Labour MEPs have always opposed any relaxation of the rules that would allow for the proliferation of longer and heavier lorries.

Quite simply we do not want to see travelling warehouses on UK roads, and we very much fear the impact they would have on road safety, particularly on more vulnerable road users.

Of equal concern is the impact they would have on congestion and pollution at a time when we are trying to encourage freight off the roads and onto rail.   We are simply not convinced that the UK has the infrastructure in place to cope with these longer and heavier vehicles. Roads, bridges and crash barriers were simply not designed for these types of trucks.

We are worried that the changes proposed by the European Commission could be the start of a slippery slope to megatrucks becoming the norm across Europe. This would inevitably make it very difficult to prevent them from coming to the UK.

So we will be opposing those changes that seek to expand the numbers of these longer and heavier trucks across Europe, and over the coming months we will seek to get majority support within the European Parliament for this position.

This is only the start of a fairly long legislative process, which involves both the European Parliament and the Council (where the 27 national Governments sit).

But we are fully aware of constituents concerns and we will do all we can to fight back against the expansion of megatrucks across Europe, and stop them coming to Britain.

Take the example of clinical trials, which I am leading on in the European Parliament.  Medical research is vital to discover new drugs and assess the safety and effectiveness of treatments.  But the results of these trials, which are carried out on ordinary patients, are too often not reported.  Around half of all clinical trials have never been published in academic journals, and trials with positive results are twice as likely to be published as others.  Unless information about unsuccessful research is made public the same trials can be tried time and time again, sometimes endangering lives.  Although many pharmaceutical companies and researchers do report results, it is on a voluntary basis and still too much data is missing.  That is why I have been working with the AllTrials campaign to enshrine transparency measures into the new EU Clinical Trials Regulation.  The European Parliament has approved my proposals for a publicly accessible database with information on all trials, and now the challenge will be to get EU governments to agree.

Which brings me on to the problem of transparency in EU decision making.  Too often British governments blame ‘Brussels’ for unpopular measures, and take the glory when the EU does something good.  The fact is that for every piece of legislation the British government and British MEPs are sat round the negotiating table and voting on proposals right from the start.

Two years ago, for example, I proposed that EU food labelling laws included requirements to label the country of origin for all meat, including meat in processed foods.  Although the European Parliament backed my plans, the UK government worked with others to block them.  After the horsemeat scandal ministers across Europe were quick to blame “weak” EU labelling laws, with Owen Paterson demanding  the “acceleration” of the report into labelling meat in ready meals.  I had to point out that in 2011 the UK government tried to delay this report, which I insisted on.  These positions must be reported more fairly, and that is why Labour MEP Michael Cashman has been working for years to open up the decision making process of governments when they vote in Brussels.

EU decisions can be hugely powerful, especially when taking on transnational corporations.  In the globalised world the UK government alone cannot regulate the global pharmaceutical or food industries.  The same is true of oil, mining, gas and logging companies.  This week my Labour colleague Arlene McCarthy finalised new EU measures obliging extractive industries to disclose the payments they make to governments for access to natural resources.  Arlene has been working with the Publish What You Pay campaign, and the new rules will be a major new weapon in the global fight against corruption, ensuring that citizens can hold their governments to account for the exploitation of their natural resources. Working together as the EU, representing 27 countries and the world’s largest trading bloc, we can lead the way globally in transparency measures.

That is why it is the EU fighting for our privacy against the US, led by Labour MEP Claude Moraes.  Claude is calling for the US to respect our EU data protection standards calling the PRISM case a “major breach of trust”.   It shows there will always be more work to do, which is why we need serious MEPs willing to stand up to vested interests, engage with the reality of the globalised world and give voices to civil society campaigns such as AllTrials and Publish What You Pay.  Transparency is something that we must continue to fight for in every policy, and that Labour MEPs will continue to fight for at European level.

It’s actually the fourth in “a series of 18 trade and investment analytical papers” produced under the present government.

And with a description like that, it’s perhaps unlikely to attract a huge number of readers.

Nevertheless, it’s more than worth the effort, and though it’s actually been available since 2011, I think it needs to be publicised a bit more.

Because what it does is drive a coach and horses through a central euro-sceptic argument.

One of the main claims, by UKIP and many in the Tory party, is that being a member of the European Union actually costs us money – a lot of money.

Now the BIS paper doesn’t address the precise cost we pay, whether or not the EU rebate, and EU structural and other funds are taken into account.  We are, of course, a net contributor to the tune of several billion pounds a year.

But what the paper does do is look at the other side of the equation; how much we have actually benefited financially from our membership.

And, drawing on various sources, it comes up with a pretty impressive conclusion, dwarfing by some way even the most outlandish claims of UKIP about what we pay in.

As a result of being a member of the single market and the increased trade and affluence this has brought, there have been income gains in the UK of between 2% and 6%.

This works out as somewhere between £1100 and £3300 a year for every British household.

Or to put it another way, that means every man, woman and child in Britain is better off by between £457 and £1373 a year!

But it isn’t just that we already benefit hugely financially from being in the EU.

Indeed the central point of the document is that there is still substantial scope to do even better!    A single market which functioned more efficiently would bring further gains in terms of increased trade and greater affluence.

The focus for 2013 is on advertising and promotion of tobacco products.  Globally, tobacco use is on the rise and, as tobacco contains nicotine – a highly additive drug – we need to focus on reducing the appeal of tobacco, so that less people begin using it in the first place. 

Tobacco is a uniquely deadly product that kills almost 50% of people who use it.  Nearly 6 million people die from tobacco-related illnesses every year, of which 600,000 die from exposure to second-hand smoke. 

In the European Parliament, we’re currently negotiating a new Tobacco Products Directive, and I want to focus on how we can reduce the appeal of cigarettes and other tobacco products. 

Tobacco use in Europe is actually falling, but this means that tobacco companies need to replace those who quit or die, in order to continue making a profit.  And they are increasingly targeting young people, in particular young women. 

Two thirds of smokers start before the age of 18 and, while the rate of male smokers is declining in Europe, the number of female smokers is on the rise. 

Tobacco advertising has already been banned, so the packet is the last place that companies have to promote their brand.  We can see how they use this to reach their target audience, using fancy packaging in pretty colours and introducing flavours to mask the less appetising taste of tobacco.  Labour MEPs want to stop companies from being able to do this, to make it harder for them to recruit a new generation of smokers. 

I’d like to see standardised packaging made mandatory and I was disappointed that the Coalition Government dropped this from the Queen’s speech.  This has already been introduced in Australia, where large, pictorial health warnings now cover most of the pack, with the brand name in a standard font.  Research suggests that measures such as this do make smoking less attractive to young people. 

I’d also like to see measures aimed at making smoking less accessible, for example by banning point-of-sale displays.  Such restrictions have already been introduced in a number of European countries, and I would like to see this extended to the whole EU.  Research in New Zealand found that children exposed to cigarette displays were almost three times more likely to smoke. 

Cutting smoking rates in Europe will have huge public health benefits and I hope other EU leaders will follow the lead of Ireland – who announced plans to introduce standardised packaging this week – and support strong tobacco control measures.  We owe it to our young people to protect them from the unscrupulous tactics of an industry that puts profit before people’s lives.

According to HMRC figures, the UK economy loses £9 billion a year due to companies and individuals not paying their taxes; that’s enough to pay for 600 new schools or 50 new hospitals.  At a time when ordinary people are suffering under public spending cuts and rising unemployment, making sure companies who make billions in profit pay their fair share should be one of the first actions of government. 

Many companies devote considerable resources to ensure that they minimise their tax liability. There is a large market for advising companies on how to take advantage of international tax law, and UKIP MEP, Godfrey Bloom, boasted this week that he used to do just that.  The four largest accountancy firms (Deloitte, Ernst and Young, KPMG, and PwC) employ nearly 9,000 people and earn £2 billion from their tax work in the UK alone. 

Tax avoidance – where companies use legal loopholes to reduce the tax they pay – and tax evasion – operating outside the law – are global problems not just confined to Europe.  Every year developing countries lose more income to tax dodging than they receive in foreign aid.  This is money that could be used to eliminate hunger or ensure 72 million children have access to education. 

It’s the kind of behaviour that recently led the Chair of the UK’s Public Accounts Committee, Margaret Hodge, to accuse Google’s northern Europe boss of being part of a company that does “do evil”. 

However, it now looks as if European leaders are waking up to the problem.  German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, raised the question of tax havens with David Cameron when he visited Berlin last month, as the UK has responsibility for a number of territories throughout the world where banking rules are minimal and where taxes are low or even non-existent. 

At a summit of the European Council on 22 May, tax policy was top of the agenda.  EU leaders reportedly agreed on the need for tougher rules on banking transparency and action against the sort of aggressive tax planning that sees companies exploit legal loopholes in order to minimise their tax bill.  Cameron has also promised that he will make the issue a top priority when the G8 meet in Northern Ireland next month. 

But we’re not exactly ahead of the game on this; the US has already introduced the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act forcing financial institutions to reveal savings of clients abroad, and there have been moves in Switzerland to force greater transparency in the banks. 

In the European Parliament on Tuesday, we voted on a report calling for strong action against tax fraud.  Measures in the report include establishing an EU-wide blacklist of tax havens, more resources for tax authorities to tackle tax fraud, and an obligation for companies to publish a single figure for the amount of tax paid in each EU country.  We’d also like to see companies that avoid tax barred from being awarded public contracts. 

But a number of Tory MEPs refused to support proposals for greater transparency in multinationals’ tax affairs, showing that while Cameron may talk big, his words aren’t always backed up by action. 

Meanwhile, Ed Miliband made it clear in a speech to Google this week that he sees cracking down on tax avoidance as a major priority for a future Labour government. 

It’s to be hoped that this week’s summit will be a real starting point for getting to grips with tax dodging across the EU.  MEPs have made it clear that, like the people we represent, we want to see tough rules that ensure companies pay their fair share in tax.  We’ll need to keep up the pressure to make sure our leaders follow their strong words with genuinely effective action.

Glenis Willmott, Leader of Labour MEPs said: “We are all too familiar with the statistics on domestic abuse in the UK.  One in four women will be a victim of domestic violence in their lifetime. One incident of domestic violence is reported to the police every minute and on average, two women a week are killed by a current or former male partner.”

“Behind these statistics are real women and children suffering the huge impacts of domestic abuse.”

“With over 1million British citizens living in other European countries it is vital that we are able to respond to the threat of domestic abuse across European borders.”

Glenis added: “This new multilingual certificate available online and easily transferrable between European countries will be a life saving measure for some victims of domestic abuse.”

“Victims of stalking, harassment or domestic abuse will also be guaranteed information and support in their own language.”

“This law is an example of the European Union working at its best to protect citizens.”

The ETS is at the heart of the EU’s climate change policy.  As the only system of its kind, it has helped to make the EU a world leader in the fight against global warming, with emissions from Europe’s power stations falling by 1.74% each year.

The aim of the ETS is to use market forces to drive investment in low-carbon and green technologies and thus combat climate change.  The EU set a cap on the amount of carbon that can be emitted by factories and power plants and emissions permits were then either allocated for free or auctioned, with companies able to trade these with each other.  A company that reduced its carbon emissions would therefore require fewer permits and could profit from selling unused permits on to other companies.  This would provide a financial incentive for companies to reduce their carbon emissions by investing in clean, low-carbon technology, which is needed in order for the EU to meet its target of reducing CO2 emissions by 20% on 1990 levels by 2020.

However, the reduction in industrial output due to the economic downturn, combined with an over-allocation of carbon credits in the previous two rounds, has undermined the ETS by creating a surplus of emissions permits, which means the price per permit has fallen.  The price of carbon is now below €4/tonne – much lower than the anticipated €30/tonne when the scheme was first launched – and as a result it has become more cost-effective for firms to pay for permits than to try to reduce their carbon emissions.

The report we voted on today proposed a short-term reduction in the number of permits auctioned – so-called ‘backloading’ as 900 million permits that were due to be released would be held back.  It was hoped that delaying the release of permits would push the price of carbon back up and help to keep the scheme viable.

We always knew the vote would be tight, with the EPP (the European Parliament’s main centre-right group) split on the issue and many UK Conservatives determined to vote against.  This was particularly absurd because their own Government supports the proposal, with UK energy secretary, Ed Davey, saying a rejection would imperil investments in green technologies.

The UK Government has already agreed to set a minimum price for carbon in order to give a degree of long-term certainty and encourage low-carbon investment, but with the European price having fallen so low, this will actually have the effect of putting UK firms at a disadvantage unless the EU-wide price of carbon can be pushed back up.

Climate change is not confined within national borders and so it’s clear we need to work together with our European partners to combat it.  However, there are fears that this rejection could lead to EU Member States all developing their own schemes, leading to a complex patchwork of climate legislation that will only serve to ensure companies are not operating on a level playing field and inhibit the single market.

Within industry itself, many big companies recognise that the ETS is important for economic growth, jobs and investment.  As for fears about interference in the market, even major global corporations like Shell have argued that sometimes intervention is necessary in order to restore confidence in the market.  It’s also important to remember that the proposal was for a one off intervention to buy time while reforms to the system were considered.

The rejection of this proposal not only severely weakens the ETS and risks the EU not meeting its own carbon reduction targets, it also damages the credibility if the EU as a world leader in climate policy.  As the IEA chief economist, Dr Faith Birol, highlighted today, saving the ETS “is important not only for Europe but also for the global fight against climate change.”

Vaccinations can be life savers.  I campaigned to implement vaccination programmes for the HPV virus, which causes cervical cancer.  Although this has been a success, still in England the total vaccination rate is around 87%.  We must improve on that figure to ensure all women are protected from cervical cancer.

In some cases we may not have the tools we need to effectively fight a disease.  For example tuberculosis, which many people assume is a disease of the past, is still a significant problem in the UK and the rest of the EU.  London has one of the highest TB rates in Western Europe.  Although we do have vaccines and treatments for the disease they are outdated and we desperately need to develop new ones.  Drug-resistant TB is on the rise and I am currently campaigning in the European Parliament to support the work of the Global Fund in fighting this devastating disease. 

Infectious diseases are a cross-border threat, and the EU has an important role to play in providing research funds to develop new vaccines, monitoring the threat of diseases through the European Centre for Disease Control, and procuring treatments for emerging health threats.  We must ensure that outbreaks such as those in Wales become a thing of the past.  In June I will be hosting a meeting on childhood immunisation in the European Parliament to look at how we can improve our system and finally put a stop some of these terrible diseases.

There’s a lot of truth in that. Many people are at best ambivalent about the European Union; the decision-making process of the European Union is confusing, and seems remote from our everyday lives.

But saying people aren’t interested in “Europe” as such, does not mean that people aren’t interested in issues where “Europe” has a role to play.

Because if no one is interested, why did I get hundreds of emails from constituents asking me to support their position in the vote a couple of weeks ago on reform of the common agricultural policy?

And if no one is interested in Europe, how did Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s campaign to stop the shameful discarding of fish have so much success and why did so many constituents take up the campaign, and contact MEPs about it?

And if no one is interested in Europe, why have I as a Member of the European Parliament, received numerous emails and letters from people across the East Midlands on issues as diverse as MOT tests, shark fins, e-cigarettes, bees, Gaza and the transportation of horses, to mention just a few.

Since the start of the year, I’ve already had over 2000 constituents contact me about such issues. Many have been asking me to support a particular position on new legislation, but there are also the individual cases, ranging from a local organisation in dispute with the European Commission, to an individual querying inheritance tax rules in Spain, to a firm from the region asking for clarification about toy safety rules.

Even the media – not renowned for taking Europe very seriously – were beating a path to my door when the horsemeat scandal was at its height – because it was clear that, as the affected meat had travelled around various EU countries before reaching the UK, and sixteen different EU countries are now affected, making sure this never happens again is something that can only be done at European level.

The truth is that, while people are largely indifferent to institutions and processes involved, they are concerned about issues. Only a handful of people are interested in the EU itself – but many more are interested in those areas where decisions are being made at European level.

©Carl Cordonnier Daily Life

This Sunday 24 March is World TB Day. It is a chance for us to celebrate the great advances made in fighting this devastating disease, and to remind ourselves of the challenges we still face. To mark the day I hosted an exhibition in the European Parliament, together with the World Health Organisation. Hopefully this will help raise awareness about the threat of TB within the European Union.

Next month I am launching a Written Declaration in the European Parliament to call for more action on drug-resistant TB. To fight this disease we must arm ourselves with new, effective drugs and vaccines. EU research funds have been invested in TB for years, and we have to support global efforts to tackle this cross-border disease through the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

Tuberculosis treatment is long and difficult. The disease is potentially fatal and can leave patients with lasting side effects. It remains a challenge not only in the developing world, but in developed countries too. It is time we truly consigned TB to the history books.