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.

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.

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.

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.

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