8.15 The ALDE Econ Breakfast. Seems that carousing went on well into the small hours last night, but Wolf, Sophie, Mariela and Bilyana make it as well as me.
9.00 ELDE Econ prep meeting. We discuss who is doing which upcoming matters. I have been given the rapporteurship of an opinion on the aging demography of Europe. I had said I would shadow and the one I really wanted about financial instruments for the environment we do not get so I am only shadow. I give up the rapporteurship on the demography to one of the Bulgarian members who wants to do something. We discuss a voting list and then Margarita comes in and makes a fuss about the van den Burg report. Comments not bloggable!!
10.00 We all gallop off to an extraordinary ECON committee meeting to listen to the Portuguese Presidency. We also have a vote to do which we only just get squeezed in by 11.25 when we all have to rush off to plenary votes at 11.30.
11.30 Votes. We have quite a lot to do but I have to say that Poettering in the chair does an express job and we get through an awful lot in one hour.
12.45 Back in the office. Everyone is leaving. As usual I have several hours now by myself. So I pack my trunk, sort through papers, do letter to the Financial Times and do the blog. I attend the human rights votes at 4pm. Finish the blog and find I still have a couple of hours so I start the long read of the official version of solvency ll!! I will be leaving for Basle at 7pm and should be home sometime after midnight Strasbourg time.
Thursday 12 July 2007
Wednesday 11 July 2007
A busy day in plenary
9.00 Arrive in Parliament and have meeting with Microsoft. Their technical chap joins in via telephone, which is useful. We are now expecting a decision on the competition case in September. However even after that, and irrespective of which way it goes, we will still be left with interoperability and standards to deal with. I point out, as I have to everyone, that if industry can not get its act together and agree the way to go it will be all the more up to politicians to decide. The annoying thing is that different arguments are deployed at different times and places by several companies because of the particular litigation in which they are embroiled. I see major work coming up on all this next year.
10.00 Yet more email spats on the van den Burg Report. There are some split votes on references to tax. Wolf and I say we would prefer them out as a subsidiarity point, Margarita wants them in. Rest of the morning spent on papers and sorting votes.
12.00 I go to plenary armed with three extra voting lists. I gather the EPP will back taking out investment banks, so I should be able to chalk up another little success. Votes are deferred until 12.30, then start late at 12.45, there are complaints. Apparently the Portuguese Presidency spoke for too long. Lots of the votes are tight and have to be checked. The vand den Burg report seems to go reasonably OK, investment banks come out. We are still voting at ten past two when Pervenche Beres interrupts with a point of order that we can not continue and will have to start early tomorrow. (There are still three long voting lists left. It also means lunch meetings are being spoiled and plenary starts again at 3pm). Nobody waits to hear, we all clap, bang desks and vote with our feet. We have an LDEPP photo call outside plenary.
14.35 I get to my office and the stock exchange people who expected to see me at 2pm are waiting. We have a useful discussion, I am glad I grabbed a sandwich before votes! I am having another of those no meals weeks so far.
15.15 Well it is now getting into the routine of organising things that need to be done over the holiday. My TRIPS speaking time is moving onwards towards 8pm from its original schedule of around 6.45. I hope it does not get too late as we have a dinner on private equity at 8pm
19.20 Into plenary for TRIPS. I am not really impressed by the contributions, there is no point blaming the provisions in the amendments as being the reason it has not been invoked, the necessary circumstances have not really arrived yet, which I endeavour to explain, again.
20.05 Debate finishes just in time to go for the dinner. The presentations are quite informative although they overlap a lot with information in this week’s Economist. It ends just after 10pm. I have missed the Group barbeque because I attended this – however I bet I will be glad in the morning.
10.00 Yet more email spats on the van den Burg Report. There are some split votes on references to tax. Wolf and I say we would prefer them out as a subsidiarity point, Margarita wants them in. Rest of the morning spent on papers and sorting votes.
12.00 I go to plenary armed with three extra voting lists. I gather the EPP will back taking out investment banks, so I should be able to chalk up another little success. Votes are deferred until 12.30, then start late at 12.45, there are complaints. Apparently the Portuguese Presidency spoke for too long. Lots of the votes are tight and have to be checked. The vand den Burg report seems to go reasonably OK, investment banks come out. We are still voting at ten past two when Pervenche Beres interrupts with a point of order that we can not continue and will have to start early tomorrow. (There are still three long voting lists left. It also means lunch meetings are being spoiled and plenary starts again at 3pm). Nobody waits to hear, we all clap, bang desks and vote with our feet. We have an LDEPP photo call outside plenary.
14.35 I get to my office and the stock exchange people who expected to see me at 2pm are waiting. We have a useful discussion, I am glad I grabbed a sandwich before votes! I am having another of those no meals weeks so far.
15.15 Well it is now getting into the routine of organising things that need to be done over the holiday. My TRIPS speaking time is moving onwards towards 8pm from its original schedule of around 6.45. I hope it does not get too late as we have a dinner on private equity at 8pm
19.20 Into plenary for TRIPS. I am not really impressed by the contributions, there is no point blaming the provisions in the amendments as being the reason it has not been invoked, the necessary circumstances have not really arrived yet, which I endeavour to explain, again.
20.05 Debate finishes just in time to go for the dinner. The presentations are quite informative although they overlap a lot with information in this week’s Economist. It ends just after 10pm. I have missed the Group barbeque because I attended this – however I bet I will be glad in the morning.
Tuesday 10 July 2007
Debate on Van den Burg, Barometers
9.00 Get to the Parliament. We get a panic email from our administrator that her submissions from yesterday missed the deadline. We point out that they could not, they were a day early!! Seems both Delphine and the tabling office now suffering fatigue! We then have an email from Margarita saying she does not agree with what was agreed yesterday. It is pointed out she was outvoted (and would have been even if she had been there).
10.30 I go down to plenary for the debate on the van den Burg report. I have decided to concentrate on three points: hedge funds/private equity, where I say discussion and analysis fine but do not put pre-emptive conclusions in the same sentence just to be fashionable, the investment bank point and not to try and asses the next steps in supervising before we have finished the current changes. It seems to fit in (or challenge) what other say. Radwan speaks after me and in reply to me says he is not be pre-emptive on hedge funds (or words to that effect). I think it is good to get a dynamic exchange within such short speeches! All these speeches are available on the Parliament websites, so no need for more here! I talk to Ieke van den Burg afterwards about investment banks and say I would accept a compromise that pointed out there were differing degrees of concentration.
12.00 Votes. Diana is in the chair for her first session of votes. She is very clear and it is possible to hear everything she says without headphones. Why is it only the Brits that speak up so clearly! We get to the vote on whether mercury should be banned in antique barometers. I turn to the page and there is an extraordinary list of which delegations are voting how, with subdivisions within that, so it runs over two pages. Several colleagues look around wondering who to side with!. Basically we are all split between being pragmatic, being rules is rules and possibly thinking it is a member state thing. I vote for antique barometers.
13.15 Back to the office. There are continuing email exchanges about our voting on the van den Burg report.
16.00 We have a committee meeting with Charlie McCreevy about Solvency ll, which is launched today. I arrive on time, as does Karin and McCreevy and entourage, but everyone else is late!
17.30 Back in the office and more paperwork. I plot my one minute on TRIPS. News that I may have got a split vote request in on investments banks has been discovered by Deutche Bank. Their lobbyist comes to check then happily goes away to talk to MEPs in the EPP.
18.30 Reception and speeches on launch of Solvency ll. There are about five speakers lined up, starting with Charlie McCreevy, who usefully spots that if he reads his speech (9 pages) everyone else will do the same and so we will be there until midnight. So he sets the trend for improvisation, which works well. Just as the speeches end I get text from Carol to sprint over to Group for votes.
20.00 Votes in Group on postal services and employ with lost of proxies. Win some, lose some. So this means we will have work to do tomorrow on three voting lists. Leave Parliament at 9pm
10.30 I go down to plenary for the debate on the van den Burg report. I have decided to concentrate on three points: hedge funds/private equity, where I say discussion and analysis fine but do not put pre-emptive conclusions in the same sentence just to be fashionable, the investment bank point and not to try and asses the next steps in supervising before we have finished the current changes. It seems to fit in (or challenge) what other say. Radwan speaks after me and in reply to me says he is not be pre-emptive on hedge funds (or words to that effect). I think it is good to get a dynamic exchange within such short speeches! All these speeches are available on the Parliament websites, so no need for more here! I talk to Ieke van den Burg afterwards about investment banks and say I would accept a compromise that pointed out there were differing degrees of concentration.
12.00 Votes. Diana is in the chair for her first session of votes. She is very clear and it is possible to hear everything she says without headphones. Why is it only the Brits that speak up so clearly! We get to the vote on whether mercury should be banned in antique barometers. I turn to the page and there is an extraordinary list of which delegations are voting how, with subdivisions within that, so it runs over two pages. Several colleagues look around wondering who to side with!. Basically we are all split between being pragmatic, being rules is rules and possibly thinking it is a member state thing. I vote for antique barometers.
13.15 Back to the office. There are continuing email exchanges about our voting on the van den Burg report.
16.00 We have a committee meeting with Charlie McCreevy about Solvency ll, which is launched today. I arrive on time, as does Karin and McCreevy and entourage, but everyone else is late!
17.30 Back in the office and more paperwork. I plot my one minute on TRIPS. News that I may have got a split vote request in on investments banks has been discovered by Deutche Bank. Their lobbyist comes to check then happily goes away to talk to MEPs in the EPP.
18.30 Reception and speeches on launch of Solvency ll. There are about five speakers lined up, starting with Charlie McCreevy, who usefully spots that if he reads his speech (9 pages) everyone else will do the same and so we will be there until midnight. So he sets the trend for improvisation, which works well. Just as the speeches end I get text from Carol to sprint over to Group for votes.
20.00 Votes in Group on postal services and employ with lost of proxies. Win some, lose some. So this means we will have work to do tomorrow on three voting lists. Leave Parliament at 9pm
Monday 9 July 2007
Van den Burg
5.30 Off to Luton airport. I bid goodbye to other regular travellers I may not see again when the flights change in September. I finish off the blog for last week on the plane. We get to Basle approximately on time, car is there and so Austrian MEP Johannes and I get to the Parliament just before noon (11 am UK time). Being first in I unpack my trunk and all the other stuff we have locked in the cupboard (my mini fridge got stolen last year). Having unpacked I investigate emails and other correspondence. Check through the amendments that other Groups have filed on the van den Burg report.
15.30 Go down to Group. Nothing hugely relevant to me but I am keeping a watch out for things popping up from various committees other than my own. I get 1 minute to speak on the van den Burg report and they forget to give me time on TRIPS (but I see the Secretary general who says he will fix it, so that will be another one minute)
17.30 Our UKLib Dem delegation meeting (LDEPP). We exchange views about items coming up for votes where we may have to fight our corner in Group. Possible controversies are on postal services, the report on the employment green paper and the one that has been constantly on my desk, the van den Burg report on the financial services white paper. The biggest problem we have however seems to be how can we get all twelve of us in one place to have our photo taken.
18.00 I leave LDEPP early to get to Working Group A to discuss the van den Burg report. Those of us there reach an agreed line on the various amendments in from other groups and I get agreement to ask for a split vote to take ‘investment banks’ out of a paragraph that flags up the consolidation of firms offering financial services to large listed companies, especially in the field of audit, Credit rating and investment banks. I think the statement is true about audit firms (less than a handful that can do the big audits) and credit rating agencies, but there is not the same order of concentration with investment banks and that dilutes the point we are making about audit firms. Margarita is not there, who is the shadow, and I point out that she may have a differing view on a couple of points. However, everyone there agrees the lines that Wolf and I want to take.
19.00 Back to the office, paperwork and working out how much I can squeeze into one minute on the financial services report. The shorter the speech the harder it is. I take the opportunity to leave ‘early’ at 20.30.
15.30 Go down to Group. Nothing hugely relevant to me but I am keeping a watch out for things popping up from various committees other than my own. I get 1 minute to speak on the van den Burg report and they forget to give me time on TRIPS (but I see the Secretary general who says he will fix it, so that will be another one minute)
17.30 Our UKLib Dem delegation meeting (LDEPP). We exchange views about items coming up for votes where we may have to fight our corner in Group. Possible controversies are on postal services, the report on the employment green paper and the one that has been constantly on my desk, the van den Burg report on the financial services white paper. The biggest problem we have however seems to be how can we get all twelve of us in one place to have our photo taken.
18.00 I leave LDEPP early to get to Working Group A to discuss the van den Burg report. Those of us there reach an agreed line on the various amendments in from other groups and I get agreement to ask for a split vote to take ‘investment banks’ out of a paragraph that flags up the consolidation of firms offering financial services to large listed companies, especially in the field of audit, Credit rating and investment banks. I think the statement is true about audit firms (less than a handful that can do the big audits) and credit rating agencies, but there is not the same order of concentration with investment banks and that dilutes the point we are making about audit firms. Margarita is not there, who is the shadow, and I point out that she may have a differing view on a couple of points. However, everyone there agrees the lines that Wolf and I want to take.
19.00 Back to the office, paperwork and working out how much I can squeeze into one minute on the financial services report. The shorter the speech the harder it is. I take the opportunity to leave ‘early’ at 20.30.
Thursday 5 July 2007
Busy Weekend Ahead!
9.00 In to the office. All I am doing this morning is clearing my desk and getting the midday Eurostar as I have a meeting in London. On Eurostar work on my speech for Friday, which means I have missed my blogging time again. Getting into bad habits. Tomorrow morning we are presenting the Eurostar petition at Downing Street, then I have my speech, then another meeting. On Saturday I am in Maidstone. Pity it is not Sunday as I could have caught the Tour de France at the same time.
Wednesday 4 July 2007
Solvency II and Collective Actions
9.00 Group meeting. Rather irritatingly I have to leave before the employment bit. However proxies have been arranged but I am not sure we have enough people there to cast them all.
10.00 I go on a bit of mystery tour in the Journalists’ part of the Parliament building. Looks much swisher than our bit!! Eventually find the seminar. I have to start it on my own then Pervenche Beres arrives. We talk about Solvency ll, private equity, hedge funds and the Euro. We are filmed by Spanish TV.
12.30 Back to the office and collect a few papers then down to the lunch that I am hosting on collective redress in Europe.
13.00 Lunch with the European Justice Forum. We talk about collective actions, how not to have the pitfalls of the US system. I think it is useful. My input mainly seems to be getting the message over that the Parliament is probably more interested in consumer redress aspects than in encouraging company on company actions. There is some mention of the recent developments in Australia, which may not have gone as intended. I will need to follow this up.
15.00 Back to the office and to pack my trunk for Strasbourg. Then I do some more work on what to say on Friday. I think I have too much now but will edit it down on Eurostar tomorrow. Carol leaves to get Eurostar back to UK, then Alan leaves. I hope he has had a flavour of what goes on. Probably easier to follow as it was a Group week. I am just getting ready to leave when Peter Price turn up to talk about Solvency ll, so end up leaving at about 8pm.
10.00 I go on a bit of mystery tour in the Journalists’ part of the Parliament building. Looks much swisher than our bit!! Eventually find the seminar. I have to start it on my own then Pervenche Beres arrives. We talk about Solvency ll, private equity, hedge funds and the Euro. We are filmed by Spanish TV.
12.30 Back to the office and collect a few papers then down to the lunch that I am hosting on collective redress in Europe.
13.00 Lunch with the European Justice Forum. We talk about collective actions, how not to have the pitfalls of the US system. I think it is useful. My input mainly seems to be getting the message over that the Parliament is probably more interested in consumer redress aspects than in encouraging company on company actions. There is some mention of the recent developments in Australia, which may not have gone as intended. I will need to follow this up.
15.00 Back to the office and to pack my trunk for Strasbourg. Then I do some more work on what to say on Friday. I think I have too much now but will edit it down on Eurostar tomorrow. Carol leaves to get Eurostar back to UK, then Alan leaves. I hope he has had a flavour of what goes on. Probably easier to follow as it was a Group week. I am just getting ready to leave when Peter Price turn up to talk about Solvency ll, so end up leaving at about 8pm.
Tuesday 3 July 2007
TRIPS, Working Groups and Meetings
8.00 I am at a working breakfast on alternative dispute resolution. I am the first speaker, which works quite well because I am able to cover some of the basic discussion on the mediation directive that we had with the incoming Portuguese presidency. Again I toss in class/collective actions and the question of whether ADR could eliminate the need for court class actions. A question of whether that satisfies the ECJ (who say consumers must have right of redress) without infringing human rights, which I suppose it may not if there is an individual right to court still.
9.30 Into the office and paperwork. I have not had any detailed feedback on the amendments to the van den Burgh report that I launched last week. I gather that Margarita has spoken to Wolf, so let’s see what happens in Group.
11.00 There is a meeting of the European Federalists to discuss the outcome of the European Council. I take Alan along so he can listen in. I thought they might be saying something to us about their thoughts, but by the time I get there it seems the other way around, so I say how it looks from the UK perspective. Leave early in order to get to working group on TRIPS.
11.30 Working group. I say my bit about the TRIPS matter. I still think that the sooner we ratify the better, but obviously others think prevarication gives more opportunity to make a fuss. Not that it will make a great deal of difference. I am asking for speaking time on this next week.
12.10 My individual meeting with the working Group. We go through mainly the financial portfolios I am dealing with and their relevance to individuals: which of course is quite a lot as long as there is more than one sentence to explain it in. The easy approach is to hang it around the Equitable Life enquiry and the need to have good pension planning, which gets us into equity and mortgages and so on.
12.45 LDEPP meeting with Nick Clegg. A general exchange of views about things European and whether we need a referendum on the treaty. I say I have changed my mind: I used to think, when we asked for a referendum on the Euro, that it meant we would proceed to have sensible discussion. However all that has happened is that it has swept sensible discussion under the carpet – the same was true as a result of calling for a referendum on the Constitution, never any detailed discussion. So there should not be a referendum and if people do not like it then they should insist that Europe is talked about when we have General Elections. It is not a side dish or a ‘how to have a free kick’. The most powerful part of the EU legislature, the Council, our Government Ministers, are elected at General Elections, so about time it was an issue then.
14.30 Working group A. The van den Burg report. About two thirds of my amendments are agreed as is. After a bit of a battle we agree there are ways to compromise on the rest. Then we have a bit of a ding dong about a proposed amendment from Margarita, backed by Wolf. It is all about objecting to foreign (Chinese and Russian) investment in hedge funds. I started off gently with free market principles, which did not get me far enough, eventually did the words protectionist populism really fall from my lips? Anyway, amendment not being tabled as a result. Carol thinks it was all very instructive for Alan to listen to me arguing my case.
15.30 Office and papers. I have a look at my notes for speaking on Friday and we collate some information for tomorrow when I appear to have agreed to do a seminar session with some Journalists on economic committee subjects. Some compromise texts on van den Burg go back and forth.
17.30 Group Meeting. We are able to give the good news that we have agreed on our van den Burg amendments. Several of us get annoyed that we are not discussing an Employment paper that we have all turned up for because the lead person can not be there. I have just been checking out Liz’s proposed amendments and they are fine. I shadowed this on ECON.
9.30 Into the office and paperwork. I have not had any detailed feedback on the amendments to the van den Burgh report that I launched last week. I gather that Margarita has spoken to Wolf, so let’s see what happens in Group.
11.00 There is a meeting of the European Federalists to discuss the outcome of the European Council. I take Alan along so he can listen in. I thought they might be saying something to us about their thoughts, but by the time I get there it seems the other way around, so I say how it looks from the UK perspective. Leave early in order to get to working group on TRIPS.
11.30 Working group. I say my bit about the TRIPS matter. I still think that the sooner we ratify the better, but obviously others think prevarication gives more opportunity to make a fuss. Not that it will make a great deal of difference. I am asking for speaking time on this next week.
12.10 My individual meeting with the working Group. We go through mainly the financial portfolios I am dealing with and their relevance to individuals: which of course is quite a lot as long as there is more than one sentence to explain it in. The easy approach is to hang it around the Equitable Life enquiry and the need to have good pension planning, which gets us into equity and mortgages and so on.
12.45 LDEPP meeting with Nick Clegg. A general exchange of views about things European and whether we need a referendum on the treaty. I say I have changed my mind: I used to think, when we asked for a referendum on the Euro, that it meant we would proceed to have sensible discussion. However all that has happened is that it has swept sensible discussion under the carpet – the same was true as a result of calling for a referendum on the Constitution, never any detailed discussion. So there should not be a referendum and if people do not like it then they should insist that Europe is talked about when we have General Elections. It is not a side dish or a ‘how to have a free kick’. The most powerful part of the EU legislature, the Council, our Government Ministers, are elected at General Elections, so about time it was an issue then.
14.30 Working group A. The van den Burg report. About two thirds of my amendments are agreed as is. After a bit of a battle we agree there are ways to compromise on the rest. Then we have a bit of a ding dong about a proposed amendment from Margarita, backed by Wolf. It is all about objecting to foreign (Chinese and Russian) investment in hedge funds. I started off gently with free market principles, which did not get me far enough, eventually did the words protectionist populism really fall from my lips? Anyway, amendment not being tabled as a result. Carol thinks it was all very instructive for Alan to listen to me arguing my case.
15.30 Office and papers. I have a look at my notes for speaking on Friday and we collate some information for tomorrow when I appear to have agreed to do a seminar session with some Journalists on economic committee subjects. Some compromise texts on van den Burg go back and forth.
17.30 Group Meeting. We are able to give the good news that we have agreed on our van den Burg amendments. Several of us get annoyed that we are not discussing an Employment paper that we have all turned up for because the lead person can not be there. I have just been checking out Liz’s proposed amendments and they are fine. I shadowed this on ECON.
Monday 2 July 2007
A day of meetings
10.00 Off to Heathrow. Flight delayed. Arrive at my office around 3.30. Edith is there going through Eurostar petition things with Carol. We are presenting this at Downing Street on Friday Morning. I also have a work experience student, Alan, in my office this week. He has red hair too – seems the trade mark of my office.
17.00 A delegation from the European Committee for Interoperable Standards arrive, billed as discussing the anti-trust complaint about Microsoft. However I am more interested in dealing with interoperability away from hard cases, so we end up having a wide ranging discussion.
18.30 Reception for a policy working group from the Lib Dems. Useful networking and exchange of information. I have a formal session with them tomorrow so I am not going to the dinner tonight and I can read up on alternative dispute resolution ready for tomorrow morning.
17.00 A delegation from the European Committee for Interoperable Standards arrive, billed as discussing the anti-trust complaint about Microsoft. However I am more interested in dealing with interoperability away from hard cases, so we end up having a wide ranging discussion.
18.30 Reception for a policy working group from the Lib Dems. Useful networking and exchange of information. I have a formal session with them tomorrow so I am not going to the dinner tonight and I can read up on alternative dispute resolution ready for tomorrow morning.
Thursday 28 June 2007
Back to the UK
9.00 Reading more proposals on the van den Burgh report, followed by a meeting with LIBA, ISDA and SIFMA on the same subject. In general terms I have already covered the points they make.
14.00 Leave for Eurostar.
14.00 Leave for Eurostar.
Wednesday 27 June 2007
9.00 Into ECON. We have votes at 9.30 My bank accounts opinion is scheduled last and I try to get it moved to the front because I am concerned I may not get away in time to get to the session I am chairing at the stock exchanges conference. Anyway, they will not move it. Voting takes ages. We seem to be holding the balance in everything and a lot of the votes are tight. The EPP do not seem to like some aspects of my opinion and vote against, but as they did not take part in the discussions or put in any amendments I do not know what their problem is. My opinion does not seem greatly at variance with the EPP report in JURI that we discussed, very briefly, on Monday. Anyway the Socialists vote with me so it all goes through.
10.45 I finally get away and head for the Conrad for the conference. Traffic is terrible and Carol is texting and phoning as they are getting worried. No real problem and I get there in time to chat to the people on the panel that I am chairing on governance. Anyway, all goes well, and I introduce into the discussion whether there is more market abuse by hedge funds than other investments, as some allege. My shoe breaks at the end of lunch so lop-sided walk to get the Metro back. Fortunately my flat en route for shoe change.
15.00 Plenary session with report back from Chancellor Merkel, or rather as she is for a few days yet, President in Office (of Council). Some good speech points made by various contributors. Graham Watson performs well and Poettering thanks him for his ‘remarkable’ speech.
17.00 Back to the office and some work on amendments for the van den Burgh report which I send to others in the Group.
19.00 Leave, early again(!). Unfortunately no live play at Wimbledon.
10.45 I finally get away and head for the Conrad for the conference. Traffic is terrible and Carol is texting and phoning as they are getting worried. No real problem and I get there in time to chat to the people on the panel that I am chairing on governance. Anyway, all goes well, and I introduce into the discussion whether there is more market abuse by hedge funds than other investments, as some allege. My shoe breaks at the end of lunch so lop-sided walk to get the Metro back. Fortunately my flat en route for shoe change.
15.00 Plenary session with report back from Chancellor Merkel, or rather as she is for a few days yet, President in Office (of Council). Some good speech points made by various contributors. Graham Watson performs well and Poettering thanks him for his ‘remarkable’ speech.
17.00 Back to the office and some work on amendments for the van den Burgh report which I send to others in the Group.
19.00 Leave, early again(!). Unfortunately no live play at Wimbledon.
Tuesday 26 June 2007
End of term-itis
9.00 Get to the office. This morning there are some interesting sessions in the stock exchanges conference. Carol goes. I start working on various papers and points for speeches next week. On Friday I talk to TMPDF and three judges are coming. Feeling sick and suffering from hay fever so decide I can not face a lunch.
14.00 ECON prep meeting. One of those least said soonest mended sessions. I reckon some colleagues must be feeling even worse than me. Andreas Losco does a grand job trying to be peacemaker. I can not really work out what the problem is. I think this is what teachers must call end of term-itis.
15.00 Back to the office where I lurk for as long as possible to get through the papers. I go down to ECON at 4.45 for the session with Neelie Kroes. I get there just in time to hear Jonathan Evans giving a bit of stick about the deletion of undistorted competition from the treaty amendments. If I heard correctly I think he got into it by suggesting that a few members of the Council and Commission would learn a lot from attending a Competition Day! I lead the desk banging.
Neelie is robust in her response to this and other related points saying that the protocol is as binding as the treaty and there is no downgrading and she will not be doing anything differently. It is true nothing has been taken out of the treaty, it is just that a proposed amendment has been changed.
20.00 I go back to my flat having given apologies earlier today for not going to the Gala dinner at the Bourse. I would not be good company sniffling away.
14.00 ECON prep meeting. One of those least said soonest mended sessions. I reckon some colleagues must be feeling even worse than me. Andreas Losco does a grand job trying to be peacemaker. I can not really work out what the problem is. I think this is what teachers must call end of term-itis.
15.00 Back to the office where I lurk for as long as possible to get through the papers. I go down to ECON at 4.45 for the session with Neelie Kroes. I get there just in time to hear Jonathan Evans giving a bit of stick about the deletion of undistorted competition from the treaty amendments. If I heard correctly I think he got into it by suggesting that a few members of the Council and Commission would learn a lot from attending a Competition Day! I lead the desk banging.
Neelie is robust in her response to this and other related points saying that the protocol is as binding as the treaty and there is no downgrading and she will not be doing anything differently. It is true nothing has been taken out of the treaty, it is just that a proposed amendment has been changed.
20.00 I go back to my flat having given apologies earlier today for not going to the Gala dinner at the Bourse. I would not be good company sniffling away.
Monday 25 June 2007
Travelling...
10.15 Off to the airport. Flight is delayed so a bit of a rush to dash straight to the legal affairs committee when I get in at 3.45. Votes at 4.15 include the compromise on the TRIPS amendments, which passes easily. Not surprising as it is a compilation of my and the EPP proposals.
18.00 Meeting with representatives from Scottish Widows and TSB on Solvency ll. Nothing new. The directive is launched in July, and then I will not be wanting to see anyone unless they are coming with a definite problem or proposal, preferably submitted in writing.
18.00 Meeting with representatives from Scottish Widows and TSB on Solvency ll. Nothing new. The directive is launched in July, and then I will not be wanting to see anyone unless they are coming with a definite problem or proposal, preferably submitted in writing.
Friday 15 June 2007
Lisbon - Solicitors and Advocates
9.30 We set off for a meeting with the association of solicitors. They are not the same as UK solicitors in that they have fewer powers and barristers (or advocates) can do everything. However in 2003 solicitors here were also allowed to become enforcement officers. This could give them useful insight into the proposals for attachments of bank accounts so I ask them about this, and also class actions and whether there is a size limit to matters than can be handled via mediation.
11.00 A meeting with the chair of the advocates association. This covers many of the same topics again, but getting at more detail and is useful for future contacts.
13.30 Ursa (our ALDE administrator on JURI) and I take a city tour bus as my flight back is not until this evening and she is staying until Sunday. I have to get back to the UK as I have to go to Witney (Carterton) on Sunday to help with a local by election.
11.00 A meeting with the chair of the advocates association. This covers many of the same topics again, but getting at more detail and is useful for future contacts.
13.30 Ursa (our ALDE administrator on JURI) and I take a city tour bus as my flight back is not until this evening and she is staying until Sunday. I have to get back to the UK as I have to go to Witney (Carterton) on Sunday to help with a local by election.
Thursday 14 June 2007
Lisbon
9.45 We assemble and go by coach to the European Parliament Office in Lisbon for a meeting with the former Commissioner Vitorino. It is raining (in Lisbon in June, meanwhile it is 30 degrees in Copenhagen!!) and we do not have umbrellas.
First our coach gets lost, well actually heads off for the Parliament which is where we are going this afternoon. Then it can not get close to the Parliament office so we all have to walk in the rain. Some of the female group staff have got the wrong shoes for this in the rain…female MEPs appear more circumspect….and we are all pretty good at adapting our dossiers as umbrellas. The meeting is interesting. Among other things we raise the issue of missing children in Portugal. It is a problem that in Portugal a missing child can not be deemed abducted for 48 hours. We also discuss mediation, which they have used effectively in Portugal in recent years and so it is hoped that this experience will help to solve some of the problems with the Directive during their Presidency. Other topics include money laundering, terrorism and immigration.
14.30 We arrive at the Parliament. Again we discuss mediation and arbitration.
16.00 Next meeting is with the Minister and his team. Again we discuss mediation and also the ECJ decision that says EU law can be backed up by criminal sanctions. The truth here is that we are all awaiting another ruling from the ECJ which we do not expect to be quite so extensive as the last one, or at last gives more guidelines as to where it may have a legal base. We also have some exchanges on intellectual property and class actions. The same subjects are discussed informally in different groupings over dinner.
First our coach gets lost, well actually heads off for the Parliament which is where we are going this afternoon. Then it can not get close to the Parliament office so we all have to walk in the rain. Some of the female group staff have got the wrong shoes for this in the rain…female MEPs appear more circumspect….and we are all pretty good at adapting our dossiers as umbrellas. The meeting is interesting. Among other things we raise the issue of missing children in Portugal. It is a problem that in Portugal a missing child can not be deemed abducted for 48 hours. We also discuss mediation, which they have used effectively in Portugal in recent years and so it is hoped that this experience will help to solve some of the problems with the Directive during their Presidency. Other topics include money laundering, terrorism and immigration.
14.30 We arrive at the Parliament. Again we discuss mediation and arbitration.
16.00 Next meeting is with the Minister and his team. Again we discuss mediation and also the ECJ decision that says EU law can be backed up by criminal sanctions. The truth here is that we are all awaiting another ruling from the ECJ which we do not expect to be quite so extensive as the last one, or at last gives more guidelines as to where it may have a legal base. We also have some exchanges on intellectual property and class actions. The same subjects are discussed informally in different groupings over dinner.
Wednesday 13 June 2007
Bob the Builder
8.30 A photo op with Bob the builder (!) to do with energy saving buildings.
9.00 Another photo op with plastic bottles and cans for recycling.
10.00 Meeting about a securities seminar session that I am chairing the week after next.
11.00 Discussions on TRIPS, paperwork, preparing trunk for Strasbourg and then at 3pm off to Lisbon for meetings on the Portuguese Presidency with the JURI committee. This evening I have a dinner with the ALDE group coordinators, who are also here for meetings tomorrow with the Presidency. The EPP coordinators have apparently gone off to much more exotic Portuguese climes.
9.00 Another photo op with plastic bottles and cans for recycling.
10.00 Meeting about a securities seminar session that I am chairing the week after next.
11.00 Discussions on TRIPS, paperwork, preparing trunk for Strasbourg and then at 3pm off to Lisbon for meetings on the Portuguese Presidency with the JURI committee. This evening I have a dinner with the ALDE group coordinators, who are also here for meetings tomorrow with the Presidency. The EPP coordinators have apparently gone off to much more exotic Portuguese climes.
Tuesday 12 June 2007
My Birthday!
9.00 Spend the entire morning on the latest voting list for the financial services white paper and doing some swapping of lists with other MEPs.
12.45 Lunch with the Alternative Investment Managers Association. This is a meeting on hedge funds that I am co-hosting. The presentations are very helpful. I am hoping that slowly people will begin to realise that not all hedge funds are the same and that even those that appear in the press as aggressive could not be so if there were not some underlying flaw for them to pick at. I think we must dig further on market abuse points as there was a steong belief by some MEPs that funds indulged in collusions that would in fact be illegal, which was hotly contested. I suspect that because collusion is not allowed the press is used instead.
15.00 Back to the office then summoned (well, invited) to a meeting with the Romanian Justice Minister. I am able to raise my concerns about the abilities of the Romanian legal system in technical areas like competition and financial fraud. I raise the matter of the Credit Suisse employee that I have also raised with Commissioner Frattini, who so far has not replied. In particular I raise the matter of length of proceedings.
17.00 Into Group Meeting to listen to the Romanian Prime Minister.
18.00 Reception for the South East England Development Agency.
12.45 Lunch with the Alternative Investment Managers Association. This is a meeting on hedge funds that I am co-hosting. The presentations are very helpful. I am hoping that slowly people will begin to realise that not all hedge funds are the same and that even those that appear in the press as aggressive could not be so if there were not some underlying flaw for them to pick at. I think we must dig further on market abuse points as there was a steong belief by some MEPs that funds indulged in collusions that would in fact be illegal, which was hotly contested. I suspect that because collusion is not allowed the press is used instead.
15.00 Back to the office then summoned (well, invited) to a meeting with the Romanian Justice Minister. I am able to raise my concerns about the abilities of the Romanian legal system in technical areas like competition and financial fraud. I raise the matter of the Credit Suisse employee that I have also raised with Commissioner Frattini, who so far has not replied. In particular I raise the matter of length of proceedings.
17.00 Into Group Meeting to listen to the Romanian Prime Minister.
18.00 Reception for the South East England Development Agency.
Monday 11 June 2007
A postponed vote
14.00 ECON prep meeting on the financial services white paper. I think we are reaching some compromises within our Group and making some progress, but there is still a lot of work needed. It seems really impractical to try and vote today. I am beginning to think I will vote against it if we have to rush too much.
15.00 ECON. It is decided to postpone the vote on the financial services white paper until next week. We have a discussion with Trichet from the ECB and discuss amendments to my report on attachment of bank accounts. I then dash down two floors to the JURI committee in time to discuss the amendment to Article 31 of TRIPS.
18.00 Back to the office. I prepare an amendment to the report on TRIPS.
15.00 ECON. It is decided to postpone the vote on the financial services white paper until next week. We have a discussion with Trichet from the ECB and discuss amendments to my report on attachment of bank accounts. I then dash down two floors to the JURI committee in time to discuss the amendment to Article 31 of TRIPS.
18.00 Back to the office. I prepare an amendment to the report on TRIPS.
Friday 8 June 2007
Day in the office
I am still in Brussels. Spend the day catching up on various Intellectual property issues and also have a meeting with Consumer Organisation about Radio frequency tagging.
Thursday 7 June 2007
USA, Scotland and Place de Luxembourg
8.00 Kangaroo Group breakfast on how much are we regulated by the US. There is a feeling that we are now influencing them as much as vice versa. There is a useful presentation also on International Financial reporting Standards (on which I am half way through preparing our amendments). Some concern that the US may not accept the flexibility of interpretation that a minimum harmonising proposal allows and so although saying they accept IFRS will say ‘but not your version’. This needs further exploration ut it could just be a waystage position.
10.45 Meeting with Commission on patents
11.30 Votes.
12.30 Lunch with Scottish Enterprise and various Scottish financial institutions. People forget how important finance is to Scotland, 10% of their jobs depend upon it!
15.00 Meet various people for discussions on way back to Parliament from lunch venue – seems difficult to try and get across Place de Luxembourg unseen! Then more on amendments...
10.45 Meeting with Commission on patents
11.30 Votes.
12.30 Lunch with Scottish Enterprise and various Scottish financial institutions. People forget how important finance is to Scotland, 10% of their jobs depend upon it!
15.00 Meet various people for discussions on way back to Parliament from lunch venue – seems difficult to try and get across Place de Luxembourg unseen! Then more on amendments...
Wednesday 6 June 2007
Amendments
8.30 LDEPP meeting.
9.00 Back to the office for more struggles with amendments.
10.30 Meeting with the Forum of Private Business.
11.00 Group meeting.
12.30 Photo with group of visiting Lib Dems.
13.00 SME circle lunch. The major topic of discussion is the reclassification of various previously exempted technology goods for import duty. A lot of this is due to the way in which technology has become integrated so that a still digital camera (exempt) that can now take a short moving sequence is classed as a movie camera (not exempt). This is bad news for many industries and seems rather like some over zealous interpretation. I feel some Parliamentary Questions coming on.
15.00 I thought I had a meeting with Commissioner Kroes but it seems to have migrated to another week again. So back to the amendments.
16.30 Meeting with FSA/CEIOPS (Insurance regulators).
17.15 Meeting with 3i on private equity and venture capital.
18.00 Reception for mutual societies organisations. We have today voted an amendment saying we want a European Mutuals statute. This would be a revival of a proposal that got axed when lots of old proposals were scrapped. We said it was a mistake to get rid of this one at that time.
9.00 Back to the office for more struggles with amendments.
10.30 Meeting with the Forum of Private Business.
11.00 Group meeting.
12.30 Photo with group of visiting Lib Dems.
13.00 SME circle lunch. The major topic of discussion is the reclassification of various previously exempted technology goods for import duty. A lot of this is due to the way in which technology has become integrated so that a still digital camera (exempt) that can now take a short moving sequence is classed as a movie camera (not exempt). This is bad news for many industries and seems rather like some over zealous interpretation. I feel some Parliamentary Questions coming on.
15.00 I thought I had a meeting with Commissioner Kroes but it seems to have migrated to another week again. So back to the amendments.
16.30 Meeting with FSA/CEIOPS (Insurance regulators).
17.15 Meeting with 3i on private equity and venture capital.
18.00 Reception for mutual societies organisations. We have today voted an amendment saying we want a European Mutuals statute. This would be a revival of a proposal that got axed when lots of old proposals were scrapped. We said it was a mistake to get rid of this one at that time.
Tuesday 5 June 2007
Airports and Labour Law
9.00 ECON again. We discuss airport charges, mergers and acquisitions and have an exchange of views with the Chairman of CESR (the Committee of European Securities Regulators).
12.15 European Parliament Financial Services Forum lunch on Target2 Securities.
15.30 ECON again and votes on labour law. At the end of the ECON meeting we have a discussion on the amendments to the financial services white paper amongst the principal protagonists.
19.30 back to flat
12.15 European Parliament Financial Services Forum lunch on Target2 Securities.
15.30 ECON again and votes on labour law. At the end of the ECON meeting we have a discussion on the amendments to the financial services white paper amongst the principal protagonists.
19.30 back to flat
Monday 4 June 2007
Arrival in Brussels - ECON on Statistics
8.30 Leave for Heathrow. I am getting the earlier flight, which is a little inconvenient as we are trying also to meet some noon amendment filing deadlines and I am in transit at crucial times. It is good to be in Brux for 1pm and have time before committee, but on balance I think it is preferable to have the time in communication with my offices before leaving. Once I arrive we work on the financial services white paper amendments.
15.00 Into the ECON committee. Among other things we discuss my report on the Statistical Advisory Board. Some of my ideas seem well received. I think the German Presidency still want to stick to some exact wording that they have agreed in one or two places, but I am hoping for some input for colleagues first.
19.30 Depart for my flat to dump suitcase before going to a dinner of the International Trademark Association, following from their conference.
15.00 Into the ECON committee. Among other things we discuss my report on the Statistical Advisory Board. Some of my ideas seem well received. I think the German Presidency still want to stick to some exact wording that they have agreed in one or two places, but I am hoping for some input for colleagues first.
19.30 Depart for my flat to dump suitcase before going to a dinner of the International Trademark Association, following from their conference.
4th to 8th June – Mini Plenary
We have had another constituency week, during which I had briefings in the City, and now we have mini plenary week, the committee week being ‘missed’ again. (But they make up for it by squeezing extra committee meetings in both this week and next)
Thursday 24 May 2007
Key votes on Kashmir and Donnici
9.00 We have an ECON prep meeting at which we discuss who wants to do what of the upcoming work. There is a wish by Andreas Losco to have more detailed discussion of the lines that rapporteurs and shadows take. I think we all agree this is a nice idea but in practice we are not managing to get meetings organised. During the exchanges he refers to the possibility ‘that Sharon may take some extreme Liberal position that the Italian delegation can not agree with’. I take this as a compliment, especially in the context of the ECON committee.
10.00 Back to the office and final checking of recorded votes, the Kashmir voting list and our red lines for what is sufficient to allow us to vote positively at the end.
.
12.00 Votes. We have the vote on Donnici and they vote not to approve his credentials. Graham Watson gets up says it is illegal and that as we say in the UK ‘see you in court’. The Kashmir votes take ages but we eventually pass a combination that it just about OK for everyone. I am slightly annoyed as the Socialists still seem to only vote for their amendments and never for ours even when ours are sometimes better. If we did the same to them, the end result would be bad news for the content of the report. This should be above party politics.
14.00 I have a delegation from the UK permanent representation and the UK cabinet office to discuss patents.
15.00 Meeting with Fidelity Iternational about UCITS, Mifid and retail savings.
16.00 Catch up with phone calls, emails and packing. Get car to Basle at 7pm. Traffic after arrival at Luton a nightmare (do they not realise lots of flights get in around 11 pm and it is a stupid time to close the motorway) so we get home after midnight which my body clock thinks is after 1am.
10.00 Back to the office and final checking of recorded votes, the Kashmir voting list and our red lines for what is sufficient to allow us to vote positively at the end.
.
12.00 Votes. We have the vote on Donnici and they vote not to approve his credentials. Graham Watson gets up says it is illegal and that as we say in the UK ‘see you in court’. The Kashmir votes take ages but we eventually pass a combination that it just about OK for everyone. I am slightly annoyed as the Socialists still seem to only vote for their amendments and never for ours even when ours are sometimes better. If we did the same to them, the end result would be bad news for the content of the report. This should be above party politics.
14.00 I have a delegation from the UK permanent representation and the UK cabinet office to discuss patents.
15.00 Meeting with Fidelity Iternational about UCITS, Mifid and retail savings.
16.00 Catch up with phone calls, emails and packing. Get car to Basle at 7pm. Traffic after arrival at Luton a nightmare (do they not realise lots of flights get in around 11 pm and it is a stupid time to close the motorway) so we get home after midnight which my body clock thinks is after 1am.
Wednesday 23 May 2007
The Donnici Code
9.00 Arrive in office. Listen to a little bit of the roaming debate. Things are moving a little on the Donnici matter with amendments. It seems to be very much an Italian thing now and there are calls to be ‘respectful’ of parliamentary processes. If I speak I do not think I will be respectful I will say it is shameful and will bring shame on the Parliament when the sophistry of the arguments put forward is exposed (which I would expect the courts to do). However we have very little speaking time. I have already had a minute of my Gierek report time taken just to give us 2 minutes and a minute for me and a minute for Cocilova is not very much. As it means so much to the Italians to speak on this matter I will probably have to give Cocilova priority over myself (again).
10.00 We have a meeting on the amendments to the financial services white paper. There is some good discussion and some progress is made but we do not get anywhere on the sections about hedge funds. I indicate that it has to be revisited. We keep at it until the bell rings for us to go and vote. We will need a lot more time I think and I wonder whether it is realistic to try and vote on this in our next committee week as that only gives us as short time on Monday 4 June to reach agreement. Anyway, we shall see. .
12.00 – 13.00 votes. No incidents with headphones or otherwise. We vote on the Lulling report on excise duty. It is a mess and conflicting amendments are passed so at the end the rapporteur signals to her group to vote against and it falls.
13.00 Kangaroo Group lunch on the privatisation of postal services. I have decided to go because I want to find out more about how different universal service options have worked. I have to leave early before all the discussions end for another meeting.
14.00 Meeting with the Executive Director and several others from the ICHR Kashmir Centre on the Kashmir report. We discuss the original report, the committee amendments and those for plenary. I say that my ‘bottom line’ will be the same as in the Committee voting, if an amendment gets through that includes self determination, then I will vote in favour even if other amendments have been lost, but if nothing on self determination gets through then I will vote against. They seem to think this is a reasonable dividing line. This whole issue has of course been rumbling on all week, and last, with a lot of work going on behind the scenes to get agreement as far as possible from Emma.
15.00 I had intended to go to an SME intergoup meeting on labour law, but as yet I have not finalised the voting on the Gierek report nor worked out what to put into my 2 minute speech. I am still trying to amend paragraph about open standards in order to clarify that the definition given is not an official Commission policy (which it is not). However since the wording proposal came from the Committee secretariat and all Groups signed up to it nobody now wants to concede it may not be accurate. It is rather annoying that they say ‘it is only an own initiative report’. I reply that it is no excuse to be inaccurate! I have circulated a note, but since there will be objection from the floor if I put in an oral amendment there is really no point. Trying to delete the paragraph will be misinterpreted as an attack on an idealistic point, so in the end I will probably give up on this and satisfy myself with correcting the patent bits. I decide to concentrate my speech on three of the things that have been included in the report from my ECON opinion and to deal with the patent issue. Dealing with this issue and other emails and correspondence takes me up to time for Group.
19.00 Group meeting. We have an exchange of views with Gary Kasparov on the political situation in Russia. It is very interesting indeed and he is a good speaker.
21.00 Into the hemicycle for the debate on the Donnici credentials. I have agreed not to speak. All the speakers in the debate are Italian and they remain more deferential to the dignity of the legal affairs committee than I feel inclined to be on this matter. Gargarni gives a rather better presentation that he has in committee on the subject – just as well as this is public and not in camera. However I still believe it fatally flawed. Here is the gist of the affair as I understand it. I have dubbed it the Donnici code because it is a bit unbelievable.
The Donnici Code. At the time of the Italian elections for the European Parliament one candidate, Orchetto who would have been elected as an MEP, withdrew. At that time he was already a member of the Italian Senate, which he would have had to resign in order to take up the MEP seat. Further he was on a composite list of opposition candidates (everyone except Berlusconi’s party) and as is common practice in Italy famous people go at the top of a list to indicate the type of list, but there are agreements that they will withdraw. Later on after the Italian General Election when some MEPs gave up their seats to go to the national Parliament, Orchetto changed his mind about being an MEP and withdrew his withdrawal which was agreed was possible by the Italian initial court. This prevented Donnici, who was next in line, from becoming an MEP. Donnici objected both to the European Parliament and to the appeal court in Italy.
In the Parliament the legal affairs committee approved the credentials of Orchetto (that is turning down Donnici’s objection) it seems among other things on the basis that it is necessary to follow the ruling of a member state on who is an MEP. But then the Italian Supreme Court upheld Donnici’s complaint and ruled that it was not possible to withdraw a withdrawal and therefore the correct MEP was in fact Donnici and the European Parliament was informed.
At this stage it seemed as if it would then be a routine matter to reapply the logic that approved Orchetto, i.e that the Member State ruling applies. In accordance with tradition, and because approval of credentials is not normally controversial, Gargarni, the chair of the legal affairs committee undertook the rapporteurship. He then constructed an argument that Orchetto should remain an MEP.
As far as I am able to sensibly interpret the presentation (which as I have said was much better in plenary than at the in camera committee stage) it is broadly that the Italian court did not take into account EU law and therefore the only mechanism to get that taken into account is to get it reviewed by the ECJ. The refusal to approve credentials does that in that both the Italian State and Donnici can take the European Parliament to the ECJ.
So that is the proposed ‘mechanism’ and I suppose it has some logic. However it seems to me that the EU law that it is alleged has not been taken into account is not relevant and the interpretation argued to make it to make it relevant is distinctly dodgy. It essentially defines a candidate on a list as a potential MEP, then applies rules for ‘not mandating an MEP’ to the potential MEP and stretched the not mandating (which I had assumed meant instructing how to vote) to any withdrawal agreement or agreement about resigning from a list.
Now I can fully understand the Italian MEPs wishing in general to get rid of their list deals for future elections, I do not think it is fair to use this as the excuse to try and extract a comment upon it from the ECJ. Anyhow that is just about the most favourable way I can express my views. [If you read on to tomorrow when we vote you will see that Graham Watson, our ALDE Group leader says ‘see you in court.]’
22.00 ish Back to the plenary for the Innovation debate. I am too tired to stay to the end so I leave after my speech. Then back to my hotel.
10.00 We have a meeting on the amendments to the financial services white paper. There is some good discussion and some progress is made but we do not get anywhere on the sections about hedge funds. I indicate that it has to be revisited. We keep at it until the bell rings for us to go and vote. We will need a lot more time I think and I wonder whether it is realistic to try and vote on this in our next committee week as that only gives us as short time on Monday 4 June to reach agreement. Anyway, we shall see. .
12.00 – 13.00 votes. No incidents with headphones or otherwise. We vote on the Lulling report on excise duty. It is a mess and conflicting amendments are passed so at the end the rapporteur signals to her group to vote against and it falls.
13.00 Kangaroo Group lunch on the privatisation of postal services. I have decided to go because I want to find out more about how different universal service options have worked. I have to leave early before all the discussions end for another meeting.
14.00 Meeting with the Executive Director and several others from the ICHR Kashmir Centre on the Kashmir report. We discuss the original report, the committee amendments and those for plenary. I say that my ‘bottom line’ will be the same as in the Committee voting, if an amendment gets through that includes self determination, then I will vote in favour even if other amendments have been lost, but if nothing on self determination gets through then I will vote against. They seem to think this is a reasonable dividing line. This whole issue has of course been rumbling on all week, and last, with a lot of work going on behind the scenes to get agreement as far as possible from Emma.
15.00 I had intended to go to an SME intergoup meeting on labour law, but as yet I have not finalised the voting on the Gierek report nor worked out what to put into my 2 minute speech. I am still trying to amend paragraph about open standards in order to clarify that the definition given is not an official Commission policy (which it is not). However since the wording proposal came from the Committee secretariat and all Groups signed up to it nobody now wants to concede it may not be accurate. It is rather annoying that they say ‘it is only an own initiative report’. I reply that it is no excuse to be inaccurate! I have circulated a note, but since there will be objection from the floor if I put in an oral amendment there is really no point. Trying to delete the paragraph will be misinterpreted as an attack on an idealistic point, so in the end I will probably give up on this and satisfy myself with correcting the patent bits. I decide to concentrate my speech on three of the things that have been included in the report from my ECON opinion and to deal with the patent issue. Dealing with this issue and other emails and correspondence takes me up to time for Group.
19.00 Group meeting. We have an exchange of views with Gary Kasparov on the political situation in Russia. It is very interesting indeed and he is a good speaker.
21.00 Into the hemicycle for the debate on the Donnici credentials. I have agreed not to speak. All the speakers in the debate are Italian and they remain more deferential to the dignity of the legal affairs committee than I feel inclined to be on this matter. Gargarni gives a rather better presentation that he has in committee on the subject – just as well as this is public and not in camera. However I still believe it fatally flawed. Here is the gist of the affair as I understand it. I have dubbed it the Donnici code because it is a bit unbelievable.
The Donnici Code. At the time of the Italian elections for the European Parliament one candidate, Orchetto who would have been elected as an MEP, withdrew. At that time he was already a member of the Italian Senate, which he would have had to resign in order to take up the MEP seat. Further he was on a composite list of opposition candidates (everyone except Berlusconi’s party) and as is common practice in Italy famous people go at the top of a list to indicate the type of list, but there are agreements that they will withdraw. Later on after the Italian General Election when some MEPs gave up their seats to go to the national Parliament, Orchetto changed his mind about being an MEP and withdrew his withdrawal which was agreed was possible by the Italian initial court. This prevented Donnici, who was next in line, from becoming an MEP. Donnici objected both to the European Parliament and to the appeal court in Italy.
In the Parliament the legal affairs committee approved the credentials of Orchetto (that is turning down Donnici’s objection) it seems among other things on the basis that it is necessary to follow the ruling of a member state on who is an MEP. But then the Italian Supreme Court upheld Donnici’s complaint and ruled that it was not possible to withdraw a withdrawal and therefore the correct MEP was in fact Donnici and the European Parliament was informed.
At this stage it seemed as if it would then be a routine matter to reapply the logic that approved Orchetto, i.e that the Member State ruling applies. In accordance with tradition, and because approval of credentials is not normally controversial, Gargarni, the chair of the legal affairs committee undertook the rapporteurship. He then constructed an argument that Orchetto should remain an MEP.
As far as I am able to sensibly interpret the presentation (which as I have said was much better in plenary than at the in camera committee stage) it is broadly that the Italian court did not take into account EU law and therefore the only mechanism to get that taken into account is to get it reviewed by the ECJ. The refusal to approve credentials does that in that both the Italian State and Donnici can take the European Parliament to the ECJ.
So that is the proposed ‘mechanism’ and I suppose it has some logic. However it seems to me that the EU law that it is alleged has not been taken into account is not relevant and the interpretation argued to make it to make it relevant is distinctly dodgy. It essentially defines a candidate on a list as a potential MEP, then applies rules for ‘not mandating an MEP’ to the potential MEP and stretched the not mandating (which I had assumed meant instructing how to vote) to any withdrawal agreement or agreement about resigning from a list.
Now I can fully understand the Italian MEPs wishing in general to get rid of their list deals for future elections, I do not think it is fair to use this as the excuse to try and extract a comment upon it from the ECJ. Anyhow that is just about the most favourable way I can express my views. [If you read on to tomorrow when we vote you will see that Graham Watson, our ALDE Group leader says ‘see you in court.]’
22.00 ish Back to the plenary for the Innovation debate. I am too tired to stay to the end so I leave after my speech. Then back to my hotel.
Tuesday 22 May 2007
Gierek, Votes, AmCham
8.00 Our Lib Dem Parliamentary Party breakfast.
9.00 Working Group B. We are discussing the Gierek innovation report. I point out that I want to vote differently to our shadow and in general the meeting is with me but the shadow is not there so we do not actually take a decision. I negotiate with the administrator of the committee who says he will check it out with Toia, the shadow and come back to me. I say that if we can not agree it has to go to Group.
11.00 Back to the office. Some so-called compromise amendments on the report on the financial services white paper have come in. They look more like compilations than compromises. Many of my amendments have been presented in a way that more or less says notwithstanding (what Sharon Bowles says) it is the opposite. Amendments by John Purvis seem to have got the same treatment. I suppose this is only round 1, but we have a very short timescale given next week is a constituency week.
12.00 – 13.30 Votes. We all pile in, put our headsets on (usually with one ear listening to the hemicycle and one on the translation as it is the only way to put your hand up at the right time otherwise by the time the translation comes through a late yes looks like a no). Someone starts to speak and then I suddenly realise I can not understand and fiddle with my translation channel. Danuta is doing the same, then others and I discover we have all picked up earphones of the next place along. After headset swap along the row we all settle down again.
14.15 Meeting with AmCham (American Chamber of Commerce) financial services people. Most of these I know and see regularly, but it is useful to have a collective meeting. We discuss general issues of supervision, Solvency ll, payments and the white paper on financial services and various other things.
15.15 I go to pick up my flight tickets for trip to Lisbon at the start of the Portugese Presidency.
16.00 Do radio interview with Quadrant on roaming charges.
17.00 Meeting with Royal and Sun Alliance about Solvency ll issues.
18.30 Go to Group where Italian prime Minister Prodi is speaking to us. During the meeting our administrator comes over with Toia’s comments on my voting suggestions. With a bit of toing and froing we reach agreement. Group meeting then continues. I leave at about 8pm in order to collect together all the financial services papers ready for compromise meeting in the morning and take them back to my hotel. It is suggested that maybe I would like to speak in the debate on Donnici. I readily agree. I think it would be good if some non-Italians speak.
9.00 Working Group B. We are discussing the Gierek innovation report. I point out that I want to vote differently to our shadow and in general the meeting is with me but the shadow is not there so we do not actually take a decision. I negotiate with the administrator of the committee who says he will check it out with Toia, the shadow and come back to me. I say that if we can not agree it has to go to Group.
11.00 Back to the office. Some so-called compromise amendments on the report on the financial services white paper have come in. They look more like compilations than compromises. Many of my amendments have been presented in a way that more or less says notwithstanding (what Sharon Bowles says) it is the opposite. Amendments by John Purvis seem to have got the same treatment. I suppose this is only round 1, but we have a very short timescale given next week is a constituency week.
12.00 – 13.30 Votes. We all pile in, put our headsets on (usually with one ear listening to the hemicycle and one on the translation as it is the only way to put your hand up at the right time otherwise by the time the translation comes through a late yes looks like a no). Someone starts to speak and then I suddenly realise I can not understand and fiddle with my translation channel. Danuta is doing the same, then others and I discover we have all picked up earphones of the next place along. After headset swap along the row we all settle down again.
14.15 Meeting with AmCham (American Chamber of Commerce) financial services people. Most of these I know and see regularly, but it is useful to have a collective meeting. We discuss general issues of supervision, Solvency ll, payments and the white paper on financial services and various other things.
15.15 I go to pick up my flight tickets for trip to Lisbon at the start of the Portugese Presidency.
16.00 Do radio interview with Quadrant on roaming charges.
17.00 Meeting with Royal and Sun Alliance about Solvency ll issues.
18.30 Go to Group where Italian prime Minister Prodi is speaking to us. During the meeting our administrator comes over with Toia’s comments on my voting suggestions. With a bit of toing and froing we reach agreement. Group meeting then continues. I leave at about 8pm in order to collect together all the financial services papers ready for compromise meeting in the morning and take them back to my hotel. It is suggested that maybe I would like to speak in the debate on Donnici. I readily agree. I think it would be good if some non-Italians speak.
Monday 21 May 2007
Getting ready for the week ahead
5.30 Off to Luton airport. I am told by some of my fellow travellers that in September this flight is being discontinued. So I will have to find another plan. Seems as though the return flight will be at an earlier time (which will be good) but I will probably have to switch to Heathrow or Stanstead outbound. When I get to Basle there is no car there to take me to the Parliament so I have to hang around for an hour to get the car picking people up from the Heathrow flight.
13.00 arrive in the office. Dot (my stagiere) is here this week to give her a taste of what it is like at the Strasbourg end of things before she leaves. In theory this is not a busy week for me in terms of reports for which I am responsible, but there seem to be committee meetings and compromise amendment meetings building up. We start to print out all the documents piling in for these meetings. There are some things in the Gierek report on innovation that I do not like and I get an email from EPP MEP Lehne asking my view on the same paragraphs. I agree deletion a good idea, then I also come up with some partial deletion options that may be better and less of an adversarial approach. People are already beginning to ask which shadow rapporteur am I going to ‘do over’ this week! Not really fair, but another good reason to try and find compromise on partial deletions.
15.30 – 17.00 Group meeting. There have been elections for the European Parliament in Bulgaria so our colleagues who were the interim ‘appointed’ observers/MEPs now depart and are replaced by new people, all except one who stood in the elections and is returning and another who looks the same but turns out to be the identical twin brother!
17.30 The Lib Dem Parliamentary Party meeting. Nothing beyond ordinary discussion of upcoming votes. This session we will be voting on the outcome of the ‘accelerated second reading’ procedure on roaming changes for mobile phone calls. We are generally happy with the result, within the context of having to regulate being necessary in view of market failure. The safety ‘Eurotariff’ will be offered to all customers. Those that do not reply will be switched to it unless they have already negotiated a different roaming package, which some regular travellers may have done. This is not quite opt-in or opt-out, a bit more of a hoki-koki in out and shake it all about as Fiona put it! However it seems workable.
18.00 Back to the office to pick up papers for JURI (legal affairs) committee meeting on the Donnici affair again. A resolution has now been drafted, which I think is completely wrong in its logic
19.00 Legal affairs committee. The discussions proceed much as before with us and the UEN saying the conclusions do not make sense. We insist that we want a debate in plenary. We eventually take a vote and the resolution is passed. Not sure whether we have got a plenary debate or not, I guess it will go the Parliament bureau or Presidents or something like that to decide.
21.00 ECON committee with vote on postal services. Get to hotel at about 10.30
13.00 arrive in the office. Dot (my stagiere) is here this week to give her a taste of what it is like at the Strasbourg end of things before she leaves. In theory this is not a busy week for me in terms of reports for which I am responsible, but there seem to be committee meetings and compromise amendment meetings building up. We start to print out all the documents piling in for these meetings. There are some things in the Gierek report on innovation that I do not like and I get an email from EPP MEP Lehne asking my view on the same paragraphs. I agree deletion a good idea, then I also come up with some partial deletion options that may be better and less of an adversarial approach. People are already beginning to ask which shadow rapporteur am I going to ‘do over’ this week! Not really fair, but another good reason to try and find compromise on partial deletions.
15.30 – 17.00 Group meeting. There have been elections for the European Parliament in Bulgaria so our colleagues who were the interim ‘appointed’ observers/MEPs now depart and are replaced by new people, all except one who stood in the elections and is returning and another who looks the same but turns out to be the identical twin brother!
17.30 The Lib Dem Parliamentary Party meeting. Nothing beyond ordinary discussion of upcoming votes. This session we will be voting on the outcome of the ‘accelerated second reading’ procedure on roaming changes for mobile phone calls. We are generally happy with the result, within the context of having to regulate being necessary in view of market failure. The safety ‘Eurotariff’ will be offered to all customers. Those that do not reply will be switched to it unless they have already negotiated a different roaming package, which some regular travellers may have done. This is not quite opt-in or opt-out, a bit more of a hoki-koki in out and shake it all about as Fiona put it! However it seems workable.
18.00 Back to the office to pick up papers for JURI (legal affairs) committee meeting on the Donnici affair again. A resolution has now been drafted, which I think is completely wrong in its logic
19.00 Legal affairs committee. The discussions proceed much as before with us and the UEN saying the conclusions do not make sense. We insist that we want a debate in plenary. We eventually take a vote and the resolution is passed. Not sure whether we have got a plenary debate or not, I guess it will go the Parliament bureau or Presidents or something like that to decide.
21.00 ECON committee with vote on postal services. Get to hotel at about 10.30
Wednesday 16 May 2007
Group Meeting on Kashmir
9.00 – 12.30 Arrive in office and go straight down to Group meeting for Kashmir discussion and other issues. After that it is tidy up time in the office, packing the trunk for Strasbourg next week. The Parliament is closed tomorrow. I head off at 2pm for Eurostar which means I will get to London in time to go the Parliamentary Party meeting in Westminster. I have not managed to get back on a Wednesday for some time so this is useful.
Tuesday 15 May 2007
Kashmir, Credit Suisse, final Conciliation on Rome II
9.00 Get to the office. For once I do not seem to have a deadline upon me so I can look at various papers ready for speaking this evening to the Federation of Small Businesses at their South East policy unit dinner. Or at least that is how it starts! I then get a request from Diana’s office about whether I can attend the final conciliation meeting on Rome ll which could go on all evening until midnight. We try to see if anyone else is available, but they are not so I have to tell the FSB that duty calls. This will be my first conciliation, so it will be interesting.
13.00 LDEPP. Again a relatively routine agenda. The big issue is Kashmir, but we will resolve that in Group.
14.00 The EP FSF are holding their first annual forum on solvency ll. I go along to the first part. I can not stay for all of it as I have other appointments.
16.00 I have a meeting with Credit Suisse about the detention in Romania of one of their employees who was responsible for some of the privatisations in Romania. They were also going to see Sarah but as I have also invited some Romanian colleagues we decide to have one big meeting in my office. The main problem is one of due process in that it could take 5 or 6 years for the case to get to court. Anyway, Sarah and I decide to write to Commissioner Frattini and ask for a meeting next week.
17.00 Group. We discuss the Kashmir report. We manage to get an amendment tabled that says the inability to meet conditions for a plebiscite now does not rule it out for the future. We also discuss the new format of Parliamentary timetable proposed for next year. There are more non Brussels weeks so as to allow for delegation visits but some of us are concerned this will cause our ‘constituency’ weeks to get filled up with travel instead of being able to do constituency work. The other weeks are all mixed up more. In theory it gives more committee time. I am a bit concerned that it leaves very little time for working on reports etc.
19.00 Back to the office. I definitely have to do the conciliation. Diana is optimistic it will not take too long, others less so. It seems to me that all the times that have been submitted in the sweepstake on how long it will last are over optimistic.
20.00 We are all downstairs on level 5 where two committee rooms are being used for the Conciliation. The Council are in one room in ‘trilogue’ discussions with Diana Wallis (Rapporteur for the Parliament on Rome ll) and the Commission. The Parliament conciliation committee has another room, we also have some Commission people with us. Diana come to us and explains where we have got to and asks for a negotiating mandate within a range of options that she thinks the parliament could accept. Some advice/assistance on support for some wording is also sought from Commissioner Frattini who is in with us.
20.40 Diana heads back to do battle with the Council. The rest of us are invited to hang around. An impressive array of sandwiches, fruit and drinks is laid on which is replenished constantly. Some people go back to their offices waiting to be rung when it is time to reconvene (which could be at any time and several times), I intend to do that but actually find quite a few people I want to talk to are their from both the Parliament and Commission so end up having useful discussions instead.
23.05 Diana has emerged from the Council so we now reconvene in our room and discuss the latest state of affairs. We really are down to haggling over a few words and messengers are sent from one room to another and back. Eventually all is agreed and we take a vote. Then we go and join the Council in their room and formally agree that we have agreed. We all escape at about midnight. Apparently as these things go it was not too bad, there have been instances of negotiations going on until 3 in the morning in Luxembourg and then the Parliament people being shoved on a coach, driven to Brussels and dumped somewhere in the city centre in the early hours.
13.00 LDEPP. Again a relatively routine agenda. The big issue is Kashmir, but we will resolve that in Group.
14.00 The EP FSF are holding their first annual forum on solvency ll. I go along to the first part. I can not stay for all of it as I have other appointments.
16.00 I have a meeting with Credit Suisse about the detention in Romania of one of their employees who was responsible for some of the privatisations in Romania. They were also going to see Sarah but as I have also invited some Romanian colleagues we decide to have one big meeting in my office. The main problem is one of due process in that it could take 5 or 6 years for the case to get to court. Anyway, Sarah and I decide to write to Commissioner Frattini and ask for a meeting next week.
17.00 Group. We discuss the Kashmir report. We manage to get an amendment tabled that says the inability to meet conditions for a plebiscite now does not rule it out for the future. We also discuss the new format of Parliamentary timetable proposed for next year. There are more non Brussels weeks so as to allow for delegation visits but some of us are concerned this will cause our ‘constituency’ weeks to get filled up with travel instead of being able to do constituency work. The other weeks are all mixed up more. In theory it gives more committee time. I am a bit concerned that it leaves very little time for working on reports etc.
19.00 Back to the office. I definitely have to do the conciliation. Diana is optimistic it will not take too long, others less so. It seems to me that all the times that have been submitted in the sweepstake on how long it will last are over optimistic.
20.00 We are all downstairs on level 5 where two committee rooms are being used for the Conciliation. The Council are in one room in ‘trilogue’ discussions with Diana Wallis (Rapporteur for the Parliament on Rome ll) and the Commission. The Parliament conciliation committee has another room, we also have some Commission people with us. Diana come to us and explains where we have got to and asks for a negotiating mandate within a range of options that she thinks the parliament could accept. Some advice/assistance on support for some wording is also sought from Commissioner Frattini who is in with us.
20.40 Diana heads back to do battle with the Council. The rest of us are invited to hang around. An impressive array of sandwiches, fruit and drinks is laid on which is replenished constantly. Some people go back to their offices waiting to be rung when it is time to reconvene (which could be at any time and several times), I intend to do that but actually find quite a few people I want to talk to are their from both the Parliament and Commission so end up having useful discussions instead.
23.05 Diana has emerged from the Council so we now reconvene in our room and discuss the latest state of affairs. We really are down to haggling over a few words and messengers are sent from one room to another and back. Eventually all is agreed and we take a vote. Then we go and join the Council in their room and formally agree that we have agreed. We all escape at about midnight. Apparently as these things go it was not too bad, there have been instances of negotiations going on until 3 in the morning in Luxembourg and then the Parliament people being shoved on a coach, driven to Brussels and dumped somewhere in the city centre in the early hours.
Monday 14 May 2007
Accountants Dinner
2.30 Leave for airport. This is a short week in Brussels as my only event today is speaking at a dinner at 7.30 pm with a visiting group of chartered accountants from the South East. This is useful; as it gives me the morning to catch up on things in the UK offices. I arrive just about in time to dump my suitcase and go off to the dinner.
Friday 11 May 2007
Fruit farms in Kent
8.30 Go to office, collect papers then head for Eurostar. We visit two fruit farms in Kent and look at their packing operations. Then return home. Get home late evening.
Thursday 10 May 2007
Postponed vote, so a day of paperwork
9.30 Get to office. Continue work on the statistics report.
11.00 – 13.00 Votes. The vote on alcohol duty is postponed.
13.15 Back to the office. The report is finalised and dispatched. I am staying in Brussels tonight as we have farm visits tomorrow for which we are being picked up at Ashford from the morning Eurostar. Somehow the afternoon gets used up with purchase of tickets and generally marshalling other work and papers for the next round of topics.
11.00 – 13.00 Votes. The vote on alcohol duty is postponed.
13.15 Back to the office. The report is finalised and dispatched. I am staying in Brussels tonight as we have farm visits tomorrow for which we are being picked up at Ashford from the morning Eurostar. Somehow the afternoon gets used up with purchase of tickets and generally marshalling other work and papers for the next round of topics.
Wednesday 9 May 2007
Donnici, Group and Labour Law
8.30 LDEPP. Nothing special.
9.00 I go to working Group for the discussion on excise duty. We agree to have three different voting lines. This is going to make my life as Lib Dem whip a little more complicated.
9.30 Back to my office. Meetings this morning that were scheduled on the audio visual media service have been cancelled as a deal has been reached, so I am able to continue work on amendments of labour law, for which I have just realised I am the shadow! I thought I was just poking my nose in again. Then I start work on my report on the establishment of a statistics board that is due in tomorrow. I have already made lots of notes so it is really a matter of joining them up and deciding on amendments.
10.30 Group. We have been organising proxy votes again to support Andrew Duff on a couple of amendments to do with institutional provisions and holding an intergovernmental conference. The suggestion is made that there seem to be two lines (to have the conferences or not) and the shadow suggests a free vote, but confident in our fire power Andrew presses for a vote to establish our line to have the conferences, which we duly win.
We also discuss the French elections and the moving on the war monument in Estonia and the retaliatory attacks on the Estonian Embassy and whether this should influence our support for the EU Russia summit. We agree that our line should be that the summit should be postponed, and so we will withdraw from the joint resolution in consequence. [After group I send an email indicating one section in the resolution that I am not happy with and I propose an oral amendment, but as we are withdrawing they suggest we would not succeed. We then eventually abstain on the final vote, so actually I would have preferred my amendment].
We also discuss the ongoing saga of the ‘approval of credentials’ of our new member Donnici. There was a second meeting last Thursday at which the matter was pushed to a vote. Graham was there and was kept waiting over an hour to speak and felt that the chair just hung about until he had all the EPP voters there. I suppose he was after numbers, given that only four (including our two votes) voted in favour. I spoke indicating what a travesty I thought the process was and that I thought it brought the Parliament into disrepute. It will certainly end up in the ECJ. I think the words that Poettering used when he announced Donnici in plenary somehow forecast that.
12.30 Back to the office and more work on the statistics board report.
15.30 I have a meeting in the ‘Mickey Mouse’ bar with a group of Barclays people over for briefings and the opening of their new office. Before they arrive I have time for a brief chat with the Pakistani Ambassador and some Pakistan Parliamentarians who are visiting because of the Kashmir report. They thank me for my work. With Barclays we run through the various live ECON issues.
16.15 Return to work on my report and get so carried away with it that I forget to go to the reception for the opening of the Barclay’s Brussels office. Go back to the flat at about 8.30.
9.00 I go to working Group for the discussion on excise duty. We agree to have three different voting lines. This is going to make my life as Lib Dem whip a little more complicated.
9.30 Back to my office. Meetings this morning that were scheduled on the audio visual media service have been cancelled as a deal has been reached, so I am able to continue work on amendments of labour law, for which I have just realised I am the shadow! I thought I was just poking my nose in again. Then I start work on my report on the establishment of a statistics board that is due in tomorrow. I have already made lots of notes so it is really a matter of joining them up and deciding on amendments.
10.30 Group. We have been organising proxy votes again to support Andrew Duff on a couple of amendments to do with institutional provisions and holding an intergovernmental conference. The suggestion is made that there seem to be two lines (to have the conferences or not) and the shadow suggests a free vote, but confident in our fire power Andrew presses for a vote to establish our line to have the conferences, which we duly win.
We also discuss the French elections and the moving on the war monument in Estonia and the retaliatory attacks on the Estonian Embassy and whether this should influence our support for the EU Russia summit. We agree that our line should be that the summit should be postponed, and so we will withdraw from the joint resolution in consequence. [After group I send an email indicating one section in the resolution that I am not happy with and I propose an oral amendment, but as we are withdrawing they suggest we would not succeed. We then eventually abstain on the final vote, so actually I would have preferred my amendment].
We also discuss the ongoing saga of the ‘approval of credentials’ of our new member Donnici. There was a second meeting last Thursday at which the matter was pushed to a vote. Graham was there and was kept waiting over an hour to speak and felt that the chair just hung about until he had all the EPP voters there. I suppose he was after numbers, given that only four (including our two votes) voted in favour. I spoke indicating what a travesty I thought the process was and that I thought it brought the Parliament into disrepute. It will certainly end up in the ECJ. I think the words that Poettering used when he announced Donnici in plenary somehow forecast that.
12.30 Back to the office and more work on the statistics board report.
15.30 I have a meeting in the ‘Mickey Mouse’ bar with a group of Barclays people over for briefings and the opening of their new office. Before they arrive I have time for a brief chat with the Pakistani Ambassador and some Pakistan Parliamentarians who are visiting because of the Kashmir report. They thank me for my work. With Barclays we run through the various live ECON issues.
16.15 Return to work on my report and get so carried away with it that I forget to go to the reception for the opening of the Barclay’s Brussels office. Go back to the flat at about 8.30.
Tuesday 8 May 2007
ECN, Solvency II and Equitable Life comes to the vote
8.30 Leave to get to the Parliament in time for the start of ECON committee, but have a chance meeting with the Concierge and make arrangements to purchase cleaning equipment for the flat. Get to ECON and there is a discussion on the financial services White Paper followed by votes at 10.00.
12.45 I am chairing the European Parliament Financial Services Forum lunch discussion on Solvency ll. It seems to go quite well.
15.00 Into the Equitable Life Committee for the final vote. This goes well and we finish just in time for me to trot off to the far end of Rue Luxembourg to meet with the Association of Swedish Patent Attorneys at 4pm.
17.30 Back to ECON to discuss my draft report on the attachment of bank accounts.
19.00 Into the office and work on amendments for the opinion on modernising labour
law.
12.45 I am chairing the European Parliament Financial Services Forum lunch discussion on Solvency ll. It seems to go quite well.
15.00 Into the Equitable Life Committee for the final vote. This goes well and we finish just in time for me to trot off to the far end of Rue Luxembourg to meet with the Association of Swedish Patent Attorneys at 4pm.
17.30 Back to ECON to discuss my draft report on the attachment of bank accounts.
19.00 Into the office and work on amendments for the opinion on modernising labour
law.
Monday 7 May 2007
CEIOPS
10.00 Leave for Heathrow. The plane is again on time and I get to Parliament by 3.00pm. I check on documents for the session that I am chairing tomorrow, I dash over to my flat to dump my suitcase, then go to the ECON Committee.
17.00 We have the annual presentation from the chair of CEIOPS (Insurance supervisors) which is now Thomas Steffen. He says that 70% of the capacity of CEIOPS is taken up with issues relating to Solvency ll. He points out that the notion of Group supervision actually comes from current practice rather than Solvency ll. He says they are discussing how to take on board the point in the Equitable Life enquiry and also how to better utilise the ombudsman financial network, Fin Net. He sees consumer protection as a major objective.
I am not sure that this is exactly the same as the Commission view in that they have not put compensation into Solvency ll. It seems to me that even if compensation is not put in, so as not to overburden the directive, some kind of indication that it is being addressed through separate measures will be called for. In the discussion that follows it also seems that the impact studies are extending into the future and several MEPs observe that if the directive is to be completed in this mandate they can not recede off any further.
19.15 Committee ends at 7pm and after a few more bits of paperwork Carol and I head off to the dinner with CEIOPS that they have invited the Solvency ll rapporteurs to. There are several of the supervisors there and it is quite an interesting discussion.
17.00 We have the annual presentation from the chair of CEIOPS (Insurance supervisors) which is now Thomas Steffen. He says that 70% of the capacity of CEIOPS is taken up with issues relating to Solvency ll. He points out that the notion of Group supervision actually comes from current practice rather than Solvency ll. He says they are discussing how to take on board the point in the Equitable Life enquiry and also how to better utilise the ombudsman financial network, Fin Net. He sees consumer protection as a major objective.
I am not sure that this is exactly the same as the Commission view in that they have not put compensation into Solvency ll. It seems to me that even if compensation is not put in, so as not to overburden the directive, some kind of indication that it is being addressed through separate measures will be called for. In the discussion that follows it also seems that the impact studies are extending into the future and several MEPs observe that if the directive is to be completed in this mandate they can not recede off any further.
19.15 Committee ends at 7pm and after a few more bits of paperwork Carol and I head off to the dinner with CEIOPS that they have invited the Solvency ll rapporteurs to. There are several of the supervisors there and it is quite an interesting discussion.
Wednesday 2 May 2007
Debate on Donnici
I am lucky this week as the ECON committee is not having any meetings, I have nothing of mine on JURI and I had kept the rest of the diary free so that I could be in the UK for the elections. Of course the best laid plans do not work out perfectly and I had to do an emergency dash to Brussels to attend a meeting this afternoon to deal with the credentials of new MEP Donnici. He is there today to address the meeting.
Frankly I was appalled at the conduct of the meeting. The story is that in Italy the supreme Court has ruled that Donnici was in fact the proper MEP, but the majority of the Committee seems to be deluding itself into thinking they have a right to over-rule the decision of the court (which is all about whether the MEP he is to replace had in fact withdrawn). The correct reading of all the documents as far as I can see and all the precedents are that the Member States have the final say, provided it is all legally correct as far as the Member State law is concerned, which is obviously the case here. The Parliament’s legal services agree.
The chair Gargrni tried to push it to a vote, saying the legal opinion is not all that important as it is a political decision. (!!!) Diana Wallis got the vote deferred on the basis that the opinion of the legal services had not been circulated. At least members should be shown to have known what they were disregarding. The vote will be tomorrow, so I will not be there but we will be able to have someone else there in my place. At least I was there today when Donnici came. Now back to the UK for more footslogging.
Frankly I was appalled at the conduct of the meeting. The story is that in Italy the supreme Court has ruled that Donnici was in fact the proper MEP, but the majority of the Committee seems to be deluding itself into thinking they have a right to over-rule the decision of the court (which is all about whether the MEP he is to replace had in fact withdrawn). The correct reading of all the documents as far as I can see and all the precedents are that the Member States have the final say, provided it is all legally correct as far as the Member State law is concerned, which is obviously the case here. The Parliament’s legal services agree.
The chair Gargrni tried to push it to a vote, saying the legal opinion is not all that important as it is a political decision. (!!!) Diana Wallis got the vote deferred on the basis that the opinion of the legal services had not been circulated. At least members should be shown to have known what they were disregarding. The vote will be tomorrow, so I will not be there but we will be able to have someone else there in my place. At least I was there today when Donnici came. Now back to the UK for more footslogging.
Monday 30 April 2007
Thursday 26 April 2007
Meetings and votes round off the week
8.30 Arrive in office then go to out ALDE ECON prep meeting. We are now having meetings with Italian translation, but our Italian members are not there. We decide to change the format again and go back to having an informal breakfast meeting followed by our more formal meeting, all on Strasbourg Thursdays.
9.45 Back to the office and I have another telephone discussion on statistics.
11.00 Yet another meeting, this time with the UK advisor from the Patent Office. This is really so we can update one another on how we think things are being perceived. He was present for my presentations at the conference in Berlin just before Easter.
12.00 Votes, including my report on PPP which goes through as expected.
13.00 Back to the office and begin the clear up and packing.
16.30 Go to meet a visitor Group.
17.30 Type up some more thoughts for the statistics paper, tend to emails and then go to get my car to Basle at 7pm. Get home at about midnight UK time which my body now thinks is 1am. A week of campaigning now beckons with the local elections next Thursday.
9.45 Back to the office and I have another telephone discussion on statistics.
11.00 Yet another meeting, this time with the UK advisor from the Patent Office. This is really so we can update one another on how we think things are being perceived. He was present for my presentations at the conference in Berlin just before Easter.
12.00 Votes, including my report on PPP which goes through as expected.
13.00 Back to the office and begin the clear up and packing.
16.30 Go to meet a visitor Group.
17.30 Type up some more thoughts for the statistics paper, tend to emails and then go to get my car to Basle at 7pm. Get home at about midnight UK time which my body now thinks is 1am. A week of campaigning now beckons with the local elections next Thursday.
Wednesday 25 April 2007
Another record breaking voting session!
9.30 Arrive in the office and spend the morning on voting lists. Amidst all the work on my own dossiers and speeches we are still having to do the whip's job of checking all the voting lists and getting information in from colleagues.
11.00 I do a radio interview on payments.
11.30 Votes start. We apparently have another biggest ever voting session with 827 votes to take. This includes lots on criminal sanctions, which by about 100 votes goes the wrong way for me so we vote against at the end, but it is passed by about 100 votes. The voting list is marked to follow my lead. I did get one useful amendment in, but it is over to the council and national governments now. Damages actions is also voted and everything goes as planned and the EPP are outvoted. There is a break in the voting session for an address by the Indian Prime Minister, which is interesting and unusual in content. We do not finish voting until just before 2pm.
14.00 Straight to my office for a meeting with Microsoft. We discuss competition policy, the latest communication to Microsoft from the Commission, criminal sanctions and EPLA.
15.00 Another meeting, this time with the European Digital media association on Rome 1.
16.00 I have a telephone discussion with Tony Clayton about the Statistics Advisory Board. This gives me useful background information about how the statistical system works.
17.00 We get summoned to go to plenary by Sarah as there is an attempt to vote out the homophobia resolution from the agenda. Reasonable numbers of us turn up and the vote is won to keep it in the agenda.
17.30 I do a television interview on criminal sanctions.
18.00 Back to the office, start clearing away redundant papers and contemplate a joint draft letter to the commission on the audio visual media directive. Have quick discussion on this with Sayeed Kamall, then go down to Group at 7pm. Stay to the end when we have an update from Ignasi on the latest on the audio visual media directive. Leave at 21.00 and after getting back to my hotel go on a walkabout for half an hour to remind myself that there is such a thing as outside.
11.00 I do a radio interview on payments.
11.30 Votes start. We apparently have another biggest ever voting session with 827 votes to take. This includes lots on criminal sanctions, which by about 100 votes goes the wrong way for me so we vote against at the end, but it is passed by about 100 votes. The voting list is marked to follow my lead. I did get one useful amendment in, but it is over to the council and national governments now. Damages actions is also voted and everything goes as planned and the EPP are outvoted. There is a break in the voting session for an address by the Indian Prime Minister, which is interesting and unusual in content. We do not finish voting until just before 2pm.
14.00 Straight to my office for a meeting with Microsoft. We discuss competition policy, the latest communication to Microsoft from the Commission, criminal sanctions and EPLA.
15.00 Another meeting, this time with the European Digital media association on Rome 1.
16.00 I have a telephone discussion with Tony Clayton about the Statistics Advisory Board. This gives me useful background information about how the statistical system works.
17.00 We get summoned to go to plenary by Sarah as there is an attempt to vote out the homophobia resolution from the agenda. Reasonable numbers of us turn up and the vote is won to keep it in the agenda.
17.30 I do a television interview on criminal sanctions.
18.00 Back to the office, start clearing away redundant papers and contemplate a joint draft letter to the commission on the audio visual media directive. Have quick discussion on this with Sayeed Kamall, then go down to Group at 7pm. Stay to the end when we have an update from Ignasi on the latest on the audio visual media directive. Leave at 21.00 and after getting back to my hotel go on a walkabout for half an hour to remind myself that there is such a thing as outside.
Tuesday 24 April 2007
Criminal Sanctions disagreements
10.00 Arrive in the Parliament after a small detour because the chauffer goes to the wrong side of the river for my entrance. We are having a meeting on the voting list for Criminal Sanctions at 10.30 with others in the Group who have taken an interest. I have done my preferred list. On the way over I see Toine, who is the shadow for the sublect, walking in the opposite direction with Commissioner Kroes, which is bad news as it means he will not be joining us. We have our meeting and it seems that Ignasi, Marco and I have broadly similar thinking. The differences that we do have stem from the different ways legal systems work in different countries, which is half the problem with the criminal sanctions proposals. Anyway, we agree between ourselves and will take our line to Group tonight. I will see if I can find Toine before then as he is not going to like our conclusions and I regret that he was not present.
11.45 I head over to the hemicycle for votes. We are voting on payments today. There is to be an oral amendment to put a data protection bit in the resolution, providing that first we have rejected the amendment. This keeps it out of the directive and seems a good compromise. The ECON chair Pervench Beres is to move it and has the sense to let everyone know before the votes. The hard line civil liberties members of ALDE still ignore my voting list and vote for the amendment, but the amendment is rejected and then the oral amendment passed. It is a very small number of votes for just a big portfolio, because everything is voted en bloc, so the rapporteur does not get the amount of applause he deserves. We should have made them take 800 votes: then maybe they would have applauded more!
13.15 We have a photo-opp with cricket bats and balls, on the problems in Sri Lanka. This causes interest among continental media and so Sarah and Saj play cricket to show them (Sarah hits the ball too far and into a camera crew but fortunately the balls are soft).
14.00 We have a JURI extraordinary meeting on verification of credentials. This is all about ensuring everything is correct about new members papers etc. Sometimes it is not as straightforward who substitutes should be. There has been a court case in Italy over who should be the replacement for Di Pietro when he joined the Italian Government.
15.00 We have a press conference on payments.
16.00 Back to the office. I have a meeting at 4.30 with Sanchez Presado the rapporteur on damages actions. He has not been able to reach any agreement yet with the EPP. I agree with him some possible compromises and split votes and he goes off for another try.
17.00 Back to paperwork and voting lists and emails. I try to find Toine but do not succeed until just before the group meeting, by which time he has had an email of the voting preferences from this morning’s meeting. Needless to say he is not happy.
19.00 Group meeting. We get on to the criminal sanctions and Toine indicates his displeasure. I want to let the debate get underway before I intervene so I let Ignasi speak first from our side but he is preceded by our Bulgarian vice-chair who says there have been demonstrations in Bulgaria. The demonstrations concern the panic about the prospect of the directive criminalising individuals for private copying, but it is already pretty well unanimously agreed that will be taken out. When it is my turn I give a bit more explanation of the wider picture, the different conditions in member states, why it should not cover all intellectual property but only copyright and trademarks (as the most closely related to counterfeiting and piracy) and how we have come to a least bad compromise between ourselves on the available amendments. I think most are able to follow the arguments. We get to a vote and win our line reasonably comfortably. After Group I leave at 9.30 and the driver (a different one) gets lost again.
11.45 I head over to the hemicycle for votes. We are voting on payments today. There is to be an oral amendment to put a data protection bit in the resolution, providing that first we have rejected the amendment. This keeps it out of the directive and seems a good compromise. The ECON chair Pervench Beres is to move it and has the sense to let everyone know before the votes. The hard line civil liberties members of ALDE still ignore my voting list and vote for the amendment, but the amendment is rejected and then the oral amendment passed. It is a very small number of votes for just a big portfolio, because everything is voted en bloc, so the rapporteur does not get the amount of applause he deserves. We should have made them take 800 votes: then maybe they would have applauded more!
13.15 We have a photo-opp with cricket bats and balls, on the problems in Sri Lanka. This causes interest among continental media and so Sarah and Saj play cricket to show them (Sarah hits the ball too far and into a camera crew but fortunately the balls are soft).
14.00 We have a JURI extraordinary meeting on verification of credentials. This is all about ensuring everything is correct about new members papers etc. Sometimes it is not as straightforward who substitutes should be. There has been a court case in Italy over who should be the replacement for Di Pietro when he joined the Italian Government.
15.00 We have a press conference on payments.
16.00 Back to the office. I have a meeting at 4.30 with Sanchez Presado the rapporteur on damages actions. He has not been able to reach any agreement yet with the EPP. I agree with him some possible compromises and split votes and he goes off for another try.
17.00 Back to paperwork and voting lists and emails. I try to find Toine but do not succeed until just before the group meeting, by which time he has had an email of the voting preferences from this morning’s meeting. Needless to say he is not happy.
19.00 Group meeting. We get on to the criminal sanctions and Toine indicates his displeasure. I want to let the debate get underway before I intervene so I let Ignasi speak first from our side but he is preceded by our Bulgarian vice-chair who says there have been demonstrations in Bulgaria. The demonstrations concern the panic about the prospect of the directive criminalising individuals for private copying, but it is already pretty well unanimously agreed that will be taken out. When it is my turn I give a bit more explanation of the wider picture, the different conditions in member states, why it should not cover all intellectual property but only copyright and trademarks (as the most closely related to counterfeiting and piracy) and how we have come to a least bad compromise between ourselves on the available amendments. I think most are able to follow the arguments. We get to a vote and win our line reasonably comfortably. After Group I leave at 9.30 and the driver (a different one) gets lost again.
Monday 23 April 2007
Speeches!
5.30 Leave for Luton airport. The plane lands early and I get to the Parliament in Strasbourg by 11.30. As usual I am in well ahead of everyone else so I can get to work on my speeches and amendments. I have three speeches to do today. Also, on Friday we discovered that the GUE group had put an amendment in to the Payment Services Directive broadly the same as the one I persuaded ALDE not to put in. This means I will have to revisit the whole matter again. I decide that I will say something in my speech, which rather ironically is probably going to be at just the time when it might be discussed in the working group. I check the wording of the amendment again and the final text agreed with Council, and I am not convinced the amendment is in the right place anyway. Anyway, as before, my line will be that I agree with the principle of the amendment but it is a bigger issue than just payments.
15.30 Group meeting. Nothing spectacular, just updates and I then leave before the end because plenary is due to start at 17.00.
16.45 Head over to the hemicycle. Talk to some media people on the way. They want to know what I think about an issue of including inland waterways in shipping insurance compensation requirements. Typical, I do three speeches today and they want to know about something else.
Plenary starts and I get a small surprise when it is announced that the ALDE group have asked to delay the vote on my PPP report until Thursday, so I get up and explain that it is because we only got the legal opinion on comitology last Friday and have some final checks to make. (Later Titus our administrator says to Carol perhaps he should have warned me…). There is much to-ing an fro-ing among those involved in the payments portfolio. It is suggested to me that whether there is a majority for it depends upon our votes. I am pleased we had the discussion in Group last week, I just hope it holds and is not reopened in my absence.
The debate starts a bit late and I discover that my success last week in not tabling the amendment has not been reopened in Group so my voting list in which I have marked a vote against the GUE amendment is approved. I do my speech and at the end clarify that I persuaded our Group not to submit a similar amendment, that if it comes to it a vote against the amendment is not a vote against the underlying principle and that I hope it can be handled in another way. I think this probably increases the pressure for another way to be found.
19.00 We are having an ECON committee meeting. First is the ECB annual report. I get there for that, but leave at 7.30 because I am due on for my second speech of the day in plenary. This is on Criminal Sanctions for Intellectual Property. I have decided that unless my amendments pass, or the one from the Greens restricting the scope, then I will be voting against the directive irrespective of what the group line will be. Given this is about something where I have had professional experience for over 25 years, I can not desert my personal expertise. The Law Society also agrees with me on this, as does the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and, it has to be said, the UK Government. Unfortunately it is unlikely that our shadow will take the same view. Anyway, I say my bit and make it clear that the whole thing should be restricted to counterfeiting and piracy, organised crime and risk to health and safety. Debates are already running late so my third speech, originally scheduled for around 10.30 is now moving towards midnight.
21.00 Back in the office working on papers, doing press releases, notes for colleagues and voting lists and generally filling in time until the start of the last debate. Having to speak late on a Monday, when getting up at 4 in the morning is beginning to feel like a cruel and unusual punishment. Hasn’t anyone here heard of the working time directive?
23.00 I go to plenary. Our debate on damages actions eventually starts about 23.25. I think Commissioner Kroes does a good introduction. I say that when this all started I felt like a latter day Cassandra, only unlike Cassandra notice has been taken of what I have said and that, even if gently, it is embedded in the report. It is rather too gently for the EPP, so it looks like it will be a battle of votes not a broader compromise deal. But the rapporteur and the Commissioner offer to be open for discussions. The Commissioner’s summing up is also very good, acknowledging that the devil will be in the detail – a phrase I nearly used in my own speech. We finish at ten past midnight. I get a car to my hotel and check in at half past midnight. I am by now well into my second wind and not at all tired. I have already made the decision that I am not going to our 8am Lib Dem breakfast.
15.30 Group meeting. Nothing spectacular, just updates and I then leave before the end because plenary is due to start at 17.00.
16.45 Head over to the hemicycle. Talk to some media people on the way. They want to know what I think about an issue of including inland waterways in shipping insurance compensation requirements. Typical, I do three speeches today and they want to know about something else.
Plenary starts and I get a small surprise when it is announced that the ALDE group have asked to delay the vote on my PPP report until Thursday, so I get up and explain that it is because we only got the legal opinion on comitology last Friday and have some final checks to make. (Later Titus our administrator says to Carol perhaps he should have warned me…). There is much to-ing an fro-ing among those involved in the payments portfolio. It is suggested to me that whether there is a majority for it depends upon our votes. I am pleased we had the discussion in Group last week, I just hope it holds and is not reopened in my absence.
The debate starts a bit late and I discover that my success last week in not tabling the amendment has not been reopened in Group so my voting list in which I have marked a vote against the GUE amendment is approved. I do my speech and at the end clarify that I persuaded our Group not to submit a similar amendment, that if it comes to it a vote against the amendment is not a vote against the underlying principle and that I hope it can be handled in another way. I think this probably increases the pressure for another way to be found.
19.00 We are having an ECON committee meeting. First is the ECB annual report. I get there for that, but leave at 7.30 because I am due on for my second speech of the day in plenary. This is on Criminal Sanctions for Intellectual Property. I have decided that unless my amendments pass, or the one from the Greens restricting the scope, then I will be voting against the directive irrespective of what the group line will be. Given this is about something where I have had professional experience for over 25 years, I can not desert my personal expertise. The Law Society also agrees with me on this, as does the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and, it has to be said, the UK Government. Unfortunately it is unlikely that our shadow will take the same view. Anyway, I say my bit and make it clear that the whole thing should be restricted to counterfeiting and piracy, organised crime and risk to health and safety. Debates are already running late so my third speech, originally scheduled for around 10.30 is now moving towards midnight.
21.00 Back in the office working on papers, doing press releases, notes for colleagues and voting lists and generally filling in time until the start of the last debate. Having to speak late on a Monday, when getting up at 4 in the morning is beginning to feel like a cruel and unusual punishment. Hasn’t anyone here heard of the working time directive?
23.00 I go to plenary. Our debate on damages actions eventually starts about 23.25. I think Commissioner Kroes does a good introduction. I say that when this all started I felt like a latter day Cassandra, only unlike Cassandra notice has been taken of what I have said and that, even if gently, it is embedded in the report. It is rather too gently for the EPP, so it looks like it will be a battle of votes not a broader compromise deal. But the rapporteur and the Commissioner offer to be open for discussions. The Commissioner’s summing up is also very good, acknowledging that the devil will be in the detail – a phrase I nearly used in my own speech. We finish at ten past midnight. I get a car to my hotel and check in at half past midnight. I am by now well into my second wind and not at all tired. I have already made the decision that I am not going to our 8am Lib Dem breakfast.
Thursday 19 April 2007
Packing for the trip home
9.15 Arrive at the office with my huge suitcase. I need it for taking back a vast number of letters that we have printed and stuffed. There is then no room left for the suits I will need in Strasbourg so I stuff them into my trunk as well. It will be a bit problematical if my trunk goes walkabout now as sometimes happens. After completing the packing of trunk and suitcase I turn again to various amendments. We are then contacted by the tabling office about the language of the compromise amendments on damages actions. The rapporteur says he is happy for me to resolve the problem. There is one place where there was some awkward English that I had left because it was clearer than the alternative, which the tabling office now proposes. I find a clearer third suggestion.
12.15 I meet with people from FFII. I had replied to one of their emails to explain how my amendments dealt with some of the same concerns that they had. We have a useful exchange on a range of issues.
13.50 I leave with my huge and heavy suitcase to get the Eurostar. I am going to have problems with this when I get to the London end and all the steps…. The weekend now beckons with visits to Lewes and Eastbourne
12.15 I meet with people from FFII. I had replied to one of their emails to explain how my amendments dealt with some of the same concerns that they had. We have a useful exchange on a range of issues.
13.50 I leave with my huge and heavy suitcase to get the Eurostar. I am going to have problems with this when I get to the London end and all the steps…. The weekend now beckons with visits to Lewes and Eastbourne
Wednesday 18 April 2007
Payments, Audio Visual Media Services
9.00 I get to the office. I go down to group to make a few notes about what I want to say about Payments before I am due to speak. Carol has been busy getting in the proxy votes from the UK delegation. I am having Wolff Klinz vote for payments. Not usual to give proxies to another countries’ MEP but he wants to make it clear he supports my line. After I do my presentation Alexander Alvaro presents the amendment. This then seems to get support from Graham in the chair as he asks are we not having the wool pulled over us in that it would upset the package. I then give a comprehensive reply dealing with the SWIFT issue and the data protection directive, whether the amendment properly has a place in the payments directive and what it would mean to reject the amendment should we subsequently wish to run it as a separate issue. We then vote. The civil liberties side have organised proxies too. However I seem to have won support on the arguments so the amendment is not approved.
12.00 Back to the office. I draft my opinion on attachment of bank accounts.
14.30 We have a meeting on the audio visual media services. There are still some issues that are not quite satisfactory but there is quite a common consensus of opinion among the various parliamentarians there. We are possibly embarking on an ‘accelerated second reading’ procedure where we agree everything with the Council. If we do not agree and go to a full second reading the Council are threatening to back track to their November position. After the meeting I have a discussion with Chris Heaton-Harris and Sayeed Kamell about advertising braks in children's programs as we have all raised the point again. In the end we think that it is just about workable given that there are usually significant advert breaks at the half hour which can accommodate the extra few seconds that are needed to take a scheduled slot for half an hour and no break allowed to half an hour and a few seconds when a break is allowed.
16.00 Back to the office. I have a meeting at 4.30 with the Alternative Investment Management Association for whom I am co-hosting a lunch on June 12th. We discuss the issues that we think should be raised. The purpose of such a lunch is to provide information and an opportunity for MEPs to question industry experts. I also have a dinner I am sponsoring on June 12th – I can remember this as it is my birthday so bang goes any idea of keeping part of it free!!
17.30 I commence the tidying up and dealing with odds and ends and start heaping papers into my Strasbourg trunk. Leave at 7.30
12.00 Back to the office. I draft my opinion on attachment of bank accounts.
14.30 We have a meeting on the audio visual media services. There are still some issues that are not quite satisfactory but there is quite a common consensus of opinion among the various parliamentarians there. We are possibly embarking on an ‘accelerated second reading’ procedure where we agree everything with the Council. If we do not agree and go to a full second reading the Council are threatening to back track to their November position. After the meeting I have a discussion with Chris Heaton-Harris and Sayeed Kamell about advertising braks in children's programs as we have all raised the point again. In the end we think that it is just about workable given that there are usually significant advert breaks at the half hour which can accommodate the extra few seconds that are needed to take a scheduled slot for half an hour and no break allowed to half an hour and a few seconds when a break is allowed.
16.00 Back to the office. I have a meeting at 4.30 with the Alternative Investment Management Association for whom I am co-hosting a lunch on June 12th. We discuss the issues that we think should be raised. The purpose of such a lunch is to provide information and an opportunity for MEPs to question industry experts. I also have a dinner I am sponsoring on June 12th – I can remember this as it is my birthday so bang goes any idea of keeping part of it free!!
17.30 I commence the tidying up and dealing with odds and ends and start heaping papers into my Strasbourg trunk. Leave at 7.30
Tuesday 17 April 2007
"Sharon's hour"
9.00 Arrive at the office. There are alarms and excursions going on concerning the proposed amendment to the Payment Services Directive. We are told that a rumour is being spread that in any case the European Banking Federation do not like the package. We know that is not true so we take steps to make sure the truth is known. There are also some final tweaks on Purchasing Price Parities to do.
9.30 I have a meeting with Dr Thomas Steffen the director of the German Financial Services regulator (Bafin). We have a wide ranging discussion on various issues linked to Solvency ll and the issues that it raises, including guarantee schemes, transparency, group supervision and independence and liability of supervisors.
11.00 Toine Manders’ assistant comes to see me about amendments on criminal sanctions. We agree on what we are each going to table to group. I then pop down to check on what is going on in Working group C, which deals with the international affairs issues.
12.30 Our Lib Dem Parliamentary Party meeting and once again I am in the chair. We discuss possible controversies in the Strasbourg agenda and agree the sharing out of cover for checking votes.
14.30 Working Group A, which deals with all the ECON and JURI issues. Carol has dubbed this ‘Sharon’s hour’ because I seem to be the lead person on everything. Payments is going to Group, so we do not deal with it here. We reach agreement on Purchasing Price Parities and damages actions. On criminal sanctions I have amendments that do the same sort of thing as those of Marco Capparti and I am charged with making a composite.
15.30 Back to the office. I work on the composites.
16.00 I have a meeting with representative from UEFA. This is really to catch up on where the Audio Visual Media services directive has got to in Council. It seems that in Council they are finally getting round to understanding that my solution on short news reports is the only one that is compatible with other copyright legislation (hooray at last). Then finish the composites and also do some more tweaking on the language of the damages amendments.
17.30 I go down to Group. I have a quick chat with Alexander Alvaro about the proposed amendment to Payments. He says they had not realised the precariousness of the situation. I joke that I will direct the entire wrath from the German Banks towards him. He says he cannot withdraw the amendment because it is supported by Sophie and Sarah who are in the US. I confirm that Marco is happy with the composite amendments and they are signed off.
18.30 I go back to the office. I then start to look at the papers on attachment of bank accounts for which I have to draft an opinion this week. I have already looked at these over the weekend. Leave at about 7.30 taking the attachment papers for homework.
9.30 I have a meeting with Dr Thomas Steffen the director of the German Financial Services regulator (Bafin). We have a wide ranging discussion on various issues linked to Solvency ll and the issues that it raises, including guarantee schemes, transparency, group supervision and independence and liability of supervisors.
11.00 Toine Manders’ assistant comes to see me about amendments on criminal sanctions. We agree on what we are each going to table to group. I then pop down to check on what is going on in Working group C, which deals with the international affairs issues.
12.30 Our Lib Dem Parliamentary Party meeting and once again I am in the chair. We discuss possible controversies in the Strasbourg agenda and agree the sharing out of cover for checking votes.
14.30 Working Group A, which deals with all the ECON and JURI issues. Carol has dubbed this ‘Sharon’s hour’ because I seem to be the lead person on everything. Payments is going to Group, so we do not deal with it here. We reach agreement on Purchasing Price Parities and damages actions. On criminal sanctions I have amendments that do the same sort of thing as those of Marco Capparti and I am charged with making a composite.
15.30 Back to the office. I work on the composites.
16.00 I have a meeting with representative from UEFA. This is really to catch up on where the Audio Visual Media services directive has got to in Council. It seems that in Council they are finally getting round to understanding that my solution on short news reports is the only one that is compatible with other copyright legislation (hooray at last). Then finish the composites and also do some more tweaking on the language of the damages amendments.
17.30 I go down to Group. I have a quick chat with Alexander Alvaro about the proposed amendment to Payments. He says they had not realised the precariousness of the situation. I joke that I will direct the entire wrath from the German Banks towards him. He says he cannot withdraw the amendment because it is supported by Sophie and Sarah who are in the US. I confirm that Marco is happy with the composite amendments and they are signed off.
18.30 I go back to the office. I then start to look at the papers on attachment of bank accounts for which I have to draft an opinion this week. I have already looked at these over the weekend. Leave at about 7.30 taking the attachment papers for homework.
Monday 16 April 2007
Intellectual Property, Damages Actions and Payments
10.30 Leave for Heathrow. I have already had telephone conversations with Carol in Brussels to confirm wording of an amendment to the Equitable Life report which is due in by noon (11 am our time). We land early in Brussels so I get to Parliament by just after 3pm. I immediately start work on more amendments for the directive on criminal sanctions for intellectual property. This is being voted in Strasbourg next week so I have to get the amendments approved by the Group this week.
16.30 Sanchez Presedo the Rapporteur on the damages action report comes to see me. He starts by saying “I have come to see you about your report – after all it is now more yours!”. It is true I controlled the voting in committee but we had actually reached agreement on most of my changes anyway. He now wants to reincorporate two things that were deleted in the committee votes. One is ok because it was lost because the socialists were too slow to vote. The other we voted against because the language was confused and it had slipped my notice. However I am now able to agree how to change it so that it fits in with everything else.
17.15 We have been alerted to an amendment that our Civil Liberties colleagues want to put to the payments directive. It is about SWIFT. The content I can agree in sentiment but I do not think it has a place in the directive, especially at this stage, and as it is of wider significance it is hard to see how any rapid agreement on it, or indeed practical implementation, could be reached, and so if it were passed it would also cause the package to fail. I send out a few emails of explanation. I am reluctant to argue it just on the basis of ‘the package’ agreed with Council but think I have to make sure the significance is appreciated. Leave at about 7.45pm taking various papers with me.
16.30 Sanchez Presedo the Rapporteur on the damages action report comes to see me. He starts by saying “I have come to see you about your report – after all it is now more yours!”. It is true I controlled the voting in committee but we had actually reached agreement on most of my changes anyway. He now wants to reincorporate two things that were deleted in the committee votes. One is ok because it was lost because the socialists were too slow to vote. The other we voted against because the language was confused and it had slipped my notice. However I am now able to agree how to change it so that it fits in with everything else.
17.15 We have been alerted to an amendment that our Civil Liberties colleagues want to put to the payments directive. It is about SWIFT. The content I can agree in sentiment but I do not think it has a place in the directive, especially at this stage, and as it is of wider significance it is hard to see how any rapid agreement on it, or indeed practical implementation, could be reached, and so if it were passed it would also cause the package to fail. I send out a few emails of explanation. I am reluctant to argue it just on the basis of ‘the package’ agreed with Council but think I have to make sure the significance is appreciated. Leave at about 7.45pm taking various papers with me.
Thursday 12 April 2007
Roaming Votes
7.45 Arrive in the office for my interview. We continue with checking the votes and I assemble my papers for going to Croatia this afternoon for the ELDR Council meeting.
10.30 Votes in Industry on roaming. It all goes pretty well. Lots of member leave afterwards so we are down to about 30 instead of 50 voting on the innovation report. That is mixed. Votes take until 12.45
13.00 Interview on roaming with Quadrant radio
13.15 start to write up notes on the advisory board. The do the forthcoming diary events check and leave for the airport at 3pm.
10.30 Votes in Industry on roaming. It all goes pretty well. Lots of member leave afterwards so we are down to about 30 instead of 50 voting on the innovation report. That is mixed. Votes take until 12.45
13.00 Interview on roaming with Quadrant radio
13.15 start to write up notes on the advisory board. The do the forthcoming diary events check and leave for the airport at 3pm.
Wednesday 11 April 2007
Equitable life, Statistics and Communications
8.30 Arrive in the office. Sort out papers and head for the JURI committee. Votes are due at 9.30 but are delayed. Eventually I leave because the Equitable life committee of Enquiry has a discussion on its report which is more important. Anyway, I know that the EPP are supporting a few of my amendments in JURI to the innovation report which will carry them whether I am there or not. The others that they do not support will fall whether I am there or not!
10.15 Arrive in the Equitable life committee. Peter Skinner is speaking about what was meant to be confidential after our last meeting and should there have been a press release from the rapporteur. We then move on to discussing the report which has been amended to include my and others comments during the informal amendment period. Most are content. Peter is not and seems to want more about Solvency ll (which I thought I had covered reasonably well) and makes some points about other directives that could be mentioned. Some of the Conservative members criticise Peter for being political, and in doing so are political themselves. I eventually intervene to point out the changes that have been made to introduce solvency ll and also say that we have to make sure (in ECON when we do the directive later this year) that it does solve all the problems that we are told it does. I am not yet 100% convinced that it does.
11.15 The ECON members of the Equitable life committee leave because we have a discussion in ECON now on solvency ll. A bit of a mad morning with three committees all doing relevant things.
12.45 The European Parliament Financial Services Forum lunch. This is on the EU-US dialogue. The main thrusts of the dialogue are on intellectual property, standards and financial services, so in many ways I am more involved than everyone else as I cover all three topics. However lunch is on the financial aspects.
14.30 Back to the office and a telephone conference with Radermacher of the German Presidency about the statistics directives. I tell him we are still awaiting the opinion of legal services on comitology but I am hoping it is as we agreed at our meeting. We then have a useful discussion on the purpose of the advisory board. I find this a more helpful than the discussions with the Commission were in terms of getting a handle on what is really intended. However this is probably largely due to the fact that I am more up to speed now. Additionally I have located a UK expert that I can also consult next week.
16.00 Meeting with members of GSM representing communication operators. They really wanted to know about payments, so I told them I expect the Presidency text as agreed by Council to be approved without any or much change by Parliament. They are happy with that. We also discussed that the e payements directive will now need to be brought in line, but that was always the intention. Seems to me the capital requirements in that were made too high by a factor of 10.
16.30 Meeting with Timothy baker of LIBA. We discuss financial services white paper and various other issues.
17.00 Tomorrow the industry committee votes on roaming and the innovation report and I have got myself a place as a substitute in the voting. The voting lists are long and compromise amendments are appearing so we start checking those. Media are very interested in roaming and I agree to do an interview with five live at 8am in the morning. Leave at 7pm
10.15 Arrive in the Equitable life committee. Peter Skinner is speaking about what was meant to be confidential after our last meeting and should there have been a press release from the rapporteur. We then move on to discussing the report which has been amended to include my and others comments during the informal amendment period. Most are content. Peter is not and seems to want more about Solvency ll (which I thought I had covered reasonably well) and makes some points about other directives that could be mentioned. Some of the Conservative members criticise Peter for being political, and in doing so are political themselves. I eventually intervene to point out the changes that have been made to introduce solvency ll and also say that we have to make sure (in ECON when we do the directive later this year) that it does solve all the problems that we are told it does. I am not yet 100% convinced that it does.
11.15 The ECON members of the Equitable life committee leave because we have a discussion in ECON now on solvency ll. A bit of a mad morning with three committees all doing relevant things.
12.45 The European Parliament Financial Services Forum lunch. This is on the EU-US dialogue. The main thrusts of the dialogue are on intellectual property, standards and financial services, so in many ways I am more involved than everyone else as I cover all three topics. However lunch is on the financial aspects.
14.30 Back to the office and a telephone conference with Radermacher of the German Presidency about the statistics directives. I tell him we are still awaiting the opinion of legal services on comitology but I am hoping it is as we agreed at our meeting. We then have a useful discussion on the purpose of the advisory board. I find this a more helpful than the discussions with the Commission were in terms of getting a handle on what is really intended. However this is probably largely due to the fact that I am more up to speed now. Additionally I have located a UK expert that I can also consult next week.
16.00 Meeting with members of GSM representing communication operators. They really wanted to know about payments, so I told them I expect the Presidency text as agreed by Council to be approved without any or much change by Parliament. They are happy with that. We also discussed that the e payements directive will now need to be brought in line, but that was always the intention. Seems to me the capital requirements in that were made too high by a factor of 10.
16.30 Meeting with Timothy baker of LIBA. We discuss financial services white paper and various other issues.
17.00 Tomorrow the industry committee votes on roaming and the innovation report and I have got myself a place as a substitute in the voting. The voting lists are long and compromise amendments are appearing so we start checking those. Media are very interested in roaming and I agree to do an interview with five live at 8am in the morning. Leave at 7pm
Tuesday 10 April 2007
EPLA and committee preparations
9.30 Arrive in office because I travelled to Brussels yesterday, as always seems to be necessary on our Bank holidays. This month we are having a second committee week so it is a little unusual, presumably because of the constituency weeks. This morning has been kept free for me to review again the legal services opinion on EPLA, which we are discussing this afternoon. However, the deadline for ECON committee amendments to the report on the financial services white paper is upon us at noon tomorrow so we start on that first. The draft report contains too much of the usual ‘rant’ against hedge funds and I have decided that it would be useful to draw attention to the difference between Europe, where there is already registration required and regulation of the mangers and brokers, and the US which remains predominantly unregulated. This adds a new dimension.
I then update my Berlin speech text with what I actually said as some people have been asking for it. Finally I settle to work on EPLA and write an outline of what I want to say in JURI about the opinion. I am assuming that the legal services will respond to the paper that I previously circulated so I can now introduce further points which I will need to give them in writing. Really I have too much that is specialist, and I worry that some will not be able to follow it, but it needs to be said so that everyone understands that a lot of the points made in the opinion are extreme views and debatable.
14.00 Go to the ECON prep meeting for our group. We review upcoming votes tomorrow, nothing controversial except for how to fix excise duty where we have free votes. I will have to miss votes because things that I am shadowing are being voted in JURI at the same time.
15.00 I go to the JURI meeting. We discuss EPLA. My points seem to go down well. We then vote on the JURI opinion on the financial services white paper. Two of my four amendments are passed.
17.00 I look in on the end of the ECON committee meeting then return to the office to complete work on votes for tomorrow in JURI and on the ECON amendments on the white paper. Leave at 8.00pm
I then update my Berlin speech text with what I actually said as some people have been asking for it. Finally I settle to work on EPLA and write an outline of what I want to say in JURI about the opinion. I am assuming that the legal services will respond to the paper that I previously circulated so I can now introduce further points which I will need to give them in writing. Really I have too much that is specialist, and I worry that some will not be able to follow it, but it needs to be said so that everyone understands that a lot of the points made in the opinion are extreme views and debatable.
14.00 Go to the ECON prep meeting for our group. We review upcoming votes tomorrow, nothing controversial except for how to fix excise duty where we have free votes. I will have to miss votes because things that I am shadowing are being voted in JURI at the same time.
15.00 I go to the JURI meeting. We discuss EPLA. My points seem to go down well. We then vote on the JURI opinion on the financial services white paper. Two of my four amendments are passed.
17.00 I look in on the end of the ECON committee meeting then return to the office to complete work on votes for tomorrow in JURI and on the ECON amendments on the white paper. Leave at 8.00pm
Friday 30 March 2007
Patent Conference
9.00 Off to the Patent Conference. I am a panellist for the final session, but before that we have speeches from Industry and the President of the European Patent Office. The panel session goes well. I get the feeling that I am the most in tune with those attending.
Several of the patent attorneys, and Nicholas Pumfrey, come to me afterwards and say that I had done well and made things very clear. I am gratified for I can think of nothing worse than my former colleagues thinking I was doing a bad job!
Several of the patent attorneys, and Nicholas Pumfrey, come to me afterwards and say that I had done well and made things very clear. I am gratified for I can think of nothing worse than my former colleagues thinking I was doing a bad job!
Thursday 29 March 2007
Record breaking mini session?
9.00 Arrive in the office and start to pack papers and tidy up. I may have to rush off for my plane to Berlin immediately after votes.
10.00 Interview with Ian Murray, editor of the Southern Daily Echo.
11.00 Go over to Plenary. Votes are delayed until 11.30 so I go for a coffee with Sarah.
11.30 Votes. Apparently this is the longest ever (or largest number of votes) in a mini session. Not sure whether he (chair) really means ever or just this session. Anyway well over 800 votes. Damages actions has been delayed until next time as well.
13.15 Get car to airport. At the airport meet up with Lehne and his assistant Sebastian and have useful chat on damages actions and a few other things. Our flight lands and we are whisked by car to the conference just in time for the final session at 5pm. Lehne is chairing one session. I go to another about EPLA at which UK patents judge Sir Nicholas Pumfrey is a contributor. There is a French Government representative and a French Industry representative and they have very different views. Industry effectively says ‘which bit of we want EPLA do you not understand?’ The evening is a reception at which there is useful networking.
10.00 Interview with Ian Murray, editor of the Southern Daily Echo.
11.00 Go over to Plenary. Votes are delayed until 11.30 so I go for a coffee with Sarah.
11.30 Votes. Apparently this is the longest ever (or largest number of votes) in a mini session. Not sure whether he (chair) really means ever or just this session. Anyway well over 800 votes. Damages actions has been delayed until next time as well.
13.15 Get car to airport. At the airport meet up with Lehne and his assistant Sebastian and have useful chat on damages actions and a few other things. Our flight lands and we are whisked by car to the conference just in time for the final session at 5pm. Lehne is chairing one session. I go to another about EPLA at which UK patents judge Sir Nicholas Pumfrey is a contributor. There is a French Government representative and a French Industry representative and they have very different views. Industry effectively says ‘which bit of we want EPLA do you not understand?’ The evening is a reception at which there is useful networking.
Wednesday 28 March 2007
Football Debate and Amendments
8.30 I am in the chair for the Lib Dem Parliamentary party meeting. Nothing spectacular, just routine review of the upcoming business and staff positions.
9.00 Telephone discussion with the French Deputy Ambassador to the EU. He wanted to talk to me about patents before the Berlin Conference and we could not schedule a meeting so agreed to have this call to establish contact. Everyone is looking for solutions, and ways to work together, which is good but I am concerned that too much complexity will lead to failure.
9.30 I get to the working group meeting for the discussion of the football reports. Most of the amendments that we submitted have made their way into the compromises so we agree that some of ours can be withdrawn. Just about everything that I submitted is in the compromises, the bits that did not make it are not mine and I reckon of less importance. ALDE, and to a large extent myself, have 24 amendments and co-signed 25 compromises including our amendments. Out of 54 in total I reckon we have done our stuff.
11.00 Meeting with Andrew Cave of the Federation of Small Businesses. They are concerned about Rome 1, which also came up yesterday with UKREP. Seems I will have to look at this.
12.00 I have a photoshoot outside the Parliament.
12.30 Back to the office. I have speaking time in the football debate so start to work out what to say in that and the corresponding press release. Also start to gather papers and thoughts for my session at the Berlin Conference.
15.30 TV Interview with Jim Gibbons on football. Then back to the office and paperwork, keeping an eye on the debates. My speaking time, originally scheduled for around 6pm starts to slip later and later.
18.30 The group has a celebration reception for the EU 50 years. I do not stay long. My speaking time now scheduled for about 8.30pm.
21.30 The football debate finally gets started, I do my speech at about 22.20. Leave Parliament afterwards.
9.00 Telephone discussion with the French Deputy Ambassador to the EU. He wanted to talk to me about patents before the Berlin Conference and we could not schedule a meeting so agreed to have this call to establish contact. Everyone is looking for solutions, and ways to work together, which is good but I am concerned that too much complexity will lead to failure.
9.30 I get to the working group meeting for the discussion of the football reports. Most of the amendments that we submitted have made their way into the compromises so we agree that some of ours can be withdrawn. Just about everything that I submitted is in the compromises, the bits that did not make it are not mine and I reckon of less importance. ALDE, and to a large extent myself, have 24 amendments and co-signed 25 compromises including our amendments. Out of 54 in total I reckon we have done our stuff.
11.00 Meeting with Andrew Cave of the Federation of Small Businesses. They are concerned about Rome 1, which also came up yesterday with UKREP. Seems I will have to look at this.
12.00 I have a photoshoot outside the Parliament.
12.30 Back to the office. I have speaking time in the football debate so start to work out what to say in that and the corresponding press release. Also start to gather papers and thoughts for my session at the Berlin Conference.
15.30 TV Interview with Jim Gibbons on football. Then back to the office and paperwork, keeping an eye on the debates. My speaking time, originally scheduled for around 6pm starts to slip later and later.
18.30 The group has a celebration reception for the EU 50 years. I do not stay long. My speaking time now scheduled for about 8.30pm.
21.30 The football debate finally gets started, I do my speech at about 22.20. Leave Parliament afterwards.
Tuesday 27 March 2007
Damages Actions, Mazars missed
8.00 Arrive in the office and continue with preparation work.
9.00 ECON. I am first on. Amongst other things I share my doubts about the creation of an oversight board unless in has some teeth and I say that it looks like the Council are trying to ensure it has no teeth. I see the ECON secretariat grinning somewhat and I wonder whether I have been a bit blunt. Ike van den Burg talks about the advisory committee, for which she is rapporteur. She says she agrees with my reservations about the board but does not sound quite so blunt as me. I had hoped not to stick with the original tight timetable and we have amendments set for 16 May. It is agreed we will try to talk to the Commission next Strasbourg and to have some feedback on what is done in the US. I suppose if we do not get a clearer picture I will have to compile amendments that give the Board more teeth and then see who squeals.
11.00 Meeting with the UK Permanent Representative people who do the JURI Committee things. This is really just an introduction now I am formally on the committee so we chat about various ongoing and upcoming issues in general terms.
12.00 I go to speak to a visitors Group from the University of Portsmouth. I do the first half hour then Caroline Lucas takes over for the second half.
12.30 Back to the office. We should be going to the ALDE Prep meeting but there are still a few bits to sort out for this afternoon so I skip it.
13.20 I arrive, late, for the Kangaroo Group Lunch meeting on the modernised customs code. I decided to go to this as it might be useful background to fiscal fraud. It is a bit marginal as to whether that is the case. The most interesting fact seems to be that in some countries the customs clearance paperwork still seems to be a bit of a closed shop/family businesses, unless I misunderstood (meeting partly in French). I will check sometime with Janelly Fortou who is the rapporteur.
15.00 ECON. We have votes first. The damages actions is completely controlled by our votes. The EPP are on the losing side (unusual for them). My innovation votes also go well, although I lose two amendments possibly because they have not been understood. However, they are in for JURI as well and I will talk to EPP members about them just to check. Sanches Presaro comes to speak to me after the damages actions votes. One vote to delete a paragraph is lost but then the paragraph is not voted for so it falls after all! They want to check that I agree that is what happened.
I said yes and I thought it was because hands did not go up fast enough (especially in the PES). Sanches Presaro hopes to make some amendments to try and get the EPP in more agreement at plenary. I explain that it may not be easy because where they had delete options I had already put in the ‘softer’ amendments. However, there may be a few things.
Charlie McCreevy arrives to answer questions in ECON. I did not ask a question as I had put them in JURI last week, however some of what I had asked there is repeated repeated by others. There is also a bit of report back on payments which was agreed in ECOFIN this morning. McCreevy very much on form. When quizzed by Radwan and Hoppenstedt on hedge funds, they said he had not said anything about them, he replied and said he had said plenty it was just that they had not liked what he had said! He then went on to repeat what he has previously said and which, allegedly, they must not have liked.
I could not help but smirk for it was so true, we have been told before. At the very end of the session Pervenche Beres quizzed again quite aggressively (Carol said afterwards she felt quite sorry for McCreevy) but McCreevy was a real pro taking out all the sting with humorous flattery - saying that Pervenche had just shown what a good candidate she would have made in certain French elections (Presidential elections) - before addressing the points she raised.
18.00 Back to the office. ECON has gone on so long I will miss the Mazars seminar on corporate accountability that I was hoping to get to. Not really vital but I was going to go because I was instrumental in appointing Mazars as the Lib Dems auditors some years ago when I was on the Federal Finance Committee. I recall we chose them because they had really got to grips with how difficult it would be to make all units of political parties comply with the (then) new financial reporting. I continue with paperwork and leave at 7.30 pm.
9.00 ECON. I am first on. Amongst other things I share my doubts about the creation of an oversight board unless in has some teeth and I say that it looks like the Council are trying to ensure it has no teeth. I see the ECON secretariat grinning somewhat and I wonder whether I have been a bit blunt. Ike van den Burg talks about the advisory committee, for which she is rapporteur. She says she agrees with my reservations about the board but does not sound quite so blunt as me. I had hoped not to stick with the original tight timetable and we have amendments set for 16 May. It is agreed we will try to talk to the Commission next Strasbourg and to have some feedback on what is done in the US. I suppose if we do not get a clearer picture I will have to compile amendments that give the Board more teeth and then see who squeals.
11.00 Meeting with the UK Permanent Representative people who do the JURI Committee things. This is really just an introduction now I am formally on the committee so we chat about various ongoing and upcoming issues in general terms.
12.00 I go to speak to a visitors Group from the University of Portsmouth. I do the first half hour then Caroline Lucas takes over for the second half.
12.30 Back to the office. We should be going to the ALDE Prep meeting but there are still a few bits to sort out for this afternoon so I skip it.
13.20 I arrive, late, for the Kangaroo Group Lunch meeting on the modernised customs code. I decided to go to this as it might be useful background to fiscal fraud. It is a bit marginal as to whether that is the case. The most interesting fact seems to be that in some countries the customs clearance paperwork still seems to be a bit of a closed shop/family businesses, unless I misunderstood (meeting partly in French). I will check sometime with Janelly Fortou who is the rapporteur.
15.00 ECON. We have votes first. The damages actions is completely controlled by our votes. The EPP are on the losing side (unusual for them). My innovation votes also go well, although I lose two amendments possibly because they have not been understood. However, they are in for JURI as well and I will talk to EPP members about them just to check. Sanches Presaro comes to speak to me after the damages actions votes. One vote to delete a paragraph is lost but then the paragraph is not voted for so it falls after all! They want to check that I agree that is what happened.
I said yes and I thought it was because hands did not go up fast enough (especially in the PES). Sanches Presaro hopes to make some amendments to try and get the EPP in more agreement at plenary. I explain that it may not be easy because where they had delete options I had already put in the ‘softer’ amendments. However, there may be a few things.
Charlie McCreevy arrives to answer questions in ECON. I did not ask a question as I had put them in JURI last week, however some of what I had asked there is repeated repeated by others. There is also a bit of report back on payments which was agreed in ECOFIN this morning. McCreevy very much on form. When quizzed by Radwan and Hoppenstedt on hedge funds, they said he had not said anything about them, he replied and said he had said plenty it was just that they had not liked what he had said! He then went on to repeat what he has previously said and which, allegedly, they must not have liked.
I could not help but smirk for it was so true, we have been told before. At the very end of the session Pervenche Beres quizzed again quite aggressively (Carol said afterwards she felt quite sorry for McCreevy) but McCreevy was a real pro taking out all the sting with humorous flattery - saying that Pervenche had just shown what a good candidate she would have made in certain French elections (Presidential elections) - before addressing the points she raised.
18.00 Back to the office. ECON has gone on so long I will miss the Mazars seminar on corporate accountability that I was hoping to get to. Not really vital but I was going to go because I was instrumental in appointing Mazars as the Lib Dems auditors some years ago when I was on the Federal Finance Committee. I recall we chose them because they had really got to grips with how difficult it would be to make all units of political parties comply with the (then) new financial reporting. I continue with paperwork and leave at 7.30 pm.
Monday 26 March 2007
Summertime is here!
8.30 Now that the clocks have gone forward the plane times have changed so I am getting an earlier flight that arrives in Brussels at 1.00 pm, at least in theory. Actually it departs about an hour late, so most of the extra time is spent at Heathrow.
14.00 Arrive in the office. Straight to work on checking voting lists for our ECON votes tomorrow. We have damages actions, on which I have taken over the lead for the Group and my innovation report. Additionally I have to do my presentation on the proposed statistical board.
16.30 Meeting with specialist press from eFinancial News and Money Marketing.
17.30 Back to the paperwork, then leave to go to the flat at about 8.00pm. I note that the Place de Luxembourg is thronging with everywhere outside the bars full. Interesting how it suddenly looks like summer just because the clocks have changed and everyone is out socialising.
14.00 Arrive in the office. Straight to work on checking voting lists for our ECON votes tomorrow. We have damages actions, on which I have taken over the lead for the Group and my innovation report. Additionally I have to do my presentation on the proposed statistical board.
16.30 Meeting with specialist press from eFinancial News and Money Marketing.
17.30 Back to the paperwork, then leave to go to the flat at about 8.00pm. I note that the Place de Luxembourg is thronging with everywhere outside the bars full. Interesting how it suddenly looks like summer just because the clocks have changed and everyone is out socialising.
Thursday 22 March 2007
Close votes on roaming
8.30 get my Eurostar ticket. Suddenly little Easter Eggs are appearing everywhere including at the ticket desk. I nobly resist.
9.00 Arrive in office and review emails and start to collect thoughts on payments. Then I get an SOS to go and vote on the Internal Market committee which is voting today on roaming. Get there for 10.00 and we take the best part of an hour to finish the votes. Many are won by ‘our side’ 22 to 21 including the final vote, so just as well I got there otherwise nothing would have been passed!
11.00 I have a meeting with the Commission on the statistics supervisory board. I am not convinced of the need! When they go we have the German Presidency on the phone wanting to come and see me on the same subject, but I have a lunch to go to so decline.
12.15 Lunch to discuss upcoming IP issues.
14.30 Back in the office and we have the final texts coming through for out meeting at 16.00. Read these then head off for the Council offices.
16.00 Trilogue meeting. More big guns there from the Presidency (the ambassador) and Commission. It all goes according to known positions with the Parliament trying to squeeze some concessions but beyond some extra clarity I do not think there will be a great deal. That suits me and the UK.
18.00 leave for Eurostar.
9.00 Arrive in office and review emails and start to collect thoughts on payments. Then I get an SOS to go and vote on the Internal Market committee which is voting today on roaming. Get there for 10.00 and we take the best part of an hour to finish the votes. Many are won by ‘our side’ 22 to 21 including the final vote, so just as well I got there otherwise nothing would have been passed!
11.00 I have a meeting with the Commission on the statistics supervisory board. I am not convinced of the need! When they go we have the German Presidency on the phone wanting to come and see me on the same subject, but I have a lunch to go to so decline.
12.15 Lunch to discuss upcoming IP issues.
14.30 Back in the office and we have the final texts coming through for out meeting at 16.00. Read these then head off for the Council offices.
16.00 Trilogue meeting. More big guns there from the Presidency (the ambassador) and Commission. It all goes according to known positions with the Parliament trying to squeeze some concessions but beyond some extra clarity I do not think there will be a great deal. That suits me and the UK.
18.00 leave for Eurostar.
Wednesday 21 March 2007
Kashmir and ECON
8.45 Arrive in office and collect copy of modified voting list on Kashmir for the foreign affairs committee and go to the committee for 9.00.. I am able to substitute for an absent Group member and vote. In the end I think the outcome is acceptable but Saj and Liz less satisfied. I feel that we were the only ones who voted on every amendment on the basis of what it said rather than superimposing a party political allegiance. If the Tories and Labour had done what we did then there would have been an even better result. They would not support out amendments at all. However, we had fortunately worked a lot of them in to the compromises. It took an hour to complete the votes.
10.30 On way back to the office bump in to Carol and Sally Padget from Prudential, we return to the office to discuss the briefing note for the lunch in May on Solvency ll.
11.00 Into the ECON committee for votes. We take an hour, mostly on roaming which all goes our way and my amendments passed. We also vote PPP but we are able to do that en bloc with one vote, so I get a clap. We discuss my innovation opinion immediately after votes and I then have a discussion on compromise wording with the socialist shadow rapporteur.
13.00 Back to the office. Email exchanges and internal discussions take up time until 16.00 when we have a meeting of rapporteurs about the outcome of the Ambassador’s meeting on payments. The others still complain about the 12 months for credit and want it lowered to 3 months. I take the opposite view and say if that is lowered I would want a reduction in capital as a balancing measure. Anyway, reduction in capital will be asked for I am sure at the trilogue tomorrow.
17.00 Back to the office to discover that the draft for the oral question on levies does not seem to be going according to my liking. I dispatch emails, suggestions and my original. We have until next Tuesday to get this agreed. Leave at 8.30 pm.
10.30 On way back to the office bump in to Carol and Sally Padget from Prudential, we return to the office to discuss the briefing note for the lunch in May on Solvency ll.
11.00 Into the ECON committee for votes. We take an hour, mostly on roaming which all goes our way and my amendments passed. We also vote PPP but we are able to do that en bloc with one vote, so I get a clap. We discuss my innovation opinion immediately after votes and I then have a discussion on compromise wording with the socialist shadow rapporteur.
13.00 Back to the office. Email exchanges and internal discussions take up time until 16.00 when we have a meeting of rapporteurs about the outcome of the Ambassador’s meeting on payments. The others still complain about the 12 months for credit and want it lowered to 3 months. I take the opposite view and say if that is lowered I would want a reduction in capital as a balancing measure. Anyway, reduction in capital will be asked for I am sure at the trilogue tomorrow.
17.00 Back to the office to discover that the draft for the oral question on levies does not seem to be going according to my liking. I dispatch emails, suggestions and my original. We have until next Tuesday to get this agreed. Leave at 8.30 pm.
Tuesday 20 March 2007
JURI and ECON questions
8.30 Carol and I spend an hour finishing the amendments and submitting them, along with the usual emails.
9.30 Go to the Equitable Life Committee. We discuss the first draft of the report which is not yet public.
10.30 Into JURI for an exchange of views with Charlie McCreevy. I have three questions. One on shareholder voting rights and what he understands by proportionality. His reply indicated he is not fixed on one share one vote as some say. The second question is on Insurance guarantees and I seem to get a "not much doing yet" response. In my third question I say there has been an article in European Voice that the patent strategy communication has been delayed because of the French Presidential elections and we have also previously been similarly told that the copyright levies communication has been delayed due to a request to Barroso from the French, so is there anything else in his remit that is being delayed for the French election that we have not yet heard about.
Everyone laughs and Charlie quips that he is thinking of a full harmonisation directive for election times. He says he was told that the levies matter was politically sensitive. Anyway, we will hopefully be revisiting that with an oral question. We do not get to discuss the legal services opinion on the European Patent Litigation Agreement, and there is a debate about whether it is confidential. Then we have a closed session that discusses whether or not to lift immunity from prosecution from a fellow MEP. There seem to be these quite often and they can arise from allegations of libel or other damage and there may be Parliamentary privilege or the equivalent.
13.30 Meeting with other Group members about amendments to the football report. All my amendments are agreed and I am able to tweak those of Toine and Ignasi so we all more or less reach agreement.
14.30 Back to the office and collect papers for ECON. We have Neelie Kroes coming and I also have to lead the discussion on the amendments of my Innovation opinion.
15.00 Into ECON. I have two questions for Neelie, but she gives such long answers to others and I am in the last round so I only ask one about whether government bonds can continue to be traded in the same way as now given the restriction to one platform (which could be a competition issue) and the interest of Citadel in trading them. She says she will send a written reply. We then go on in committee to discuss roaming and other things and I am left with 3 minutes for my opinion so we defer it until tomorrow.
19.00 A briefing dinner with BT about spectrum and communication issues.
9.30 Go to the Equitable Life Committee. We discuss the first draft of the report which is not yet public.
10.30 Into JURI for an exchange of views with Charlie McCreevy. I have three questions. One on shareholder voting rights and what he understands by proportionality. His reply indicated he is not fixed on one share one vote as some say. The second question is on Insurance guarantees and I seem to get a "not much doing yet" response. In my third question I say there has been an article in European Voice that the patent strategy communication has been delayed because of the French Presidential elections and we have also previously been similarly told that the copyright levies communication has been delayed due to a request to Barroso from the French, so is there anything else in his remit that is being delayed for the French election that we have not yet heard about.
Everyone laughs and Charlie quips that he is thinking of a full harmonisation directive for election times. He says he was told that the levies matter was politically sensitive. Anyway, we will hopefully be revisiting that with an oral question. We do not get to discuss the legal services opinion on the European Patent Litigation Agreement, and there is a debate about whether it is confidential. Then we have a closed session that discusses whether or not to lift immunity from prosecution from a fellow MEP. There seem to be these quite often and they can arise from allegations of libel or other damage and there may be Parliamentary privilege or the equivalent.
13.30 Meeting with other Group members about amendments to the football report. All my amendments are agreed and I am able to tweak those of Toine and Ignasi so we all more or less reach agreement.
14.30 Back to the office and collect papers for ECON. We have Neelie Kroes coming and I also have to lead the discussion on the amendments of my Innovation opinion.
15.00 Into ECON. I have two questions for Neelie, but she gives such long answers to others and I am in the last round so I only ask one about whether government bonds can continue to be traded in the same way as now given the restriction to one platform (which could be a competition issue) and the interest of Citadel in trading them. She says she will send a written reply. We then go on in committee to discuss roaming and other things and I am left with 3 minutes for my opinion so we defer it until tomorrow.
19.00 A briefing dinner with BT about spectrum and communication issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
