing field with our competitors. We are, in effect, artificially supporting farmers by inflating the market price for these commodities. In my opinion farmers, would much rather turn a profit in a system that is both free and fair. For far too long the EU has controlled prices to the detriment of the farming communities of less developed nations who are desperately trying to make a living, but were forced out of a closed EU market.
Currently the WTO is trying to complete the Doha round of talks launched in 2001, a round that is specifically designed to open up world trade by bringing down this kind of non-trade barriers that have frequently distorted world markets in the past. At its peak, the butter surplus in Europe was a massive 1.2 million tonnes, and it was only in 2007 that the EU was finally able to do away with this “mountain” – an event that received much publicity. I was naturally shocked and dismayed when I learned of this development.
For this reason, I was most encouraged by the visit of the Czech presidency to the EuropeanParliament’s Trade Committee last week. With the election of President Obama across the pond, many in the EU are worried that he too may resort to protectionist policies to artificially shield America from the effects of the global slowdown at the expense of everyone else. While the new Obama administration’s policies are yet to fully emerge, our Czech colleagues assured us that they will continue the EU’s free trade policies. They were adamant that lessons from the 1930s recession had to be heeded – namely that protectionism will only make things worse for everyone – prolonging the effects of the global economic downturn.
_______________________________________________________________________________
New Year message for 2009 from Robert Sturdy
A new year. A new presidency. A new parliament.
While there is much speculation about whether or not Gordon Brown will call a general election next year, voters in the UK will certainly be going to the polls to vote in the Euro-election 2009.
We will be led into the elections by the new presidency from the Czech Republic, which takes over on 1 January 2009. The results will mean a big shake-up, with 50-60% new members taking their seats at Brussels, all driving through their new ideas and agendas. I am very much hoping that Conservatives will win four seats in the Eastern Region, including a female member, Vicky Ford.
The election will be held in June and its mandate will focus on many important subjects close to my heart – the environment, the Doha agreement, free trade and food labelling. All these issues will have an important impact on all our lives. They might seem far removed to citizens in East Anglia at the moment, but the implications of these important EU legislations are crucially important on a local level, as well as globally.
For example, let’s consider the stalled talks on the Doha World Trade Organisation which was launched in 2001. This is increasingly important now at a time when the world is suffering from financial crisis. One of the best ways round this would be to ensure we have a free trade agreement because that helps movement of goods, it puts people back in employment and benefits everyone. These talks have been going on for seven years and I have great concerns about whether we will get a settlement in the foreseeable future.
Much of the difficulties are caused by America and India. The new president elect, Barack Obama, has in the past in the run up to the American presidential election talked very protectionist; he has said he would look after the mid-West. At the same time, India is trying to protect its agriculture, and does not feel comfortable with the Obama rhetoric, so there is a big clash between the two countries about agriculture. The Americans also wants access to the Indian market, not just on agriculture, but on services and public procurement, so it clearly makes sense to reach an agreement as early as possible.
As an international trade spokesman, I am also trying to help EU countries gain access to markets in other countries, for example in Canada, Japan and China, so they can bid for public procurement contracts, such as building railways, new roads and telecoms. These are all national industries which need public tenders, but at the moment we are not allowed to tender for Canadian or Japanese quotes. We just missed a huge quote on the Toronto underground that European countries could have won.
I believe we are good at what we do. I believe we can beat the world on a lot of the products we produce, particularly our transport and rail network goods which could be exported to many countries. You have only got to look at Strasbourg where the European Parliament sits a few days each month. All the trams in Strasbourg were made in York. But unfortunately, York Carriage Works has closed – highlighting a great loss of traditional skills which must kept in order to be competitive.
I plan to continue pursuing vital talks on this issue to open up new gateways of opportunity for the whole of the EU, and I hope they will benefit my highly skilled constituents in the Eastern Region too.I shall continue to fight for common sense regarding the banning of pesticides which have not been proven scientifically to be harmful to human health or the environment. It is plain lunacy to hinder productive crop yields at a time when there are serious concerns about future food security.
I also feel passionately about the need for clear food labelling. This was made even more apparent by the recent situation in Ireland when supermarkets were unable to trace whether pork products on their shelves were produced in Ireland, in the EU, or for that matter imported and processed in the EU. It is clear that we must have transparent labelling, and even in some cases it should state the region of origin: I’m thinking about labels which say Scotch beef, or Welsh lamb, for example. Canada has a product called Parma ham, but it is produced in Canada, and not from Italy, it’s main country of origin.
So my message is, let’s try and get a settlement on Doha we can move forward; if we can get more trading of goods across the world, this will result in better prospects and a better chance of more jobs in the UK and EU.
I look forward to a bright new year. It will be difficult, let’s be clear it is going to be difficult time, but I think the opportunities are great.
