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.

NO WONDER PEOPLE ARE CRACKING UP WITH EU AFTER ATTEMPT TO BAN A DOZEN EGGS

Brussels 28 June 2010. New legislation being considered by the EU would block shops from selling food by quantity and restrict them to sell by weight only.

The move, if implemented, would see a dozen eggs become a thing of the past.

Conservative MEP Robert Sturdy said that the law would be fought at European council level as the UK currently has a derogation in their food law to allow the labelling of pre-packed foods by number.

It will also come back to the European Parliament where Conservative MEPs will table amendments to have the rule thrown out. 

Speaking today Mr Sturdy said,

“First they tried to ban imperial measures, then bendy fruit and vegetables and now some within the EU are trying to overturn our right to sell groceries by number.

“This plan would mean that each egg box would have to be weighed individually, adding costs to producers who would then inevitably pass them on to the consumer.  At a time when many local people in East Anglia are already struggling to make ends meet the last thing they need is for the price of staples to increase.

“This is the sort of ridiculous law that makes people’s tempers boil.  I can guarantee that Conservative MEPs will be fighting this ridiculous rule when it comes back to the European Parliament at second reading.” 

The trade committee this week began deliberating Mr Sturdy’s proposal for the parliament to grant assent to the wider agreement, with a vote expected in September. The committee has also today adopted a separate report which creates a safeguard mechanism, enabling the EU to restore Most Favoured Nation duty rates, if the deal threatens to cause serious injury to an EU industry.

Mr Sturdy, a member of the European Conservatives and Reformists group in the parliament, said that the committee’s adoption of the emergency safeguard element of the deal heralds the way to a swift vote in the parliament on the whole agreement. MEPs now have the power of consent regarding international trade deals following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.

Mr Sturdy said:

“We often hear rhetoric about the dangers of resorting to protectionism in the economic downturn but this FTA clearly demonstrates to the world that the EU is open for business.

“Chemicals, pharmaceuticals, iron and steel, auto parts, shoes, spirits and medial equipment exporters will all see substantial savings after tariffs are removed. Non-tariff barriers to trade such as technical standards for cars or certification procedures for consumer electronics will also be broken down.

“Of course the long-term benefits of free trade will outweigh any potential short term concerns. Nevertheless, the parliament has also adopted a safeguard clause which ensures that the FTA cannot cause unforeseen harm to EU industries. The text also ensures strict labour standards are in place to prevent unsustainable development or worker exploitation. This agreement will enable European and Korean economies to enjoy the medicine of free trade without worrying about side effects.

“I hope that the parliament’s strong show of support for the safeguard clause will now herald the way for the parliament’s swift approval of this entire historic agreement.”

Dear Minister,

I am writing to you regarding the proposed changes to the East Coast Mainline timetable.  I understand that under the “Eureka” consultation brochure recently published by the East Coast Mainline Company that a number of timetable changes between London, Stevenage, Peterborough and the North East/Scotland have been suggested.

Peterborough, as a key rail interchange for the East of England, seems particularly badly affected and as an MEP for the Eastern Region I would invite you to consider the damaging effects that such timetable changes could have.  The reduction in passenger services could lead to:

•    Reduced connectivity
•    Increased overcrowding
•    Reduced attractiveness of rail
•    Increasingly poor perception of the East of England

I would be very interested to hear your views on whether the timetable changes will, by reducing the current frequency of services, have detrimental effects on commuters and businesses that use and rely on the East Coast Mainline services to and from Peterborough and Stevenage.   Furthermore, what guarantees are you able to give that they will not be adversely affected by the timetable changes?

I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely

Robert Sturdy MEP

Mr Sturdy was keen to highlight that in a constituency such as this with a Lib Dem MP, that a vote for Lib Dems would only secure the return of Gordon Brown to 10 Downing Street.

They stressed that a vote for any party other than Conservative would not result in a desperately needed change of government.

They visited East Coast Plastics in North Walsham, the largest employer in the town and discussed manufacturing and the challenges faced by business today, and Cargill Farms in Gimingham where bureaucracy was highlighted as a big headache for the agricultural industry.

Robert and Trevor can be seen on this video urging voters to vote for change, to vote for Trevor.

Robert Sturdy welcomes young farmers to Brussels

Robert Sturdy was delighted to welcome a group of 20 young farmers to Brussels and explained his work as an MEP and member of the Agriculture Committee.

The visit was sponsored by Mr Sturdy who is is keen that farmers have a good understanding about the crucial role which the European Union has for their industry.

Richard Ashworth MEP joined the group to discuss future Common Agricultural Policy reform  and the NFU also met the group of  young farmers to explain the significance of its role in Brussels.

The trip, organised by the National Federation of Young Farmers’ Clubs (NFYFC), was part of an EU-fact finding mission ian preparation for Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform as well as an awareness of European politics.

Katherine Sealy, NFYFC Agriculture and Rural Affairs Chairman said: “We were really pleased to have the latest news on EU farming from the NFU office in Brussels and learn a bit more about the ins and outs of EU policy making.”

Mr Sturdy said: “I really enjoyed meeting this vibrant group of young farmers. It is important they have a good understanding of the regulations made in Brussels which impact on the way they work today.”

]]> http://robertsturdymep.com/2010/03/25/robert-sturdy-welcomes-young-farmers-to-brussels/feed/ 0 http://robertsturdymep.com/2010/03/17/view-from-strasbourg-march-2010/ http://robertsturdymep.com/2010/03/17/view-from-strasbourg-march-2010/#comments Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:50:58 +0000 Ellee http://robertsturdymep.com/?p=745 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.

I wrote a letter to the Commission asking them to clarify what benefits the agreements would have for us, particularly with regards to our agricultural sector.  Below is a copy of the response I received:

As the Honourable Member rightly points out, the EU is a strong exporter of agricultural goods into the Korean market with major exports in pork (EUR 240 million per year), whiskey (EUR 176 million) and dairy products (EUR 99 million).

Today, only 2% of EU agricultural exports to Korea enter duty free. The very high Korean tariffs on these goods would be eliminated thanks to the Free Trade Agreement (FTA), and – based on current trade – EU agricultural exporters would globally save EUR 380 million currently paid. Producers of dairy products would save almost EUR 30 million and those of processed vegetables EUR 1.7 million. European wine exports to Korea would be duty free at entry into force of the agreement while whisky exporters would enjoy duty free access within three years.

Besides the duty savings on current exports and as Korean agricultural tariffs are currently very high, trade in the agricultural sector is expected to expand significantly once the FTA is in force. Duty free access for agricultural exports to Korea will support exports by EU farmers and food producers and will thus contribute to safeguarding jobs in the agricultural sector.

In addition to improved market access for agricultural products, the FTA will ensure a high level of protection for well known and commercially important European geographical indications (GIs) in Korea. This is particularly important in the highly competitive Korean market.

Not the least, due to the high Korean tariffs, certain EU agricultural exports would appear particularly vulnerable to displacement by United States (US) products should the US-Korea FTA enter into force before the EU-Korea FTA and reduce tariffs on imports from the US.  The EU is currently in a position to see its FTA with Korea become applicable before the US-Korea FTA. In giving its consent swiftly, the Parliament would be making an essential contribution to ensuring that EU agricultural exports get significantly better access to the Korean market, and possibly also increase their market share in Korea.

As you can see, the agreement will bring huge benefits to the UK economy, which is why I will be doing my utmost to ensure that it is ratified as soon as possible.

3 March 2010

Euro MP Robert Sturdy has welcomed the launching of talks towards a free trade agreement (FTA) between Vietnam and the EU that could allow the Asian country to export more to Europe, the world’s biggest consumer market.

Mr Sturdy, Conservative International Trade spokesman, said these talks were crucial as it was one of several bilateral deals the EU was pursuing with emerging economies with the hope of striking a wider World Trade Organization pact in the near future.

Mr Sturdy said:

“I am delighted that Vietnam and the EU have decided to move towards an FTA.  Although the agreement may be many years in the making, I think that the economies of Vietnam and the EU are well suited, and a deal will lead to great opportunities for both sides, but particularly for the Vietnamese, helping to create jobs and foster development.”

“Some have expressed concern that a bilateral deal with hinder progress on the Doha round of talks at the WTO, but this is not the case.  During his visit to the European Parliament last week Pascal Lamy, the head of the WTO, stated that there was no evidence to support this theory.

“I am also particularly delighted that a new round of free-trade agreement negotiations will be held with Singapore next week following the announcement of our talks with Vietnam, and that we should share a vision as partners in trade and partners in growth.”

The bilateral Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations were launched following a meeting between EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht and Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung in Hanoi today.

Trade in goods between the two countries was almost €12 billion ($16.27 billion) in 2008 and has increased 12% a year between 2004 and 2008, said the commission, the EU’s executive arm.

Notes to Editors:

1. Robert Sturdy MEP is available for interview on 0032 2284 7294 or through Press Officer Ellee Seymour on 01353 648564 or 07939 811961. Please see Robert’s website at http://robertsturdymep.com