Thursday 21 December 2006
Heading home for Christmas
8.00 Fog is hitting Heathrow again, but I am on Eurostar home. However as we are into the fog season I buy spare Eurostar tickets in case I need them in January. Carol and I dash around the office doing final letters and other bits and pieces then we both head for Gare du Midi. I write the diary on the train – very therapeutic to do longhand but I must switch to my laptop. Now I can think about Christmas, apart from all the papers I have to read and a couple of articles I have to write…. The only meeting I have to do, so far, is in Oxford on the Kashmir Report.
Wednesday 20 December 2006
ECON, Damages and IP
8.30 Get to the office and check emails and voting lists.
9.30 Into the ECON Committee. I ask a question to Trichet (ECB) about oil prices, interest rates and hedge funds. Amongst his replies he moots ‘indirect surveillance’ as a possible hedge fund supervision technique. We vote at 11.15 on the Oil Prices report, Football and Social Services of General Interest. My office has done the voting list for Football, then Jorgo who is actually the shadow turns up. He and Olle Schmit think one change desirable, which is just about OK. Voting list on oil prices has grown to 13 pages. I have asked for several split votes where I like one bit of an amendment but not another, and these all get voted as I hoped.
Then we get to the exchange with the International Securities Commission and it is very interesting indeed. We get into some useful points on hedge funds and it is so interesting I almost forget to leave in time to get to my next meeting. Only miss the very end though.
13.00 A rapporteurs meeting on damages actions with the Commission. The Commission like the very European line taken by the Rapporteur but concede I have put my finger on the political problems. We can see the way forward on a couple of these but have to agree to differ on others. Anyway we have yet to have EPP input and Jonathan Evans, who has not made the meeting, has some amendments quite similar to my contested ones. The Socialists and the Commission are obviously targeting me to try and get the necessary majority. I would prefer to find a middle way that is not obstructive to further proposals being brought forward, but makes sure the difficulties of not getting a system that can be pushed in the direction US law has been pushed should not be underestimated. A further problem is that I am not actually the shadow and Karin, who is, has less sceptical views than I do.
15.00 I start to tidy office and file mountain of paper. I discover that the JURI Committee tomorrow has been cancelled so after JURI today I can clear up and get an early train tomorrow.
16.00 Go to JURI Committee, which is packed out and running late. The crowds are there for the discussion on designs protection for spare parts. This is one Intellectual Property issue on which I have not taken a lead as there are plenty of others around able to deal with this – it is not complicated just a battle over whether to stop design protection for spare parts, as has been done in the UK, or keep the car manufacturers happy as the Germans and French mainly want. After that I go out and have a chat with Erik Noteboom from the Commission then go back in for damages actions. The focus on this committee is very much on damages for consumers and follow-on actions after a competition authority has held that a company infringes competition law. This is popular, simple and represents championing the consumer, but it does not get to the important matter of digging out more cases. The amount of compensation consumers would get is likely to be small so really it is just a punishment.
18.00 Back to the office, continue to clear up and leave at 8pm.
9.30 Into the ECON Committee. I ask a question to Trichet (ECB) about oil prices, interest rates and hedge funds. Amongst his replies he moots ‘indirect surveillance’ as a possible hedge fund supervision technique. We vote at 11.15 on the Oil Prices report, Football and Social Services of General Interest. My office has done the voting list for Football, then Jorgo who is actually the shadow turns up. He and Olle Schmit think one change desirable, which is just about OK. Voting list on oil prices has grown to 13 pages. I have asked for several split votes where I like one bit of an amendment but not another, and these all get voted as I hoped.
Then we get to the exchange with the International Securities Commission and it is very interesting indeed. We get into some useful points on hedge funds and it is so interesting I almost forget to leave in time to get to my next meeting. Only miss the very end though.
13.00 A rapporteurs meeting on damages actions with the Commission. The Commission like the very European line taken by the Rapporteur but concede I have put my finger on the political problems. We can see the way forward on a couple of these but have to agree to differ on others. Anyway we have yet to have EPP input and Jonathan Evans, who has not made the meeting, has some amendments quite similar to my contested ones. The Socialists and the Commission are obviously targeting me to try and get the necessary majority. I would prefer to find a middle way that is not obstructive to further proposals being brought forward, but makes sure the difficulties of not getting a system that can be pushed in the direction US law has been pushed should not be underestimated. A further problem is that I am not actually the shadow and Karin, who is, has less sceptical views than I do.
15.00 I start to tidy office and file mountain of paper. I discover that the JURI Committee tomorrow has been cancelled so after JURI today I can clear up and get an early train tomorrow.
16.00 Go to JURI Committee, which is packed out and running late. The crowds are there for the discussion on designs protection for spare parts. This is one Intellectual Property issue on which I have not taken a lead as there are plenty of others around able to deal with this – it is not complicated just a battle over whether to stop design protection for spare parts, as has been done in the UK, or keep the car manufacturers happy as the Germans and French mainly want. After that I go out and have a chat with Erik Noteboom from the Commission then go back in for damages actions. The focus on this committee is very much on damages for consumers and follow-on actions after a competition authority has held that a company infringes competition law. This is popular, simple and represents championing the consumer, but it does not get to the important matter of digging out more cases. The amount of compensation consumers would get is likely to be small so really it is just a punishment.
18.00 Back to the office, continue to clear up and leave at 8pm.
Tuesday 19 December 2006
PPP, VAT and oil prices
8.00 Pass the croissant munchers and get to the office to work on PPP again. I think this is more-or-less it apart from final checking. So we can now get it off to the Secretariat well ahead of the translation deadline.
9.30 Meeting with representatives from the Ratings industry about Solvency 2. They think it is inevitable that Solvency 2 criteria will lead to mergers of smaller insurers. This may be most relevant in Germany and southern Member States.
10.00 Meeting on Fiscal Fraud with the Commission. We bash ideas around on the options in their paper. The main target is VAT Carousel fraud. Germany and Austria like the ‘reverse charge’ mechanism where VAT is only levied at the end. The UK prefers it just for certain sectors, eg mobile phones. Clamping down on reporting to a monthly basis could be a burden for smaller businesses. Beefing up ‘registration’ criteria is an option but could also lead to backlogs and problems for smaller businesses.
11.00 Meeting about Ashford and cuts to Eurostar services. Then more on oil price amendments.
12.30 UK Treasury come to see me on Solvency 2. This runs on so as usual no break and I rush straight to ECON prep meeting.
14.00 ECON prep meeting. I agree to be Rapporteur on the proposed new statistical agency but Wolf pinches back being shadow on Deposit Guarantee Schemes. Jorgo or I will be rapporteur on fiscal measures for innovation (later agreed it will be me).
15.00 Having had meetings all morning and worked non stop on Kashmir, oil prices and PPP I have sudden lack of energy. Down reviving cuppa, check oil prices voting list and head off to ECON. We seem to have lots of eminent people for ‘exchanges of views’ this week: chair of the European Government Forum, Chair of the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) today, and the European Central Bank President and the Chair of the Technical Committee of the International Organisation of Securities Commissions tomorrow.
Today we also discuss 6 dossiers including damages actions. The Rapporteur agrees most of my amendments, but the four he does not like go to the heart of the political difficulties. They will be discussed further in a meeting with other shadows and the Commission tomorrow.
19.30 I send further apologies to Jorgo Chatzimarkarkis for not joining his dinner on patents and pharmaceuticals. He has lots of interest so he does not need me and I have hit a brick wall and tomorrow is another very full day.
9.30 Meeting with representatives from the Ratings industry about Solvency 2. They think it is inevitable that Solvency 2 criteria will lead to mergers of smaller insurers. This may be most relevant in Germany and southern Member States.
10.00 Meeting on Fiscal Fraud with the Commission. We bash ideas around on the options in their paper. The main target is VAT Carousel fraud. Germany and Austria like the ‘reverse charge’ mechanism where VAT is only levied at the end. The UK prefers it just for certain sectors, eg mobile phones. Clamping down on reporting to a monthly basis could be a burden for smaller businesses. Beefing up ‘registration’ criteria is an option but could also lead to backlogs and problems for smaller businesses.
11.00 Meeting about Ashford and cuts to Eurostar services. Then more on oil price amendments.
12.30 UK Treasury come to see me on Solvency 2. This runs on so as usual no break and I rush straight to ECON prep meeting.
14.00 ECON prep meeting. I agree to be Rapporteur on the proposed new statistical agency but Wolf pinches back being shadow on Deposit Guarantee Schemes. Jorgo or I will be rapporteur on fiscal measures for innovation (later agreed it will be me).
15.00 Having had meetings all morning and worked non stop on Kashmir, oil prices and PPP I have sudden lack of energy. Down reviving cuppa, check oil prices voting list and head off to ECON. We seem to have lots of eminent people for ‘exchanges of views’ this week: chair of the European Government Forum, Chair of the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) today, and the European Central Bank President and the Chair of the Technical Committee of the International Organisation of Securities Commissions tomorrow.
Today we also discuss 6 dossiers including damages actions. The Rapporteur agrees most of my amendments, but the four he does not like go to the heart of the political difficulties. They will be discussed further in a meeting with other shadows and the Commission tomorrow.
19.30 I send further apologies to Jorgo Chatzimarkarkis for not joining his dinner on patents and pharmaceuticals. He has lots of interest so he does not need me and I have hit a brick wall and tomorrow is another very full day.
Monday 18 December 2006
Kashmir and Plenary
This is a Committee week, but slightly unusual in that on Monday morning we have an ‘Extraordinary’ session of plenary to report back on the Prime Ministers’ (Council) meeting last week.
8.30 En route to the Parliament I note, as I often do, how much there is a café culture even first thing in the morning, with many people having their coffee and croissants on their way to work. I start work in the office on a detailed review of Saj Karim’s proposals for amendments to the Kashmir report. I just about get through them and give Carol a check list of queries and suggestions to go through with the Karim office. I will be happy to co-sign most if not all these once the queries sorted. By the time we finish there will be over 60 amendments.
10.00 A special Group meeting, prior to the Extraordinary Plenary. We agree that there have been good things about the 6 months of the Finish Presidency, which is just finishing, even though they have not been big headlines. 86% of Council meetings have been in public, so that is a huge improvement in transparency. However our openness campaign continues: we are now pressing for Member States to make it much clearer how they have transposed European Laws into national ones. Often this is not a simple matter with there being lots of amendments to a range of pre-existing national laws rather than a blanket new law. This is one reason why it is often said the EU has made ‘hundreds’ of laws. Not only would publication of the so-called ‘correlation tables’ make it easier to see what has been done, but it would also expose the extent of ‘gold plating’.
Various issues are agreed upon that Graham Watson will include in his speech in Plenary. In general we are pleased that the doors to EU enlargement remain open. We are dissatisfied with no progress being made on Parliament getting scrutiny of justice issues. These are still all ‘intergovernmental’, that is only ministers decide, with veto possible. In Eurospeak this is the ‘third pillar’. If the Member States agreed, it could be moved to the ‘first pillar’ where decisions involve the Parliament. However, the UK is among the several significant countries that do not want such a move. This means, for example, that the Parliament gets no oversight of the Eurojust agreement with the US, where we fear ‘torture light’ is now the norm. We are pleased to see agreement on setting immigration policy on an EU basis. We also welcome the new ‘comitology’ procedures that mean changes in regulations have to be referred back to Parliament committees. So now the Parliament has more oversight and there will be less ‘doing it alone’ by the Commission.
11.00 Plenary. The Fins summary closely follows our analysis – perhaps not surprising as it is a Liberal Government! Barroso points out that Europe IS doing things that people are interested in – Economy, Energy and Climate, External Policy. The EPP leader Poettering is next on and follows suit. He then uses the second half of his speech to thank all his colleagues on all sides of the house – he is stepping down as EPP leader and expecting to be elected President of the Parliament, so this is a bid for our votes. He is not the only one at it. Monica Frassoni (Green) has been strutting around and talking to anyone who will listen. Shulz, the Socialist leader is next, says much the same as everyone and then endorses Poettering as there has been the usual deal between the two big groups to share the spoils between themselves.
I spot Pervenche Beres, the Socialist chair of the ECON committee in discussion with Ike Van den Burg, the Socialist co-ordinator on ECON, and suspect it may be about oil price compromises. This turns out to be the case and Pervenche approaches me with a new version of the hedge funds section, which I tweak and agree.
Graham’s speech is good and I also like the one by Brian Crowley, leader of the UEN. I am not impressed by Monica Frassoni, so I leave.
12.30 More work on the Kashmir amendments, then a review of all the amendments on private damages actions followed by my amendments on Purchasing Price Parity (PPP), which Carol has typed up. This swallows up the afternoon.
17.00 I talk to a visiting group from Oxford High School, then back to the office and the paperwork.
18.30 The ECON ALDE MEPs have a dinner, with assistants. Carol cries off as she has a bit of a cold. It also turns out to be a bit of a leaving party for Ulrika, assistant to Wolf Klinz.
8.30 En route to the Parliament I note, as I often do, how much there is a café culture even first thing in the morning, with many people having their coffee and croissants on their way to work. I start work in the office on a detailed review of Saj Karim’s proposals for amendments to the Kashmir report. I just about get through them and give Carol a check list of queries and suggestions to go through with the Karim office. I will be happy to co-sign most if not all these once the queries sorted. By the time we finish there will be over 60 amendments.
10.00 A special Group meeting, prior to the Extraordinary Plenary. We agree that there have been good things about the 6 months of the Finish Presidency, which is just finishing, even though they have not been big headlines. 86% of Council meetings have been in public, so that is a huge improvement in transparency. However our openness campaign continues: we are now pressing for Member States to make it much clearer how they have transposed European Laws into national ones. Often this is not a simple matter with there being lots of amendments to a range of pre-existing national laws rather than a blanket new law. This is one reason why it is often said the EU has made ‘hundreds’ of laws. Not only would publication of the so-called ‘correlation tables’ make it easier to see what has been done, but it would also expose the extent of ‘gold plating’.
Various issues are agreed upon that Graham Watson will include in his speech in Plenary. In general we are pleased that the doors to EU enlargement remain open. We are dissatisfied with no progress being made on Parliament getting scrutiny of justice issues. These are still all ‘intergovernmental’, that is only ministers decide, with veto possible. In Eurospeak this is the ‘third pillar’. If the Member States agreed, it could be moved to the ‘first pillar’ where decisions involve the Parliament. However, the UK is among the several significant countries that do not want such a move. This means, for example, that the Parliament gets no oversight of the Eurojust agreement with the US, where we fear ‘torture light’ is now the norm. We are pleased to see agreement on setting immigration policy on an EU basis. We also welcome the new ‘comitology’ procedures that mean changes in regulations have to be referred back to Parliament committees. So now the Parliament has more oversight and there will be less ‘doing it alone’ by the Commission.
11.00 Plenary. The Fins summary closely follows our analysis – perhaps not surprising as it is a Liberal Government! Barroso points out that Europe IS doing things that people are interested in – Economy, Energy and Climate, External Policy. The EPP leader Poettering is next on and follows suit. He then uses the second half of his speech to thank all his colleagues on all sides of the house – he is stepping down as EPP leader and expecting to be elected President of the Parliament, so this is a bid for our votes. He is not the only one at it. Monica Frassoni (Green) has been strutting around and talking to anyone who will listen. Shulz, the Socialist leader is next, says much the same as everyone and then endorses Poettering as there has been the usual deal between the two big groups to share the spoils between themselves.
I spot Pervenche Beres, the Socialist chair of the ECON committee in discussion with Ike Van den Burg, the Socialist co-ordinator on ECON, and suspect it may be about oil price compromises. This turns out to be the case and Pervenche approaches me with a new version of the hedge funds section, which I tweak and agree.
Graham’s speech is good and I also like the one by Brian Crowley, leader of the UEN. I am not impressed by Monica Frassoni, so I leave.
12.30 More work on the Kashmir amendments, then a review of all the amendments on private damages actions followed by my amendments on Purchasing Price Parity (PPP), which Carol has typed up. This swallows up the afternoon.
17.00 I talk to a visiting group from Oxford High School, then back to the office and the paperwork.
18.30 The ECON ALDE MEPs have a dinner, with assistants. Carol cries off as she has a bit of a cold. It also turns out to be a bit of a leaving party for Ulrika, assistant to Wolf Klinz.
Friday 15 December 2006
Meetings and shopping
In Brussels for a second Friday in a row. Most unusual. ELDR Bureau meeting ai 10.00 – 13.00. Then finish Fiscal Fraud. I am staying in Brussels tonight so that I can get essentials for furnishing my flat.
Thursday 14 December 2006
Office Day
9.00 In office in Brussels. Work on Purchasing price Parities. Write most of my report and amendments. I should finish tomorrow so it can be sent for translation. Happy calls and emails coming in on on the Audio Visual Media Directive. I get the impression some singing of ‘one vote, one vote, one vote, one vote etc’ went on in Strasbourg bars last night.
14.30 ELDR Leader’s meeting followed by dinner.
14.30 ELDR Leader’s meeting followed by dinner.
Wednesday 13 December 2006
A narrow victory!
9.00 Meet with UKREP on REACH. Visit really just for the new guy (Andrew Empson) on this portfolio to introduce himself. I tell him the Lib Dems all voting for the compromise packet.
10.00 Meet with Diana to discuss various issues and agree we will do a joint email on the voting for vice presidents.
12.00 Votes. REACH and Audio visual media. We win on my 30 minutes amendment by 1 vote!!
13.00 Back to the office to pack trunk as I have to leave later today. Check through compromise proposals on oil prices. Some are OK, hedge fund and speculation bit no good. I compose a new compromise and make copies to take to the meeting.
15.45 Meeting with Rapporteur and shadows on oil prices. In general they like my new compromise, but not everyone there. However we get close to consensus on most things.
16.30 Leave for airport. This is unusual, but I have to be in Brussels tomorrow for the ELDR Leader’s meeting because I am a vice-president of the ELDR Party. Means I miss the Xmas Party, again.
10.00 Meet with Diana to discuss various issues and agree we will do a joint email on the voting for vice presidents.
12.00 Votes. REACH and Audio visual media. We win on my 30 minutes amendment by 1 vote!!
13.00 Back to the office to pack trunk as I have to leave later today. Check through compromise proposals on oil prices. Some are OK, hedge fund and speculation bit no good. I compose a new compromise and make copies to take to the meeting.
15.45 Meeting with Rapporteur and shadows on oil prices. In general they like my new compromise, but not everyone there. However we get close to consensus on most things.
16.30 Leave for airport. This is unusual, but I have to be in Brussels tomorrow for the ELDR Leader’s meeting because I am a vice-president of the ELDR Party. Means I miss the Xmas Party, again.
Tuesday 12 December 2006
Sunrise regulations and Belarus
8.00 LDEPP breakfast. We have just started to have these as a way to discuss matters more privately and informally (without our assistants). We discuss how to get the best positions for our delegation in the package of vice presidents. Basically we can get one of our favourites, but by the time our second choice turn comes round our other favourites will have gone. We agree to have an email vote for preferences. I can participate in this discussion with some effect as I am not in contention for anything.
There is general agreement that posts should go to longer serving MEPs who have not had anything yet. So this means we would be giving up Emma’s VP of foreign affairs and I say we have to have a VP of a main committee, not a sub committee as a replacement. It boils down to asking for Employment, Civil Liberties or Budgets, which would match up with Liz, Sarah and Bill respectively. We also discuss how to handle Emmas’s Kashmir report. I expect there will be a lot of amendments and I have been looking at some of Saj Karim’s proposals which look pretty good.
9.00 In to working group B. Lots of time spent on issues not of my involvement but we get on to mobile phone roaming at the end. I float my idea of having a ‘sunrise’ regulation on data regulation. The problem is that if we include data straight away it will delay matters because there has not been an impact assessment. So I propose a clause in waiting that can be activated when impact assessments have been done, unless industry has made better arrangements by then.
11.30 Into the hemicycle to vote. This is followed by the award of the Sakharov prize to Aexander Milinkevich of Belarus. He makes a speech about the situation in Belarus then we have more votes. This takes us past 13.00.
14.00 – 15.00 We have an ECON preparatory meeting. Wolf Klinz explains that we are still being shut out from getting the ‘sexy’ rapporteurships by the EPP and Socialists doing the usual two party carve up. I agree to do the new statistical agency and fiscal incentives for research, though it is mentioned Jorgo Chatzimarkarkis may also want the latter. We will see.
15.00 I dash to plenary just in time for the start of the AMS debate. I am scheduled to speak at 15.39 but it turns out to be rather later. I cover the two points of short news reports and advertising time.
16.30 Back to the office. Emails, more voting lists and then Channel 4 phone re AMS and asking how I think it will go and who to lobby. I say they should try and get info out of Socialists. Both we and the EPP have some against 30 minutes (i.e they want no breaks in programs shorter than 35 minutes, or even 45 minutes) so the 30 minute amendment will need some Socialists to support it to get through. Greens are against and seem to think everything should be state sponsored. They are worse than the Socialists on this! I suggest they ask UK Labour MEPs and reveal the location of the UKREP Xmas Party which will see most UK MEPs passing through at some stage.
17.45 TV interview on the Audio Visual Media Directive.
18.00 Back into plenary to pose an oral question to the Commission on worker mobility. I have the first question thanks to Carol having stood with her finger on the button of the fax machine when the time opened for this session.
18.30 I get to the UKREP reception. Channel 4 and other media seem to have got there, which I think is quite proper for UK media anyway. Someone seems to have got too many noughts on the mince pie order.
19.00 Into Group. The Sakharov Prize winner is there to speak to us. He explains how there is oppression of real democracy in Belarus. We discuss driving licences again, but we still do not prevail. On balance most will go for the package even though it is not optimum for motorcyclists. I will have to mark this on the voting lists. The only thing we can do is vote against the whole package, but it will not stop it . We get on to Audio Visual Media again. Some new proposals from the French and Belgians, but with the help of the Lib Dem proxy power we see those off. I leave at 20.45 to go to a dinner on Hedge Funds, which is very interesting, speakers from industry.
There is general agreement that posts should go to longer serving MEPs who have not had anything yet. So this means we would be giving up Emma’s VP of foreign affairs and I say we have to have a VP of a main committee, not a sub committee as a replacement. It boils down to asking for Employment, Civil Liberties or Budgets, which would match up with Liz, Sarah and Bill respectively. We also discuss how to handle Emmas’s Kashmir report. I expect there will be a lot of amendments and I have been looking at some of Saj Karim’s proposals which look pretty good.
9.00 In to working group B. Lots of time spent on issues not of my involvement but we get on to mobile phone roaming at the end. I float my idea of having a ‘sunrise’ regulation on data regulation. The problem is that if we include data straight away it will delay matters because there has not been an impact assessment. So I propose a clause in waiting that can be activated when impact assessments have been done, unless industry has made better arrangements by then.
11.30 Into the hemicycle to vote. This is followed by the award of the Sakharov prize to Aexander Milinkevich of Belarus. He makes a speech about the situation in Belarus then we have more votes. This takes us past 13.00.
14.00 – 15.00 We have an ECON preparatory meeting. Wolf Klinz explains that we are still being shut out from getting the ‘sexy’ rapporteurships by the EPP and Socialists doing the usual two party carve up. I agree to do the new statistical agency and fiscal incentives for research, though it is mentioned Jorgo Chatzimarkarkis may also want the latter. We will see.
15.00 I dash to plenary just in time for the start of the AMS debate. I am scheduled to speak at 15.39 but it turns out to be rather later. I cover the two points of short news reports and advertising time.
16.30 Back to the office. Emails, more voting lists and then Channel 4 phone re AMS and asking how I think it will go and who to lobby. I say they should try and get info out of Socialists. Both we and the EPP have some against 30 minutes (i.e they want no breaks in programs shorter than 35 minutes, or even 45 minutes) so the 30 minute amendment will need some Socialists to support it to get through. Greens are against and seem to think everything should be state sponsored. They are worse than the Socialists on this! I suggest they ask UK Labour MEPs and reveal the location of the UKREP Xmas Party which will see most UK MEPs passing through at some stage.
17.45 TV interview on the Audio Visual Media Directive.
18.00 Back into plenary to pose an oral question to the Commission on worker mobility. I have the first question thanks to Carol having stood with her finger on the button of the fax machine when the time opened for this session.
18.30 I get to the UKREP reception. Channel 4 and other media seem to have got there, which I think is quite proper for UK media anyway. Someone seems to have got too many noughts on the mince pie order.
19.00 Into Group. The Sakharov Prize winner is there to speak to us. He explains how there is oppression of real democracy in Belarus. We discuss driving licences again, but we still do not prevail. On balance most will go for the package even though it is not optimum for motorcyclists. I will have to mark this on the voting lists. The only thing we can do is vote against the whole package, but it will not stop it . We get on to Audio Visual Media again. Some new proposals from the French and Belgians, but with the help of the Lib Dem proxy power we see those off. I leave at 20.45 to go to a dinner on Hedge Funds, which is very interesting, speakers from industry.
Monday 11 December 2006
Arrival in Strasbourg
10.05 Flight to Basle arrives on time, but something has gone wrong with my car booking. More people than usual have come in at this time and I appear to be the one missing from the list! A gallant Austrian MEP Johannes, who regularly travels in the same car suggests I go in his place and he will go with the next car, due in about half an hour. When in the car I phone Carol to find out what has gone wrong. My booking was confirmed, but she finds out that the next car is also full so Johannes will have to get the train and, it being a Strasbourg week, there is also a rail strike! (I harbour deep suspicions that French strikes are always scheduled to disrupt Strasbourg). I find out later that Johannes arrives ok, by train, and I promise recompense in the bar.
11.30 I arrive in Strasbourg, among the first to do so. Carol is there because rail strike has stopped her going back to Brux until later; usually she would not arrive until a couple of hours after me. I unpack my trunk, check emails and start working on voting lists. We vote on the Audiovisual Media Directive this week and the phones and emails are hot. Our Group’s voting list is out and we check through that Ignasi and the Group secretariat have got it all as expected, which is the case. My amendment on 30 minutes has been split into two parts, which is good because otherwise I would have asked in Group to split it as the second part is unrelated to time. It seems the EPP also agreed to put in the 30 minute amendment, but they have not got ‘scheduled’ in, so it is not quite as good. Still that makes it look like we may get it through, but nothing is certain as all Groups are split on this. Carol leaves and Joe arrives.
15.30 I go down to working Group C to find out what is going on and stay for full Group which starts at 15.30. Numbers in attendance are low. I guess the rail strike and fog has taken its toll. We discuss various issues (not mine) and I find out that I have 1 minute to speak in the Audivisual Media debate. So that is now the challenge, how to make sense and a valid contribution in a minute.
17.00 I sort out papers for the LDEPP meeting, I am in the chair again. I am just getting ready to trot over to the other building when I am telephoned by the Times. I give comments on the lastest proposals from the UK on mobile phone roaming charges. UK do not want to regulate retail prices, only wholesale. That does not ensure adequate competition. So I side more with the Commission and say that the Treasury probably has its eyes on the next round of bidding and does not want anything that would depress that, meanwhile consumers are left paying through the nose. I also have my eye on data roaming charges. I finish the interview as I get to the LDEPP meeting and wonder why it is they only call when one in on the march.
17.30 LDEPP meeting. We get through the business quickly and agree proxies for AMS just in case a hijack comes up in Group, and also for the report on Romania. We are concerned about the treatment of motorcyclists in the European Driving Licence Directive, and we also discuss Menzies Campbell’s upcoming speech on Europe. We wish we could update it a bit more.
18.00 Working Group A. We do not discuss the Audio Visual Media Directive because Ignasi has not arrived yet. I report on one ECON vote Liz and I go to dinner at 20.00
11.30 I arrive in Strasbourg, among the first to do so. Carol is there because rail strike has stopped her going back to Brux until later; usually she would not arrive until a couple of hours after me. I unpack my trunk, check emails and start working on voting lists. We vote on the Audiovisual Media Directive this week and the phones and emails are hot. Our Group’s voting list is out and we check through that Ignasi and the Group secretariat have got it all as expected, which is the case. My amendment on 30 minutes has been split into two parts, which is good because otherwise I would have asked in Group to split it as the second part is unrelated to time. It seems the EPP also agreed to put in the 30 minute amendment, but they have not got ‘scheduled’ in, so it is not quite as good. Still that makes it look like we may get it through, but nothing is certain as all Groups are split on this. Carol leaves and Joe arrives.
15.30 I go down to working Group C to find out what is going on and stay for full Group which starts at 15.30. Numbers in attendance are low. I guess the rail strike and fog has taken its toll. We discuss various issues (not mine) and I find out that I have 1 minute to speak in the Audivisual Media debate. So that is now the challenge, how to make sense and a valid contribution in a minute.
17.00 I sort out papers for the LDEPP meeting, I am in the chair again. I am just getting ready to trot over to the other building when I am telephoned by the Times. I give comments on the lastest proposals from the UK on mobile phone roaming charges. UK do not want to regulate retail prices, only wholesale. That does not ensure adequate competition. So I side more with the Commission and say that the Treasury probably has its eyes on the next round of bidding and does not want anything that would depress that, meanwhile consumers are left paying through the nose. I also have my eye on data roaming charges. I finish the interview as I get to the LDEPP meeting and wonder why it is they only call when one in on the march.
17.30 LDEPP meeting. We get through the business quickly and agree proxies for AMS just in case a hijack comes up in Group, and also for the report on Romania. We are concerned about the treatment of motorcyclists in the European Driving Licence Directive, and we also discuss Menzies Campbell’s upcoming speech on Europe. We wish we could update it a bit more.
18.00 Working Group A. We do not discuss the Audio Visual Media Directive because Ignasi has not arrived yet. I report on one ECON vote Liz and I go to dinner at 20.00
11 – 14 December Plenary Week, Strasbourg
This is a Strasbourg Plenary week, full of parliament debates and votes. We have all packed trunks to go – MEPs, assistants, Parliament staff etc. For almost all of it is more awkward to get to Strasbourg than to Brussels. I get the 7.20 flight to Basle from Luton and transfer by car. Which means getting up at about 4am. So as we often say, Strasbourg week starts badly and only gets worse (especially if you end up with speaking time at midnight).
Friday 8 December 2006
Guildford FSB
I am travelling back to the UK today instead of last night as this is a better way to get to Guildford, connecting at Waterloo, than doing battle on the M25 on a Friday afternoon.
So this morning I finish packing up the trunk, clearing my desk and planning next week with Carol because she is not staying for the Strasbourg plenary, so that my stagiere Joe can come instead. (In fact Carol will go to Strasbourg to sightsee with her mother at the weekend and hand over to Joe on Monday).
This afternoon and this evening I am with the Federation of Small Businesses for a workshop and dinner on the EU. I plan to explain how to engage in the process of lobbying MEPs effectively.
So this morning I finish packing up the trunk, clearing my desk and planning next week with Carol because she is not staying for the Strasbourg plenary, so that my stagiere Joe can come instead. (In fact Carol will go to Strasbourg to sightsee with her mother at the weekend and hand over to Joe on Monday).
This afternoon and this evening I am with the Federation of Small Businesses for a workshop and dinner on the EU. I plan to explain how to engage in the process of lobbying MEPs effectively.
Thursday 7 December 2006
Patents and Property
9.00 Arrive, rather wet, at the Conrad. People are arriving for a two day world conference on IP, which is why we put my dinner yesterday. However, I am here to participate in a meeting on the ‘fringe’ for Truffles 100, which is the top 100 software companies in Europe. I miss the Truffles reception desk but meet Ron Zink of Microsoft who is here for the main conference and he points me in the right direction. Feel quite miserable I am not doing the main conference, but I am spread thinly enough already.
In the Truffles event there are two panel sessions. Commissioner Reding is there to wind up the first. The issues of business software patents and procurement come up. She ducks on patents, deferring to McCreevy. I resist asking whether that is what she does in the college. Those present gave a very eloquent explanation of why we need US style business software patents. This is the first time I have heard this from European companies and I am surprised. I think they have missed the boat, nevertheless it was good that the Commissioner heard it.
The Commissioner leaves and I wind up the session, dealing with issues from both panels. Lots of questions on software, patents and EPLA. I tell them that this is the first time I have heard European voices asking for business software patents and that just about everbody is against it (including me, though I confess their argument had some good points). I tell them it is not on the radar at the moment. The Gowers report is against it as well. I am able to recyle the information from Tuesday’s breakfast of procurement (happy coincidence) and I am asked about procurement of software for stock exchanges. This lead into an explanation of how I believe that if there is a merger of a US and European stock exchange then US Sarbanes Oxley regulation could be imposed if they share a technology platform. This would be one very good reason to buy European (only I think that is NOT what the committee of European supervisors is proposing). I spoke on this Sarbanes Oxley point and shared technology platforms in plenary some while ago, with much approval from ECON colleagues. Maybe I should do a Parliamentary question on it.
The meeting goes on much longer than planned so with chat afterwards I get back to my office at about 13.15. Fill up with cups of tea and try to catch up with UK member of the ECON Secretariat who has had outrageous (and I believe wholly untrue) allegations made about him in the Austrian press by an Austrian MEP.
14.00 Meet with chief patent counsel of Intel, also over here for the IP conference. He has also seen Toine Manders. He appears happy with the line I am taking on Criminal Sanctions for IP. We chat about how things are going generally and he says I should be doing a presentation to the IP Conference.
15.00 Check through purchasing price parity papers with Carol, pack my trunk for Strasbourg next week with all the papers I will need. Collect plane ticket for Strasbourg Brussels next week and buy Eurostar tickets. Collect items for speech tomorrow and somehow it is 20.30 before I leave. On the way out a Finnish colleague stops me to say he has heard I got my amendments through Group and he is supportive. I am seen talking with him by another colleague (Jan Mulder) who jokingly asks if I am organising a coup.
In the Truffles event there are two panel sessions. Commissioner Reding is there to wind up the first. The issues of business software patents and procurement come up. She ducks on patents, deferring to McCreevy. I resist asking whether that is what she does in the college. Those present gave a very eloquent explanation of why we need US style business software patents. This is the first time I have heard this from European companies and I am surprised. I think they have missed the boat, nevertheless it was good that the Commissioner heard it.
The Commissioner leaves and I wind up the session, dealing with issues from both panels. Lots of questions on software, patents and EPLA. I tell them that this is the first time I have heard European voices asking for business software patents and that just about everbody is against it (including me, though I confess their argument had some good points). I tell them it is not on the radar at the moment. The Gowers report is against it as well. I am able to recyle the information from Tuesday’s breakfast of procurement (happy coincidence) and I am asked about procurement of software for stock exchanges. This lead into an explanation of how I believe that if there is a merger of a US and European stock exchange then US Sarbanes Oxley regulation could be imposed if they share a technology platform. This would be one very good reason to buy European (only I think that is NOT what the committee of European supervisors is proposing). I spoke on this Sarbanes Oxley point and shared technology platforms in plenary some while ago, with much approval from ECON colleagues. Maybe I should do a Parliamentary question on it.
The meeting goes on much longer than planned so with chat afterwards I get back to my office at about 13.15. Fill up with cups of tea and try to catch up with UK member of the ECON Secretariat who has had outrageous (and I believe wholly untrue) allegations made about him in the Austrian press by an Austrian MEP.
14.00 Meet with chief patent counsel of Intel, also over here for the IP conference. He has also seen Toine Manders. He appears happy with the line I am taking on Criminal Sanctions for IP. We chat about how things are going generally and he says I should be doing a presentation to the IP Conference.
15.00 Check through purchasing price parity papers with Carol, pack my trunk for Strasbourg next week with all the papers I will need. Collect plane ticket for Strasbourg Brussels next week and buy Eurostar tickets. Collect items for speech tomorrow and somehow it is 20.30 before I leave. On the way out a Finnish colleague stops me to say he has heard I got my amendments through Group and he is supportive. I am seen talking with him by another colleague (Jan Mulder) who jokingly asks if I am organising a coup.
Wednesday 6 December 2006
More IP and TV
9.00 Straight to group after checking emails. A long discussion takes place on Roma and their treatment, which has been held over from yesterday. Also a discussion on the rest of the ‘package’ of how positions will be shared out among the national delegations. There has been a suggestion that the number of vice-presidents per committee be increased to 4. This is obviously a ruse to prevent anyone having to give anything up to accommodate Bulgarian and Romanian colleagues. Andrew Duff says it will take great skill then to avoid being a VP and can he have Group agreement to vote against it in the constitution committee. Although for a few of the busier committees it might be useful, it is generally agreed we think it a bad idea and agree to vote against it.
Chris then explains the deal on REACH for plenary. Rather aggravatingly, just as we get onto the important plenary items a speaking time limit is introduced because we have spent so much time on the other items. Discontent is expressed that this is again happening on legislative items. Back to REACH and there is general acceptance of the negotiated package, but discontent that too much of the negotiation with Council means things become secret rather than transparent. Also, only the biggest issues get dealt with and lots of the smaller things that are important to the Parliament get lost. I agree, this is what I can see happening on Payments. We should try to achieve a better solution.
We then discuss Audiovisual Media. Ignasi takes 25 minutes to introduce it, most of which is background. Other speakers are then limited to 2 minutes each. This is not fair on those, like me, who have submitted significant numbers of amendments, on key point, to Group. I make a bit of a fuss about it and how legislative items should be top of the agenda. Desk banging and clapping from colleagues in support (again!). Others who have made similar complaints in the past speak up, so let’s see what happens in the future. We get towards voting time and Lib Dems and Germans thin on the ground so I signal to Carol to go out and get summoning. Impressive response and I need not have panicked on time because Ignasi takes another 13 minutes to wind up! This really is not fair to give him so much time to bash the amendments I have no time to explain. The same applies to the Italian amendments even though they are the opposite direction to mine. He does not like my amendments in the main, but I win the important votes thanks to full voting from Lib Dems, Germans and some last minute switching of Dutch votes. So we will be submitting my amendments, which will keep the sports organisations, channel 4 and ITN happy. Meeting ends at 12.35
13.00 Down to the Member’s restaurant for lunch with the Board of SEEDA.
14.30 An interview for one hour with Dr Sebastian Haunss of the University of Hamburg Institute of Political Science. All about IP again. He records everything I say. He asks questions about what influence I think others have in the Patents debates. I am not sure he realises that I am so busy with my head down doing what needs to be done that I have not been looking at it from that perspective.
16.00 – 17.00 Meeting with the Commission on Purchasing Price Parities, for which I am the Rapporteur (main). We compare the Commission and Council proposals and I check some of the queries I have. It all looks straightforward.
17.30 Meet with ECON secretariat on Fiscal Fraud for which I am also Rapporteur. We discuss having a Hearing and an outline of possible invitees.
18.30 Just about time to print off the 141 pages of the Gowers Report on IP, browse briefly and head off to my European Patent Reform dinner.
19.00 Dinner.It is run on Chatham House rules. We go through a highly specialised analysis of EPLA and the role of the EU institutions versus that of Member States, lead by Jaques Borgeois. We examine all kinds of scenarios. It is great to be among IP professionals for this and just what we needed. We agree that having a meeting like this every couple of months would be a good thing.
Chris then explains the deal on REACH for plenary. Rather aggravatingly, just as we get onto the important plenary items a speaking time limit is introduced because we have spent so much time on the other items. Discontent is expressed that this is again happening on legislative items. Back to REACH and there is general acceptance of the negotiated package, but discontent that too much of the negotiation with Council means things become secret rather than transparent. Also, only the biggest issues get dealt with and lots of the smaller things that are important to the Parliament get lost. I agree, this is what I can see happening on Payments. We should try to achieve a better solution.
We then discuss Audiovisual Media. Ignasi takes 25 minutes to introduce it, most of which is background. Other speakers are then limited to 2 minutes each. This is not fair on those, like me, who have submitted significant numbers of amendments, on key point, to Group. I make a bit of a fuss about it and how legislative items should be top of the agenda. Desk banging and clapping from colleagues in support (again!). Others who have made similar complaints in the past speak up, so let’s see what happens in the future. We get towards voting time and Lib Dems and Germans thin on the ground so I signal to Carol to go out and get summoning. Impressive response and I need not have panicked on time because Ignasi takes another 13 minutes to wind up! This really is not fair to give him so much time to bash the amendments I have no time to explain. The same applies to the Italian amendments even though they are the opposite direction to mine. He does not like my amendments in the main, but I win the important votes thanks to full voting from Lib Dems, Germans and some last minute switching of Dutch votes. So we will be submitting my amendments, which will keep the sports organisations, channel 4 and ITN happy. Meeting ends at 12.35
13.00 Down to the Member’s restaurant for lunch with the Board of SEEDA.
14.30 An interview for one hour with Dr Sebastian Haunss of the University of Hamburg Institute of Political Science. All about IP again. He records everything I say. He asks questions about what influence I think others have in the Patents debates. I am not sure he realises that I am so busy with my head down doing what needs to be done that I have not been looking at it from that perspective.
16.00 – 17.00 Meeting with the Commission on Purchasing Price Parities, for which I am the Rapporteur (main). We compare the Commission and Council proposals and I check some of the queries I have. It all looks straightforward.
17.30 Meet with ECON secretariat on Fiscal Fraud for which I am also Rapporteur. We discuss having a Hearing and an outline of possible invitees.
18.30 Just about time to print off the 141 pages of the Gowers Report on IP, browse briefly and head off to my European Patent Reform dinner.
19.00 Dinner.It is run on Chatham House rules. We go through a highly specialised analysis of EPLA and the role of the EU institutions versus that of Member States, lead by Jaques Borgeois. We examine all kinds of scenarios. It is great to be among IP professionals for this and just what we needed. We agree that having a meeting like this every couple of months would be a good thing.
Tuesday 5 December 2006
Open competition and Intellectual Property
8.00 – 9.30 Attend a working breakfast on procurement, in particular for SMEs. Turns out to be very interesting. Proposals are afoot to encourage public authorities to commission innovative solutions and technology, ideally from EU companies, rather than just buy the leading (often US) solution. In other words get out of the mentality of ‘nobody is ever sacked for buying IBM’. DG infosoc are publishing a manual; they seem to be suggesting some kind of preferential treatment.
It is then pointed out by Comptia in their presentation that Mandelson has said we have to have open competition, how can we tell other countries to be open then do something different. The representative from DG Enterprise is then put on the spot to try and bridge the gap between these two views. His solution is to address attitude, rather than have favouritism, and it seems they are bringing out a manual too! Another of the industry representatives points out that the EU constantly bemoans having a fragmented market, and that it will never stop if we have this fragmented approach in the Commission and pleads for them to get their act together. I agree but resist doing a bit of table thumping.
We get to the end of the presentations and all the other MEPs except Pia Noora Kauppi, who is the host, leave. Me being naive again, this means Pia Noora has no option but to put me on the spot to respond! I say that as a Brit and a Liberal it is not surprising that I agree the competition line expounded by Mandelson, but that having a more flexible, entrepreneurial attitude and getting out of the ‘buy safe’ mentality is important.
9.30 Get to office for meeting with David Howarth MP, find he has been delayed so I do a note on Russia and IP to send down to Working Group C (foreign affairs) in case it comes up before I get there. David arrives and we have useful exchanges on issues in his DTI portfolio which covers intellectual property. He tells me that some of the economic analysis I have heard (and which I think is wrong), using the ex-ante and ex-post value of patents and responding to them as monopolies, is out of date economics and it is now accepted that patent have to be treated like property. Halleluiah – nice to find an economist I can agree with, but I thought that was always why it was called intellectual property. Anyway I update him on the various other goings on and this is all very useful. We wonder what will be in the Gowers Report (the UK Treasury Report on IP) that comes out tomorrow.
10.15 Zoom down 7 floors to group room to see if Working Group C still on. Discover everyone leaving as attendance too low, so I speak to Annamie Neyts and give her my note on Russia. Go back upstairs to more paperwork and finalising arrangements regarding my dinner on Patents with Jaques Borgeois that I am having tomorrow. Industry attendance very good, no other MEPs but then it was rather short notice. Given that most of the attendees are patent attorneys, we may in any event be rather too specialist. The venue has had to change so Joe has to notify everyone again.
12.30 LDEPP with David Howarth. I am in the chair as Emma is away (we rotate the chair every 6 months but the whip is always the stand-in). We have a good exchange with David over the eternal problem of how to integrate better between London and Brussels. David is of the view that ‘Europe’ is not a separate policy item, it is something that runs through all or almost all policy. We agree but fear it is the forgotten bit. Just like we have environmental relevance and links explained in all our policy, we could do with the same for the European aspects.
13.15 David leaves and we continue with the ordinary business. We review the Strasbourg agenda and agree on who will cover the blanks. Bill Newton-Dunn says he is very pleased with the new whip routines (as our previous whip he probably knows how much effort it takes). We agree we will need proxies. I get back to the office by 2ish but the afternoon disappears in into papers and phone.
17.00 Down 7 floors to Group meeting. Russia is on the agenda so I say my bit about the Part lV of their new civil code, pointing out that in the Russia-EU summit papers it says we want to be closer on IP that just as the WTO provides, but in the new civil code there are backward moves and it does not fulfil TRIPS, let alone go further. I scribble a proposed amendment for the resolution and it is agreed that the negotiators will try and get it in to the final cross-party resolution. I retreat temporarily to my office to phone home only to receive a rallying call from Andrew Duff’s assistant. I and other Lib Dems dutifully troop into Group, including Chris who appears to have been plucked from the shower in the gym. Then everyone in Group agrees with Andrew anyway so the rapid response force not really needed, but impressive none the less.
19.00 Take a car to Ambassador’s residence for CBI reception. Share the car with Liz and Charles Tannock and we discuss Emma’s report on Kashmir. The storm clouds gather! Mandelson speaks at the reception then Liz and I go to dinner.
It is then pointed out by Comptia in their presentation that Mandelson has said we have to have open competition, how can we tell other countries to be open then do something different. The representative from DG Enterprise is then put on the spot to try and bridge the gap between these two views. His solution is to address attitude, rather than have favouritism, and it seems they are bringing out a manual too! Another of the industry representatives points out that the EU constantly bemoans having a fragmented market, and that it will never stop if we have this fragmented approach in the Commission and pleads for them to get their act together. I agree but resist doing a bit of table thumping.
We get to the end of the presentations and all the other MEPs except Pia Noora Kauppi, who is the host, leave. Me being naive again, this means Pia Noora has no option but to put me on the spot to respond! I say that as a Brit and a Liberal it is not surprising that I agree the competition line expounded by Mandelson, but that having a more flexible, entrepreneurial attitude and getting out of the ‘buy safe’ mentality is important.
9.30 Get to office for meeting with David Howarth MP, find he has been delayed so I do a note on Russia and IP to send down to Working Group C (foreign affairs) in case it comes up before I get there. David arrives and we have useful exchanges on issues in his DTI portfolio which covers intellectual property. He tells me that some of the economic analysis I have heard (and which I think is wrong), using the ex-ante and ex-post value of patents and responding to them as monopolies, is out of date economics and it is now accepted that patent have to be treated like property. Halleluiah – nice to find an economist I can agree with, but I thought that was always why it was called intellectual property. Anyway I update him on the various other goings on and this is all very useful. We wonder what will be in the Gowers Report (the UK Treasury Report on IP) that comes out tomorrow.
10.15 Zoom down 7 floors to group room to see if Working Group C still on. Discover everyone leaving as attendance too low, so I speak to Annamie Neyts and give her my note on Russia. Go back upstairs to more paperwork and finalising arrangements regarding my dinner on Patents with Jaques Borgeois that I am having tomorrow. Industry attendance very good, no other MEPs but then it was rather short notice. Given that most of the attendees are patent attorneys, we may in any event be rather too specialist. The venue has had to change so Joe has to notify everyone again.
12.30 LDEPP with David Howarth. I am in the chair as Emma is away (we rotate the chair every 6 months but the whip is always the stand-in). We have a good exchange with David over the eternal problem of how to integrate better between London and Brussels. David is of the view that ‘Europe’ is not a separate policy item, it is something that runs through all or almost all policy. We agree but fear it is the forgotten bit. Just like we have environmental relevance and links explained in all our policy, we could do with the same for the European aspects.
13.15 David leaves and we continue with the ordinary business. We review the Strasbourg agenda and agree on who will cover the blanks. Bill Newton-Dunn says he is very pleased with the new whip routines (as our previous whip he probably knows how much effort it takes). We agree we will need proxies. I get back to the office by 2ish but the afternoon disappears in into papers and phone.
17.00 Down 7 floors to Group meeting. Russia is on the agenda so I say my bit about the Part lV of their new civil code, pointing out that in the Russia-EU summit papers it says we want to be closer on IP that just as the WTO provides, but in the new civil code there are backward moves and it does not fulfil TRIPS, let alone go further. I scribble a proposed amendment for the resolution and it is agreed that the negotiators will try and get it in to the final cross-party resolution. I retreat temporarily to my office to phone home only to receive a rallying call from Andrew Duff’s assistant. I and other Lib Dems dutifully troop into Group, including Chris who appears to have been plucked from the shower in the gym. Then everyone in Group agrees with Andrew anyway so the rapid response force not really needed, but impressive none the less.
19.00 Take a car to Ambassador’s residence for CBI reception. Share the car with Liz and Charles Tannock and we discuss Emma’s report on Kashmir. The storm clouds gather! Mandelson speaks at the reception then Liz and I go to dinner.
Monday 4 December 2006
TV and an MP
No formal meetings today, but I aim to have some time in the Brux office to deal with active issues. I leave home at 10.15, which gives me time to finalise amendments and justifications on criminal sanctions for IP infringement. I decide to keep it simple, making criminality dependent upon ‘aggravating circumstances’ rather than just exempting patents, which is the line most others are taking. Horrible time at Heathrow with queues and arrive in office about 3.30 and deal with paperwork.
16.30 Have a visit from UKREP (Simon Jones) on Audio Visual Media. As suspected, the compromises agreed to put to plenary by the rapporteurs of the lead committee (Culture) are not to my or the UK liking. There is concern as to whether we can get one of the Political Groups to table better versions. I had already got my own ready on short news reporting and advertising time.
It is advertising time that is of concern to UKREP and they are basically hoping for the same as my amendment, but I agree to add in the word ‘scheduled’ before 30 minutes to make it absolutely clear that the 30 minutes is the program plus advertising time. I suspect it may only be British pedantry that needs this, but better safe than sorry as we will be the pedants when it comes to interpreting it for UK use.
We discuss the other tricky areas and how we have covered them. We do not know the chances of the EPP going against the Rapporteur for 30 minutes instead of 35, but various Brits and others like Hoppenstedt (the ECON Rapporteur) will be on the job. I am not confident whether I will win in ALDE either as Ignasi has been in on the deal in Culture. I explain that we are already lined up with others to do a 37 signatures job (which is how many MEPs have to sign to get an amendment to Plenary, the other alternative being a Political Group) to get it to plenary if needed, but that not as powerful as an amendment going in from a Group.
We are about finished when Simon is taken violently ill and we have to get the medics in and they take him away in a wheelchair. It looks like food poisoning, but quite a long time since he ate, so we are a bit worried in case it is anything else. (We find out next day he is OK and it was food poisoning)
18.00 Settle down to completing Audiovisual amendments and replying to emails. We also start work on checking the Strasbourg Agenda and allocating responsibilities. This is part of my Whip job. We already know that Audiovisual Media may require a separate UK line unless I win the day in Group, for which purpose we are already making sure we will all be there or have proxy votes lined up. Each MEP can cast a proxy in Group for one other from their national delegation. This is something that we have agreed to be more vigilant on since I became whip and it may be very important this week. There are also quite a few items on the Strasbourg Agenda coming from committees where we do not have a UK Lib Dem, so we will need to share out the checking between us and I make some provisional suggestions where I think there are already areas of overlap or interest ready for our meeting tomorrow. There are still a lot of blanks. I send out emails to interested parties explaining my amendments on Audiovisual media and criminal sanctions for IP.
19.30 Dinner with a few other Lib Dem MEPs and David Howarth MP who is over for a visit. Useful general discussions. I have a session with him tomorrow.
16.30 Have a visit from UKREP (Simon Jones) on Audio Visual Media. As suspected, the compromises agreed to put to plenary by the rapporteurs of the lead committee (Culture) are not to my or the UK liking. There is concern as to whether we can get one of the Political Groups to table better versions. I had already got my own ready on short news reporting and advertising time.
It is advertising time that is of concern to UKREP and they are basically hoping for the same as my amendment, but I agree to add in the word ‘scheduled’ before 30 minutes to make it absolutely clear that the 30 minutes is the program plus advertising time. I suspect it may only be British pedantry that needs this, but better safe than sorry as we will be the pedants when it comes to interpreting it for UK use.
We discuss the other tricky areas and how we have covered them. We do not know the chances of the EPP going against the Rapporteur for 30 minutes instead of 35, but various Brits and others like Hoppenstedt (the ECON Rapporteur) will be on the job. I am not confident whether I will win in ALDE either as Ignasi has been in on the deal in Culture. I explain that we are already lined up with others to do a 37 signatures job (which is how many MEPs have to sign to get an amendment to Plenary, the other alternative being a Political Group) to get it to plenary if needed, but that not as powerful as an amendment going in from a Group.
We are about finished when Simon is taken violently ill and we have to get the medics in and they take him away in a wheelchair. It looks like food poisoning, but quite a long time since he ate, so we are a bit worried in case it is anything else. (We find out next day he is OK and it was food poisoning)
18.00 Settle down to completing Audiovisual amendments and replying to emails. We also start work on checking the Strasbourg Agenda and allocating responsibilities. This is part of my Whip job. We already know that Audiovisual Media may require a separate UK line unless I win the day in Group, for which purpose we are already making sure we will all be there or have proxy votes lined up. Each MEP can cast a proxy in Group for one other from their national delegation. This is something that we have agreed to be more vigilant on since I became whip and it may be very important this week. There are also quite a few items on the Strasbourg Agenda coming from committees where we do not have a UK Lib Dem, so we will need to share out the checking between us and I make some provisional suggestions where I think there are already areas of overlap or interest ready for our meeting tomorrow. There are still a lot of blanks. I send out emails to interested parties explaining my amendments on Audiovisual media and criminal sanctions for IP.
19.30 Dinner with a few other Lib Dem MEPs and David Howarth MP who is over for a visit. Useful general discussions. I have a session with him tomorrow.
4-8 December 2006 Group Week
This is a Group week in which the only formal meetings are those at which we discuss the amendments and voting for the Strasbourg plenary week, which is always the following week.
Thursday 30 November 2006
Damages Actions and Plenary Votes
9.30 After checking emails I meet with Karin (Danish Colleague) on damages actions. She is the shadow for us on this, but I have been more active so we need to find a common line. The rest of the morning is spent on my ‘whip’ tasks of checking the votes for Lib Dems and preparing papers for Friday meetings and weekend work.
11.00 – 12.00 Plenary votes, then more fiddling with papers and discussion of my IP meeting next week. Catch 14.56 Eurostar and get home at 6pm. Tomorrow I have a meeting in London with the Law Society on Fiscal Fraud for which I am the Rapporteur, but I guess we have quite a few other things to discuss too.
11.00 – 12.00 Plenary votes, then more fiddling with papers and discussion of my IP meeting next week. Catch 14.56 Eurostar and get home at 6pm. Tomorrow I have a meeting in London with the Law Society on Fiscal Fraud for which I am the Rapporteur, but I guess we have quite a few other things to discuss too.
Wednesday 29 November 2006
Romania, Bulgaria and the Kangaroo Group
8.30 – 9.00 Our LDEPP (Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party) meeting. Emma Nicholson gives an update on the situation regarding adoption of Romanian orphans. It seems that the new Government has got the matter in hand. True some international adoptions were stopped, no doubt some to good homes, but for the better good of children staying in Romania with Romanian families.UK has a similar agreement with Cambodia, which has been upheld by UK courts. So we will support Emma’s line in Group. I am pleased we have got to the bottom of this as there seem to be some outdated representations still floating about which had caused me and others concern. We also agree to give Chris Davies backing for a mandate to continue negotiating with Council on REACH. As whip my office has been checking expected attendance in Group and arranging proxy votes.
9.00 – 12.30 Group meeting. We discuss Romanian and Bulgarian accession. Long discussion on Romanian orphans. Some try to avoid having a fixed Group line, but a comfortable majority follow Emma’s line – like me others who had been concerned or confused, now agree that what was a problem is being tackled. Romanian ministers have come to parliament with all the papers to back this up and show anyone who wants to investigate further. Chris gets his REACH mandate, also easily. Currently they are trying to find a compromise between the Parliament vote and the Council position; the main sticking point is on substitution plans. Regrettably, and though all sides have tried to minimise it, an increase in animal testing looks inevitable. The blunt truth is that this is not repetition of testing but that many of the substances have never been tested before.The rest of the time is taken up by votes on the Group leadership for the second half of the mandate (January 2007 to August 2009). No surprises in the results as the positions are all negotiated in advance, but quite a lot of amusement, irritation and excursions over the formal conduct of the votes and the ballot papers. I could not resist having a bit of a stir. How I wish there were a Group Secretariat subscription to the Electoral reform Society!
12.30 We do a ‘family photo’ with the visiting Lib Dems.
13.00 Back to my office and find copies of the EPP amendments on damages actions have been sent by Jonathan Evans’ office. They have targeted almost identical parts to me but where I have aimed to make alternative suggestions they have deleted. This gives good voting options, putting my amendments in a good position as the compromise but with deletion as a fail safe.
14.00 – 14.45 I attend the first part of a meeting of shadows and rapporteurs on the Audiovisual Media Services directive. We expect to take the first reading vote in Strasbourg in December. All is not well from the liberal and UK perspective. The purpose of the revision of the existing regulations was to relax measures on advertising schedules and product placement because broadcasters are having a hard time raising enough revenue to make decent programs. The best committee position came out of ECON, so we will have to fight on to make that prevail.
14.45 Speak to visiting Lib Dems in a room off the Library, and then rush to the visitor centre to speak to visiting group of A level students from Vale of White Horse. Get to sign T-shirt.
16.30 – 17.30 Attend meeting with the European Bar Association. Concerns are voiced over forcing breakdown of client confidentiality. A letter of concern is read out from the English and Scottish bar, so I need to investigate. The rest of the meeting is rather hard to follow and from the MEP side is mainly attended by other Liberals who ask me what it is about. Glad they are confused too. Maybe the Law Society can help me out on Friday when we meet in London.
17.30 – 18.30 I chat with Lib Dem visitors in coffee bar. Discuss possible data protection issues with new NHS computer system. Something else to follow up.
19.30 – 21.30 AGM and dinner of the Parliament’s ‘Kangaroo Group’. I think the name means we are ‘leaping forward’. The main discussion item is the directive on the portability of pension funds. Problems to surmount are that constantly moving capital diminishes fund build-up, so it may be better for funds to be left where invested, provided all investors are treated the same. Also, most countries offer tax breaks to encourage savings, but Luxembourg and Germany do it the other way round and have tax free pensions, so tax balancing becomes a problem. Maybe we should just all retire in Luxembourg!
9.00 – 12.30 Group meeting. We discuss Romanian and Bulgarian accession. Long discussion on Romanian orphans. Some try to avoid having a fixed Group line, but a comfortable majority follow Emma’s line – like me others who had been concerned or confused, now agree that what was a problem is being tackled. Romanian ministers have come to parliament with all the papers to back this up and show anyone who wants to investigate further. Chris gets his REACH mandate, also easily. Currently they are trying to find a compromise between the Parliament vote and the Council position; the main sticking point is on substitution plans. Regrettably, and though all sides have tried to minimise it, an increase in animal testing looks inevitable. The blunt truth is that this is not repetition of testing but that many of the substances have never been tested before.The rest of the time is taken up by votes on the Group leadership for the second half of the mandate (January 2007 to August 2009). No surprises in the results as the positions are all negotiated in advance, but quite a lot of amusement, irritation and excursions over the formal conduct of the votes and the ballot papers. I could not resist having a bit of a stir. How I wish there were a Group Secretariat subscription to the Electoral reform Society!
12.30 We do a ‘family photo’ with the visiting Lib Dems.
13.00 Back to my office and find copies of the EPP amendments on damages actions have been sent by Jonathan Evans’ office. They have targeted almost identical parts to me but where I have aimed to make alternative suggestions they have deleted. This gives good voting options, putting my amendments in a good position as the compromise but with deletion as a fail safe.
14.00 – 14.45 I attend the first part of a meeting of shadows and rapporteurs on the Audiovisual Media Services directive. We expect to take the first reading vote in Strasbourg in December. All is not well from the liberal and UK perspective. The purpose of the revision of the existing regulations was to relax measures on advertising schedules and product placement because broadcasters are having a hard time raising enough revenue to make decent programs. The best committee position came out of ECON, so we will have to fight on to make that prevail.
14.45 Speak to visiting Lib Dems in a room off the Library, and then rush to the visitor centre to speak to visiting group of A level students from Vale of White Horse. Get to sign T-shirt.
16.30 – 17.30 Attend meeting with the European Bar Association. Concerns are voiced over forcing breakdown of client confidentiality. A letter of concern is read out from the English and Scottish bar, so I need to investigate. The rest of the meeting is rather hard to follow and from the MEP side is mainly attended by other Liberals who ask me what it is about. Glad they are confused too. Maybe the Law Society can help me out on Friday when we meet in London.
17.30 – 18.30 I chat with Lib Dem visitors in coffee bar. Discuss possible data protection issues with new NHS computer system. Something else to follow up.
19.30 – 21.30 AGM and dinner of the Parliament’s ‘Kangaroo Group’. I think the name means we are ‘leaping forward’. The main discussion item is the directive on the portability of pension funds. Problems to surmount are that constantly moving capital diminishes fund build-up, so it may be better for funds to be left where invested, provided all investors are treated the same. Also, most countries offer tax breaks to encourage savings, but Luxembourg and Germany do it the other way round and have tax free pensions, so tax balancing becomes a problem. Maybe we should just all retire in Luxembourg!
Tuesday 28 November 2006
Damages Actions, Oil Prices and Bankers
9.00 Check through voting lists for ECON committee meeting later on and sign amendments for submission on damages actions. Then I have an hour of French conversation (lesson) followed at 11.00 by an hour long meeting with the ECON committee staff on the recent Basel 2 directive and comparison with aspects of Solvency 2. This was my idea and it proves useful. It seems to me that it will be difficult for the Parliament to deal with the level 1 (framework directive) issues if we do not have sight of the detailed proposals for level 2 measures. Some potential here for inter-institutional aggravation.
12.30 Preparatory meeting of our Groups’s ECON members, no big issues to discuss so finish by 13.00. Return to office and complete second batch of amendments on damages actions. Review amendments on the report on the ‘macroeconomic effect of oil prices’ that we will be discussing in ECON and for which I am shadow Rapporteur. Quite a lot of the amendments overlap with mine, so good prospects of achieving agreement on compromises.
15.00 ECON meeting until 18.30. We vote among other things on extension of VAT exemption, which I shadowed, and discuss oil prices. The main point of contention is over how much to blame speculation and hedge funds and how much futures and hedging are beneficial for adding liquidity to markets. Hopefully we can acknowledge a dual role, some good, some bad. The Rapporteur liked my amendments, especially those pointing out the need to separate infrastructure from supply. I recall how difficult it was to accept this concept in the UK originally, but we do now have the proof that it works - last winter, due to the European interconnects and market NOT working, the UK had the highest wholesale gas prices in Europe but still the lowest retail prices.
I handed copies of my damages actions amendments to the Rapporteur of that report for his advance information. He did not look too dismayed.
18.30 to 20.00 Annual reception of the British Bankers Association. Conversation inevitably fell as to whether any progress had been made in the ECOFIN (Finance ministers) meeting on the Payments Services Directive which we voted in Committee in October. I am shadow on this and we have had several meetings with the Finnish Presidency and Commission trying to reach a first reading deal to put to plenary. However it is not going as well as hoped and things seem bogged down in Council, so from the Parliament side we are saying we will go to plenary and force a second reading if they do not get on with it. This would not be a good result for industry because they need the certainty of the framework directive to put the Single European Payments Area structure in place for January 2008 and a second reading would use up all the time. However if the Council muck about and waste time now we could end up having to do a second reading anyway, just even more delayed. Meet Charlie McCreevy and he says he is putting the pressure on as far as he can as well.
12.30 Preparatory meeting of our Groups’s ECON members, no big issues to discuss so finish by 13.00. Return to office and complete second batch of amendments on damages actions. Review amendments on the report on the ‘macroeconomic effect of oil prices’ that we will be discussing in ECON and for which I am shadow Rapporteur. Quite a lot of the amendments overlap with mine, so good prospects of achieving agreement on compromises.
15.00 ECON meeting until 18.30. We vote among other things on extension of VAT exemption, which I shadowed, and discuss oil prices. The main point of contention is over how much to blame speculation and hedge funds and how much futures and hedging are beneficial for adding liquidity to markets. Hopefully we can acknowledge a dual role, some good, some bad. The Rapporteur liked my amendments, especially those pointing out the need to separate infrastructure from supply. I recall how difficult it was to accept this concept in the UK originally, but we do now have the proof that it works - last winter, due to the European interconnects and market NOT working, the UK had the highest wholesale gas prices in Europe but still the lowest retail prices.
I handed copies of my damages actions amendments to the Rapporteur of that report for his advance information. He did not look too dismayed.
18.30 to 20.00 Annual reception of the British Bankers Association. Conversation inevitably fell as to whether any progress had been made in the ECOFIN (Finance ministers) meeting on the Payments Services Directive which we voted in Committee in October. I am shadow on this and we have had several meetings with the Finnish Presidency and Commission trying to reach a first reading deal to put to plenary. However it is not going as well as hoped and things seem bogged down in Council, so from the Parliament side we are saying we will go to plenary and force a second reading if they do not get on with it. This would not be a good result for industry because they need the certainty of the framework directive to put the Single European Payments Area structure in place for January 2008 and a second reading would use up all the time. However if the Council muck about and waste time now we could end up having to do a second reading anyway, just even more delayed. Meet Charlie McCreevy and he says he is putting the pressure on as far as he can as well.
Monday 27 November 2006
A foggy day and a friendly dinner
For some reason, like last week, our ECON meetings which used to be at 3pm on Mondays have shifted to Tuesdays. Maybe this is because it is the foggy season when there is a higher incidence of MEPs from somewhere getting stranded on Mondays. Anyway, this is helpful because it means I can get a later flight to Brux and can contact my UK offices before I get into transport mode. I leave for Heathrow at 10.15 and discover the queue for departures stretching the length of the departure hall. I am selected for the ‘full body scan’ by security. Are you supposed to breathe in? Should I have a body image panic? One of my Dutch colleagues (Sophie, a civil liberties champion who is famously, frequently outraged), is outraged that ordinary people are seen naked by such scanners. Anyway the queue moves fast so I get some shopping time.
14.45 We land at I get to the Parliament very quickly. I had not realised how much more civilised it could be at this time of day. I check through papers including on competition (anti trust) damages actions, then at 16.30 have a long discussion on this with the Law Society. I draft most of the amendments I want, deal with emails then go to an early dinner at 18.30 with Lawrence Fullick, a long time Lib Dem friend who also used to organise Lib Dem visitor groups to Brussels. One such group is coming later this week.
14.45 We land at I get to the Parliament very quickly. I had not realised how much more civilised it could be at this time of day. I check through papers including on competition (anti trust) damages actions, then at 16.30 have a long discussion on this with the Law Society. I draft most of the amendments I want, deal with emails then go to an early dinner at 18.30 with Lawrence Fullick, a long time Lib Dem friend who also used to organise Lib Dem visitor groups to Brussels. One such group is coming later this week.
27 - 30 November 2006 Mini-Plenary Week.
This week is a mini plenary week, which means it has a bit of everything – committees, Group meetings and full Parliament sessions and votes. If you want to get a taste of how the Parliament works, this is the type of week to choose. No doubt this is why I have two visitor groups to see this week.
Thursday 23 November 2006
Equitable life and more on Solvency 2
9.00 to 12.30 in the Equitable Life Special Committee of Enquiry. We hear evidence from the chief executive for the second time (he comes flanked by legal advisors), from a journalist who has followed matters and from Charlie McCreevy again. Poor chap, he must think I am stalking him!
I get into interesting exchanges on comparison of the old regulatory system and the new – solvency 2 – proposals. We need to know that the gaps are plugged. I have to dash out a couple of times to do radio interviews on the ECJ decision – they did not uphold the Advocate General. A political decision really based on what they considered ‘practical’ rather than letter of the law stuff.
The media did not appreciate how restricted the loophole provided by the Advocate General was – you could have bought duty free goods personally and arranged to have them transported back, but you would have had to find your own carrier. A weblink, say, from the vendor would probably have rendered it commercial, and not allowed, so not so easy. Anyway, speculation over. Not allowed. I wonder what will happen now to the Commission’s proposed revision, which intended to allow the cross border distance purchasing and personal transportation arrangements, excepting for tobacco which of course is too easy to post. I guess it will not happen, so much for the single market!
12.30 Do paperwork for staff Christmas bonuses. Here in Belgium they call it the ‘thirteenth month’. By law everyone gets an extra month’s pay (which then gets spent on bills that tend to come in annually). My staff are UK based so it is not compulsory for me, but they deserve at least as much, given all the long hours and extra work.
14.00 Attend an afternoon session of a conference on Solvency 2. Charlie McCreevy spoke here this morning so he is saved from seeing me yet again. This session is a view from industry and again all useful background. Meet lots of people who want to talk to me about it in the next few weeks.
I get the Metro to Gare du Midi, it runs really slowly but I just get the 17.56 Eurostar which then runs late, so I get home around 9pm (10pm Brussels time) looking forward to my ‘proper’ bed. Tomorrow is a day in the UK office on correspondence and Saturday is a visit to Wokingham.
I get into interesting exchanges on comparison of the old regulatory system and the new – solvency 2 – proposals. We need to know that the gaps are plugged. I have to dash out a couple of times to do radio interviews on the ECJ decision – they did not uphold the Advocate General. A political decision really based on what they considered ‘practical’ rather than letter of the law stuff.
The media did not appreciate how restricted the loophole provided by the Advocate General was – you could have bought duty free goods personally and arranged to have them transported back, but you would have had to find your own carrier. A weblink, say, from the vendor would probably have rendered it commercial, and not allowed, so not so easy. Anyway, speculation over. Not allowed. I wonder what will happen now to the Commission’s proposed revision, which intended to allow the cross border distance purchasing and personal transportation arrangements, excepting for tobacco which of course is too easy to post. I guess it will not happen, so much for the single market!
12.30 Do paperwork for staff Christmas bonuses. Here in Belgium they call it the ‘thirteenth month’. By law everyone gets an extra month’s pay (which then gets spent on bills that tend to come in annually). My staff are UK based so it is not compulsory for me, but they deserve at least as much, given all the long hours and extra work.
14.00 Attend an afternoon session of a conference on Solvency 2. Charlie McCreevy spoke here this morning so he is saved from seeing me yet again. This session is a view from industry and again all useful background. Meet lots of people who want to talk to me about it in the next few weeks.
I get the Metro to Gare du Midi, it runs really slowly but I just get the 17.56 Eurostar which then runs late, so I get home around 9pm (10pm Brussels time) looking forward to my ‘proper’ bed. Tomorrow is a day in the UK office on correspondence and Saturday is a visit to Wokingham.
Wednesday 22 November 2006
Solvency 2 and booze cruisers rights
9.00 to 12.30 in ECON committee. Jean Claude Junker is there to talk about the Eurozone. After that, I go straight to lunch (and to make a speech) to the Quoted Companies Alliance. I tell them about all the portfolios I am leading on and the upcoming ones where I expect to play a part. They are particularly interested in the moving of company HQ, also reported in the FT today, following the McCreevy speeches yesterday, and the common consolidated corporate tax base.
Back to the office at 14.30 for a meeting to discuss legal situation on the future of IP and agree to set up a dinner in the first week of December with IP specialists when there is also a big conference in Brussels. I have in mind to invite Jacques Borgeois as an expert on the institutional competences. I follow this with general paperwork and end of year office budget matters.
16.15 Another meeting on Solvency 2, this time with the Royal Bank of Scotland. I obtain more useful background but there is a limit to how many more of these meetings are worthwhile before we have the Commission’s draft, not due until July. Still, this is useful for now as it is turning into a bit of a Solvency 2 week.
A flurry of late activity overtakes us as tomorrow the ECJ decision is out on excise duty and personally purchased and imported goods transported by a third party carrier. I take all the documents back to the flat at 9pm for a good read. All very interesting and I agree with the legal logic of the Advocate General. But the ECJ does not work by black and white UK style legal interpretation, so we shall see.
Back to the office at 14.30 for a meeting to discuss legal situation on the future of IP and agree to set up a dinner in the first week of December with IP specialists when there is also a big conference in Brussels. I have in mind to invite Jacques Borgeois as an expert on the institutional competences. I follow this with general paperwork and end of year office budget matters.
16.15 Another meeting on Solvency 2, this time with the Royal Bank of Scotland. I obtain more useful background but there is a limit to how many more of these meetings are worthwhile before we have the Commission’s draft, not due until July. Still, this is useful for now as it is turning into a bit of a Solvency 2 week.
A flurry of late activity overtakes us as tomorrow the ECJ decision is out on excise duty and personally purchased and imported goods transported by a third party carrier. I take all the documents back to the flat at 9pm for a good read. All very interesting and I agree with the legal logic of the Advocate General. But the ECJ does not work by black and white UK style legal interpretation, so we shall see.
Tuesday 21 November 2006
More football - and anti-trust
8.00 Arrive in office and deal with email. Go to JURI for 9.00. The vote is on private company statutes. Diana Wallis is the Rapporteur, but we narrowly lose a lot of votes. The EPP seem to have an overall majority in JURI, not sure how that has happened. So, we will have to fight on in Plenary! Then panic!!! An unexpected (to me) voting list on the JURI opinion on football. My office has not been through these as I am not a member of this committee, but I know enough to worry. So I juggle with papers and make quick decisions rather than blindly follow the Group voting list as I have some suspicions. I think it all goes ok and the possibly suspicious amendments do not get through.
Next is a discussion on private damages actions for anti-trust infringements. My committee (ECON – Economic and Monetary Affairs) is the lead on this and I have been very active (vocal, so I it is useful to see the reaction here to some of the more legal aspects. I am pleased to hear some sceptical voices about the unintended consequences that must be avoided. I seem to have been a bit on my own (though noticed) on this so far.
Commissioner Charlie McCreevy is next, to talk about upcoming things next year. I am here to listen to what he has to say about the future of patent policy – obviously my subject being the only European Patent Attorney in the Parliament, or indeed of any of the institutions. The Commissioner’s line has been very practical so far and he continues in the same way – seeking to explore all options and ideally getting convergence between EPLA (European Patent Litigation Agreement) and a new form of Community Patent. Several MEPs question him and I manage to speak last and counter some of the points that have previously been made. I also highlight that investment in the European Patent System will be needed and that training up and utilising national patent offices may be one way to go, maybe specialisation by subject could also help. This is not the same as mutual recognition and acceptance of (various) current standards.
We also hear about other upcoming legislation – enabling movement of company HQs to another country and private company statutes. I may want to get involved with these.
11.30 Get back to the office. I am too late to go to the AmCham meeting on Transatlantic Relations so it is straight to the Industry Forum Conference on Anti-Trust Policy at 12.00 This is at the Ambassador’s Residence so we get lunch, but in the ‘speak while you eat’ routine.
Philip Lowe, head of DG Comp is first to speak and he gives a good outline of the current state of play. The meeting is under ‘Chatham House Rules’, so one can say what was said but not by whom, but I do not think he said anything that makes me wish it had not been. However it allows a more human presentation. I am the speaker for the second session entitled ‘competitiveness’ and this leads us on to a discussion on the overlap and conflict (in some eyes) between intellectual property and competition policy. The exchanges were useful and follow up discussions with the Commission were sought, by them. I could not stay for the third session as I had to head back to the Parliament.
15.45 I get to the ECON Committee part way through another presentation from Charlie McCreevy. I made no intervention but caught him on his way out to say I wanted to discuss a few of the issues that had been coming out of the Equitable Life Committee of Enquiry that are relevant to the Solvency 2 proposals for insurance companies. The directive proposal is expected next year.
Back in the Committee we then get to our exchange of views on damages actions in anti trust. The Rapporteur’s report is more positive than I an comfortable with, but it has some good points. I indicate where I agree and where I think we need to tread with care. Afterwards we agree to have some private discussions. I think there is a body of opinion that says go forward with care, that is also how the EPP shadow Rapporteur Jonathan Evans expressed himself. The Commission Representative (Paulis) speaks very passionately but I do not think he addresses specific points. Too much ‘we can’ and not enough ‘how’.
Next agenda item is football again and I have a panic again, I cannot see my amendments in the papers. Then I remember that others (Jonathan Evans again) have covered the relevant points here and we put my amendments in to the lead committee (Culture).
18.30 ECON ends and back to office for meeting with Amex on the payments services directive and the definition of ‘open’ systems. I know what we want here; the problem is getting it agreed with the Council. As shadow Rapporteur I have been involved in meetings with the council Presidency and the Commission, but we are still dancing around the main issues rather than detail.
19.30 Final meeting of the day is the Insurance caucus dinner. There are presentations by financial supervisors from Lithuania, where the different sectors of banking, securities and insurance are separate, unlike the UK’s FSA and the new merged German regulators. The chair of the German supervisors is there and he remembers me from his interrogation in the Equitable Life Committee.(!) An interesting difference of view arises between his interpretation and that of the FSA of how capital flow in a Group and Branches may work. However, the difference can be resolved if branches have a legal right to call on funds. This debate was provoked by an enquiry from me about security for policy holders. A useful warm up meeting for Solvency 2.
Next is a discussion on private damages actions for anti-trust infringements. My committee (ECON – Economic and Monetary Affairs) is the lead on this and I have been very active (vocal, so I it is useful to see the reaction here to some of the more legal aspects. I am pleased to hear some sceptical voices about the unintended consequences that must be avoided. I seem to have been a bit on my own (though noticed) on this so far.
Commissioner Charlie McCreevy is next, to talk about upcoming things next year. I am here to listen to what he has to say about the future of patent policy – obviously my subject being the only European Patent Attorney in the Parliament, or indeed of any of the institutions. The Commissioner’s line has been very practical so far and he continues in the same way – seeking to explore all options and ideally getting convergence between EPLA (European Patent Litigation Agreement) and a new form of Community Patent. Several MEPs question him and I manage to speak last and counter some of the points that have previously been made. I also highlight that investment in the European Patent System will be needed and that training up and utilising national patent offices may be one way to go, maybe specialisation by subject could also help. This is not the same as mutual recognition and acceptance of (various) current standards.
We also hear about other upcoming legislation – enabling movement of company HQs to another country and private company statutes. I may want to get involved with these.
11.30 Get back to the office. I am too late to go to the AmCham meeting on Transatlantic Relations so it is straight to the Industry Forum Conference on Anti-Trust Policy at 12.00 This is at the Ambassador’s Residence so we get lunch, but in the ‘speak while you eat’ routine.
Philip Lowe, head of DG Comp is first to speak and he gives a good outline of the current state of play. The meeting is under ‘Chatham House Rules’, so one can say what was said but not by whom, but I do not think he said anything that makes me wish it had not been. However it allows a more human presentation. I am the speaker for the second session entitled ‘competitiveness’ and this leads us on to a discussion on the overlap and conflict (in some eyes) between intellectual property and competition policy. The exchanges were useful and follow up discussions with the Commission were sought, by them. I could not stay for the third session as I had to head back to the Parliament.
15.45 I get to the ECON Committee part way through another presentation from Charlie McCreevy. I made no intervention but caught him on his way out to say I wanted to discuss a few of the issues that had been coming out of the Equitable Life Committee of Enquiry that are relevant to the Solvency 2 proposals for insurance companies. The directive proposal is expected next year.
Back in the Committee we then get to our exchange of views on damages actions in anti trust. The Rapporteur’s report is more positive than I an comfortable with, but it has some good points. I indicate where I agree and where I think we need to tread with care. Afterwards we agree to have some private discussions. I think there is a body of opinion that says go forward with care, that is also how the EPP shadow Rapporteur Jonathan Evans expressed himself. The Commission Representative (Paulis) speaks very passionately but I do not think he addresses specific points. Too much ‘we can’ and not enough ‘how’.
Next agenda item is football again and I have a panic again, I cannot see my amendments in the papers. Then I remember that others (Jonathan Evans again) have covered the relevant points here and we put my amendments in to the lead committee (Culture).
18.30 ECON ends and back to office for meeting with Amex on the payments services directive and the definition of ‘open’ systems. I know what we want here; the problem is getting it agreed with the Council. As shadow Rapporteur I have been involved in meetings with the council Presidency and the Commission, but we are still dancing around the main issues rather than detail.
19.30 Final meeting of the day is the Insurance caucus dinner. There are presentations by financial supervisors from Lithuania, where the different sectors of banking, securities and insurance are separate, unlike the UK’s FSA and the new merged German regulators. The chair of the German supervisors is there and he remembers me from his interrogation in the Equitable Life Committee.(!) An interesting difference of view arises between his interpretation and that of the FSA of how capital flow in a Group and Branches may work. However, the difference can be resolved if branches have a legal right to call on funds. This debate was provoked by an enquiry from me about security for policy holders. A useful warm up meeting for Solvency 2.
Monday 20 November 2006
Clusters, Football and TV
Having left home at 8am I get to the Parliament in Brussels at 13.15, just in time to ok some papers, collect some others and head off to chair a seminar at South East England House, a short walk from the Parliament along Rue Luxembourg which passes my flat so I can dump my suitcase en route. Lots of rain so I sit through the seminar with wet trouser bottoms wishing I had put my boots on. The seminar included presentations from the Commission about Regional Funds, the attendees mainly from higher education establishments. The South East has a lot of high technology and although we are ‘too rich’ to qualify for structural funds, we can, and do, get funding for innovation projects. ‘Clusters’ is the buzz word, development of clusters of excellence and seeking out other clusters for co-operation. My childhood home of Harwell is to be developed as one centre of excellence.
17.00 Head back to the Parliament just in time to meet representatives from the Premier League. I never realised that as an MEP I would be so involved with football! Anyway, we discussed the progress of a report being looked at by several committees on the future of professional football. I have already submitted some amendments aimed at ensuring matters stay based at a national level with cooperation on codes of conduct. Some members seem to suggest a European super league and that does not seem practical, how could fans travel all over the EU to games on a weekly basis?
We also discussed the on-going saga of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AMS, also known as Television Without Frontiers). For the sports bodies the issue is ‘short news reporting’ i.e. allowing news programs to show football goals etc. This is currently done by agreement, but finding a way to enforce it cross-border, without breaching copyright, is the problem. I am not at all impressed with the arguments put forward by the Commission and others. However, I have now found a way that satisfies me that it does not breach the Berne Convention and I agree to propose this along with amendments indicating that the Copyright Directive and Berne Convention are not overridden.
18.00 Rummaged around with papers ready for morning, agreed to attend and vote as a substitute in the JURI (legal affairs) committee first thing tomorrow as I was going anyway to listen in to relevant discussions. Left at 19.45 with a copy of the Commission work program for 2007 in order to pick things of interest to the Quoted Companies Alliance ready for Wednesday.
17.00 Head back to the Parliament just in time to meet representatives from the Premier League. I never realised that as an MEP I would be so involved with football! Anyway, we discussed the progress of a report being looked at by several committees on the future of professional football. I have already submitted some amendments aimed at ensuring matters stay based at a national level with cooperation on codes of conduct. Some members seem to suggest a European super league and that does not seem practical, how could fans travel all over the EU to games on a weekly basis?
We also discussed the on-going saga of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AMS, also known as Television Without Frontiers). For the sports bodies the issue is ‘short news reporting’ i.e. allowing news programs to show football goals etc. This is currently done by agreement, but finding a way to enforce it cross-border, without breaching copyright, is the problem. I am not at all impressed with the arguments put forward by the Commission and others. However, I have now found a way that satisfies me that it does not breach the Berne Convention and I agree to propose this along with amendments indicating that the Copyright Directive and Berne Convention are not overridden.
18.00 Rummaged around with papers ready for morning, agreed to attend and vote as a substitute in the JURI (legal affairs) committee first thing tomorrow as I was going anyway to listen in to relevant discussions. Left at 19.45 with a copy of the Commission work program for 2007 in order to pick things of interest to the Quoted Companies Alliance ready for Wednesday.
20 – 23 November. Committee Week
This week is a committee week so following the usual pattern it is a week of Parliament Committee meetings and other events fitted around them.
Sunday 19 November 2006
Welcome to my blog!
I have been in the European Parliament for 18 months, and I now realise why many politicians have kept diaries: if you do not events and time just blur away. So here is the start of mine. It is not comprehensive, but as well as reminding me of what I have done I hope it gives others who dip in a taste of what fills our time.
There are four different types of week in the European Parliament: a Committee Week, followed by a Mini-Plenary week, then a Group Week and finally a Plenary Week in Strasbourg. These weeks follow in regular cycle, except for when there are breaks when the Mini-Plenary is skipped or replaced by a full Plenary. It will become clear what happens in each of these weeks as you read on.
I hope you enjoy reading my blog as much as I have enjoyed writing it!
There are four different types of week in the European Parliament: a Committee Week, followed by a Mini-Plenary week, then a Group Week and finally a Plenary Week in Strasbourg. These weeks follow in regular cycle, except for when there are breaks when the Mini-Plenary is skipped or replaced by a full Plenary. It will become clear what happens in each of these weeks as you read on.
I hope you enjoy reading my blog as much as I have enjoyed writing it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
