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.

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 sell recovery stocks for profit, a decision I think that all of us who enjoy fishing the region’s seas will welcome.

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 European Parliament’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.

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 World Trade Organisation Doha

Round talks, 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.