9.30 After checking emails I meet with Karin (Danish Colleague) on damages actions. She is the shadow for us on this, but I have been more active so we need to find a common line. The rest of the morning is spent on my ‘whip’ tasks of checking the votes for Lib Dems and preparing papers for Friday meetings and weekend work.
11.00 – 12.00 Plenary votes, then more fiddling with papers and discussion of my IP meeting next week. Catch 14.56 Eurostar and get home at 6pm. Tomorrow I have a meeting in London with the Law Society on Fiscal Fraud for which I am the Rapporteur, but I guess we have quite a few other things to discuss too.
Thursday, 30 November 2006
Wednesday, 29 November 2006
Romania, Bulgaria and the Kangaroo Group
8.30 – 9.00 Our LDEPP (Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party) meeting. Emma Nicholson gives an update on the situation regarding adoption of Romanian orphans. It seems that the new Government has got the matter in hand. True some international adoptions were stopped, no doubt some to good homes, but for the better good of children staying in Romania with Romanian families.UK has a similar agreement with Cambodia, which has been upheld by UK courts. So we will support Emma’s line in Group. I am pleased we have got to the bottom of this as there seem to be some outdated representations still floating about which had caused me and others concern. We also agree to give Chris Davies backing for a mandate to continue negotiating with Council on REACH. As whip my office has been checking expected attendance in Group and arranging proxy votes.
9.00 – 12.30 Group meeting. We discuss Romanian and Bulgarian accession. Long discussion on Romanian orphans. Some try to avoid having a fixed Group line, but a comfortable majority follow Emma’s line – like me others who had been concerned or confused, now agree that what was a problem is being tackled. Romanian ministers have come to parliament with all the papers to back this up and show anyone who wants to investigate further. Chris gets his REACH mandate, also easily. Currently they are trying to find a compromise between the Parliament vote and the Council position; the main sticking point is on substitution plans. Regrettably, and though all sides have tried to minimise it, an increase in animal testing looks inevitable. The blunt truth is that this is not repetition of testing but that many of the substances have never been tested before.The rest of the time is taken up by votes on the Group leadership for the second half of the mandate (January 2007 to August 2009). No surprises in the results as the positions are all negotiated in advance, but quite a lot of amusement, irritation and excursions over the formal conduct of the votes and the ballot papers. I could not resist having a bit of a stir. How I wish there were a Group Secretariat subscription to the Electoral reform Society!
12.30 We do a ‘family photo’ with the visiting Lib Dems.
13.00 Back to my office and find copies of the EPP amendments on damages actions have been sent by Jonathan Evans’ office. They have targeted almost identical parts to me but where I have aimed to make alternative suggestions they have deleted. This gives good voting options, putting my amendments in a good position as the compromise but with deletion as a fail safe.
14.00 – 14.45 I attend the first part of a meeting of shadows and rapporteurs on the Audiovisual Media Services directive. We expect to take the first reading vote in Strasbourg in December. All is not well from the liberal and UK perspective. The purpose of the revision of the existing regulations was to relax measures on advertising schedules and product placement because broadcasters are having a hard time raising enough revenue to make decent programs. The best committee position came out of ECON, so we will have to fight on to make that prevail.
14.45 Speak to visiting Lib Dems in a room off the Library, and then rush to the visitor centre to speak to visiting group of A level students from Vale of White Horse. Get to sign T-shirt.
16.30 – 17.30 Attend meeting with the European Bar Association. Concerns are voiced over forcing breakdown of client confidentiality. A letter of concern is read out from the English and Scottish bar, so I need to investigate. The rest of the meeting is rather hard to follow and from the MEP side is mainly attended by other Liberals who ask me what it is about. Glad they are confused too. Maybe the Law Society can help me out on Friday when we meet in London.
17.30 – 18.30 I chat with Lib Dem visitors in coffee bar. Discuss possible data protection issues with new NHS computer system. Something else to follow up.
19.30 – 21.30 AGM and dinner of the Parliament’s ‘Kangaroo Group’. I think the name means we are ‘leaping forward’. The main discussion item is the directive on the portability of pension funds. Problems to surmount are that constantly moving capital diminishes fund build-up, so it may be better for funds to be left where invested, provided all investors are treated the same. Also, most countries offer tax breaks to encourage savings, but Luxembourg and Germany do it the other way round and have tax free pensions, so tax balancing becomes a problem. Maybe we should just all retire in Luxembourg!
9.00 – 12.30 Group meeting. We discuss Romanian and Bulgarian accession. Long discussion on Romanian orphans. Some try to avoid having a fixed Group line, but a comfortable majority follow Emma’s line – like me others who had been concerned or confused, now agree that what was a problem is being tackled. Romanian ministers have come to parliament with all the papers to back this up and show anyone who wants to investigate further. Chris gets his REACH mandate, also easily. Currently they are trying to find a compromise between the Parliament vote and the Council position; the main sticking point is on substitution plans. Regrettably, and though all sides have tried to minimise it, an increase in animal testing looks inevitable. The blunt truth is that this is not repetition of testing but that many of the substances have never been tested before.The rest of the time is taken up by votes on the Group leadership for the second half of the mandate (January 2007 to August 2009). No surprises in the results as the positions are all negotiated in advance, but quite a lot of amusement, irritation and excursions over the formal conduct of the votes and the ballot papers. I could not resist having a bit of a stir. How I wish there were a Group Secretariat subscription to the Electoral reform Society!
12.30 We do a ‘family photo’ with the visiting Lib Dems.
13.00 Back to my office and find copies of the EPP amendments on damages actions have been sent by Jonathan Evans’ office. They have targeted almost identical parts to me but where I have aimed to make alternative suggestions they have deleted. This gives good voting options, putting my amendments in a good position as the compromise but with deletion as a fail safe.
14.00 – 14.45 I attend the first part of a meeting of shadows and rapporteurs on the Audiovisual Media Services directive. We expect to take the first reading vote in Strasbourg in December. All is not well from the liberal and UK perspective. The purpose of the revision of the existing regulations was to relax measures on advertising schedules and product placement because broadcasters are having a hard time raising enough revenue to make decent programs. The best committee position came out of ECON, so we will have to fight on to make that prevail.
14.45 Speak to visiting Lib Dems in a room off the Library, and then rush to the visitor centre to speak to visiting group of A level students from Vale of White Horse. Get to sign T-shirt.
16.30 – 17.30 Attend meeting with the European Bar Association. Concerns are voiced over forcing breakdown of client confidentiality. A letter of concern is read out from the English and Scottish bar, so I need to investigate. The rest of the meeting is rather hard to follow and from the MEP side is mainly attended by other Liberals who ask me what it is about. Glad they are confused too. Maybe the Law Society can help me out on Friday when we meet in London.
17.30 – 18.30 I chat with Lib Dem visitors in coffee bar. Discuss possible data protection issues with new NHS computer system. Something else to follow up.
19.30 – 21.30 AGM and dinner of the Parliament’s ‘Kangaroo Group’. I think the name means we are ‘leaping forward’. The main discussion item is the directive on the portability of pension funds. Problems to surmount are that constantly moving capital diminishes fund build-up, so it may be better for funds to be left where invested, provided all investors are treated the same. Also, most countries offer tax breaks to encourage savings, but Luxembourg and Germany do it the other way round and have tax free pensions, so tax balancing becomes a problem. Maybe we should just all retire in Luxembourg!
Tuesday, 28 November 2006
Damages Actions, Oil Prices and Bankers
9.00 Check through voting lists for ECON committee meeting later on and sign amendments for submission on damages actions. Then I have an hour of French conversation (lesson) followed at 11.00 by an hour long meeting with the ECON committee staff on the recent Basel 2 directive and comparison with aspects of Solvency 2. This was my idea and it proves useful. It seems to me that it will be difficult for the Parliament to deal with the level 1 (framework directive) issues if we do not have sight of the detailed proposals for level 2 measures. Some potential here for inter-institutional aggravation.
12.30 Preparatory meeting of our Groups’s ECON members, no big issues to discuss so finish by 13.00. Return to office and complete second batch of amendments on damages actions. Review amendments on the report on the ‘macroeconomic effect of oil prices’ that we will be discussing in ECON and for which I am shadow Rapporteur. Quite a lot of the amendments overlap with mine, so good prospects of achieving agreement on compromises.
15.00 ECON meeting until 18.30. We vote among other things on extension of VAT exemption, which I shadowed, and discuss oil prices. The main point of contention is over how much to blame speculation and hedge funds and how much futures and hedging are beneficial for adding liquidity to markets. Hopefully we can acknowledge a dual role, some good, some bad. The Rapporteur liked my amendments, especially those pointing out the need to separate infrastructure from supply. I recall how difficult it was to accept this concept in the UK originally, but we do now have the proof that it works - last winter, due to the European interconnects and market NOT working, the UK had the highest wholesale gas prices in Europe but still the lowest retail prices.
I handed copies of my damages actions amendments to the Rapporteur of that report for his advance information. He did not look too dismayed.
18.30 to 20.00 Annual reception of the British Bankers Association. Conversation inevitably fell as to whether any progress had been made in the ECOFIN (Finance ministers) meeting on the Payments Services Directive which we voted in Committee in October. I am shadow on this and we have had several meetings with the Finnish Presidency and Commission trying to reach a first reading deal to put to plenary. However it is not going as well as hoped and things seem bogged down in Council, so from the Parliament side we are saying we will go to plenary and force a second reading if they do not get on with it. This would not be a good result for industry because they need the certainty of the framework directive to put the Single European Payments Area structure in place for January 2008 and a second reading would use up all the time. However if the Council muck about and waste time now we could end up having to do a second reading anyway, just even more delayed. Meet Charlie McCreevy and he says he is putting the pressure on as far as he can as well.
12.30 Preparatory meeting of our Groups’s ECON members, no big issues to discuss so finish by 13.00. Return to office and complete second batch of amendments on damages actions. Review amendments on the report on the ‘macroeconomic effect of oil prices’ that we will be discussing in ECON and for which I am shadow Rapporteur. Quite a lot of the amendments overlap with mine, so good prospects of achieving agreement on compromises.
15.00 ECON meeting until 18.30. We vote among other things on extension of VAT exemption, which I shadowed, and discuss oil prices. The main point of contention is over how much to blame speculation and hedge funds and how much futures and hedging are beneficial for adding liquidity to markets. Hopefully we can acknowledge a dual role, some good, some bad. The Rapporteur liked my amendments, especially those pointing out the need to separate infrastructure from supply. I recall how difficult it was to accept this concept in the UK originally, but we do now have the proof that it works - last winter, due to the European interconnects and market NOT working, the UK had the highest wholesale gas prices in Europe but still the lowest retail prices.
I handed copies of my damages actions amendments to the Rapporteur of that report for his advance information. He did not look too dismayed.
18.30 to 20.00 Annual reception of the British Bankers Association. Conversation inevitably fell as to whether any progress had been made in the ECOFIN (Finance ministers) meeting on the Payments Services Directive which we voted in Committee in October. I am shadow on this and we have had several meetings with the Finnish Presidency and Commission trying to reach a first reading deal to put to plenary. However it is not going as well as hoped and things seem bogged down in Council, so from the Parliament side we are saying we will go to plenary and force a second reading if they do not get on with it. This would not be a good result for industry because they need the certainty of the framework directive to put the Single European Payments Area structure in place for January 2008 and a second reading would use up all the time. However if the Council muck about and waste time now we could end up having to do a second reading anyway, just even more delayed. Meet Charlie McCreevy and he says he is putting the pressure on as far as he can as well.
Monday, 27 November 2006
A foggy day and a friendly dinner
For some reason, like last week, our ECON meetings which used to be at 3pm on Mondays have shifted to Tuesdays. Maybe this is because it is the foggy season when there is a higher incidence of MEPs from somewhere getting stranded on Mondays. Anyway, this is helpful because it means I can get a later flight to Brux and can contact my UK offices before I get into transport mode. I leave for Heathrow at 10.15 and discover the queue for departures stretching the length of the departure hall. I am selected for the ‘full body scan’ by security. Are you supposed to breathe in? Should I have a body image panic? One of my Dutch colleagues (Sophie, a civil liberties champion who is famously, frequently outraged), is outraged that ordinary people are seen naked by such scanners. Anyway the queue moves fast so I get some shopping time.
14.45 We land at I get to the Parliament very quickly. I had not realised how much more civilised it could be at this time of day. I check through papers including on competition (anti trust) damages actions, then at 16.30 have a long discussion on this with the Law Society. I draft most of the amendments I want, deal with emails then go to an early dinner at 18.30 with Lawrence Fullick, a long time Lib Dem friend who also used to organise Lib Dem visitor groups to Brussels. One such group is coming later this week.
14.45 We land at I get to the Parliament very quickly. I had not realised how much more civilised it could be at this time of day. I check through papers including on competition (anti trust) damages actions, then at 16.30 have a long discussion on this with the Law Society. I draft most of the amendments I want, deal with emails then go to an early dinner at 18.30 with Lawrence Fullick, a long time Lib Dem friend who also used to organise Lib Dem visitor groups to Brussels. One such group is coming later this week.
27 - 30 November 2006 Mini-Plenary Week.
This week is a mini plenary week, which means it has a bit of everything – committees, Group meetings and full Parliament sessions and votes. If you want to get a taste of how the Parliament works, this is the type of week to choose. No doubt this is why I have two visitor groups to see this week.
Thursday, 23 November 2006
Equitable life and more on Solvency 2
9.00 to 12.30 in the Equitable Life Special Committee of Enquiry. We hear evidence from the chief executive for the second time (he comes flanked by legal advisors), from a journalist who has followed matters and from Charlie McCreevy again. Poor chap, he must think I am stalking him!
I get into interesting exchanges on comparison of the old regulatory system and the new – solvency 2 – proposals. We need to know that the gaps are plugged. I have to dash out a couple of times to do radio interviews on the ECJ decision – they did not uphold the Advocate General. A political decision really based on what they considered ‘practical’ rather than letter of the law stuff.
The media did not appreciate how restricted the loophole provided by the Advocate General was – you could have bought duty free goods personally and arranged to have them transported back, but you would have had to find your own carrier. A weblink, say, from the vendor would probably have rendered it commercial, and not allowed, so not so easy. Anyway, speculation over. Not allowed. I wonder what will happen now to the Commission’s proposed revision, which intended to allow the cross border distance purchasing and personal transportation arrangements, excepting for tobacco which of course is too easy to post. I guess it will not happen, so much for the single market!
12.30 Do paperwork for staff Christmas bonuses. Here in Belgium they call it the ‘thirteenth month’. By law everyone gets an extra month’s pay (which then gets spent on bills that tend to come in annually). My staff are UK based so it is not compulsory for me, but they deserve at least as much, given all the long hours and extra work.
14.00 Attend an afternoon session of a conference on Solvency 2. Charlie McCreevy spoke here this morning so he is saved from seeing me yet again. This session is a view from industry and again all useful background. Meet lots of people who want to talk to me about it in the next few weeks.
I get the Metro to Gare du Midi, it runs really slowly but I just get the 17.56 Eurostar which then runs late, so I get home around 9pm (10pm Brussels time) looking forward to my ‘proper’ bed. Tomorrow is a day in the UK office on correspondence and Saturday is a visit to Wokingham.
I get into interesting exchanges on comparison of the old regulatory system and the new – solvency 2 – proposals. We need to know that the gaps are plugged. I have to dash out a couple of times to do radio interviews on the ECJ decision – they did not uphold the Advocate General. A political decision really based on what they considered ‘practical’ rather than letter of the law stuff.
The media did not appreciate how restricted the loophole provided by the Advocate General was – you could have bought duty free goods personally and arranged to have them transported back, but you would have had to find your own carrier. A weblink, say, from the vendor would probably have rendered it commercial, and not allowed, so not so easy. Anyway, speculation over. Not allowed. I wonder what will happen now to the Commission’s proposed revision, which intended to allow the cross border distance purchasing and personal transportation arrangements, excepting for tobacco which of course is too easy to post. I guess it will not happen, so much for the single market!
12.30 Do paperwork for staff Christmas bonuses. Here in Belgium they call it the ‘thirteenth month’. By law everyone gets an extra month’s pay (which then gets spent on bills that tend to come in annually). My staff are UK based so it is not compulsory for me, but they deserve at least as much, given all the long hours and extra work.
14.00 Attend an afternoon session of a conference on Solvency 2. Charlie McCreevy spoke here this morning so he is saved from seeing me yet again. This session is a view from industry and again all useful background. Meet lots of people who want to talk to me about it in the next few weeks.
I get the Metro to Gare du Midi, it runs really slowly but I just get the 17.56 Eurostar which then runs late, so I get home around 9pm (10pm Brussels time) looking forward to my ‘proper’ bed. Tomorrow is a day in the UK office on correspondence and Saturday is a visit to Wokingham.
Wednesday, 22 November 2006
Solvency 2 and booze cruisers rights
9.00 to 12.30 in ECON committee. Jean Claude Junker is there to talk about the Eurozone. After that, I go straight to lunch (and to make a speech) to the Quoted Companies Alliance. I tell them about all the portfolios I am leading on and the upcoming ones where I expect to play a part. They are particularly interested in the moving of company HQ, also reported in the FT today, following the McCreevy speeches yesterday, and the common consolidated corporate tax base.
Back to the office at 14.30 for a meeting to discuss legal situation on the future of IP and agree to set up a dinner in the first week of December with IP specialists when there is also a big conference in Brussels. I have in mind to invite Jacques Borgeois as an expert on the institutional competences. I follow this with general paperwork and end of year office budget matters.
16.15 Another meeting on Solvency 2, this time with the Royal Bank of Scotland. I obtain more useful background but there is a limit to how many more of these meetings are worthwhile before we have the Commission’s draft, not due until July. Still, this is useful for now as it is turning into a bit of a Solvency 2 week.
A flurry of late activity overtakes us as tomorrow the ECJ decision is out on excise duty and personally purchased and imported goods transported by a third party carrier. I take all the documents back to the flat at 9pm for a good read. All very interesting and I agree with the legal logic of the Advocate General. But the ECJ does not work by black and white UK style legal interpretation, so we shall see.
Back to the office at 14.30 for a meeting to discuss legal situation on the future of IP and agree to set up a dinner in the first week of December with IP specialists when there is also a big conference in Brussels. I have in mind to invite Jacques Borgeois as an expert on the institutional competences. I follow this with general paperwork and end of year office budget matters.
16.15 Another meeting on Solvency 2, this time with the Royal Bank of Scotland. I obtain more useful background but there is a limit to how many more of these meetings are worthwhile before we have the Commission’s draft, not due until July. Still, this is useful for now as it is turning into a bit of a Solvency 2 week.
A flurry of late activity overtakes us as tomorrow the ECJ decision is out on excise duty and personally purchased and imported goods transported by a third party carrier. I take all the documents back to the flat at 9pm for a good read. All very interesting and I agree with the legal logic of the Advocate General. But the ECJ does not work by black and white UK style legal interpretation, so we shall see.
Tuesday, 21 November 2006
More football - and anti-trust
8.00 Arrive in office and deal with email. Go to JURI for 9.00. The vote is on private company statutes. Diana Wallis is the Rapporteur, but we narrowly lose a lot of votes. The EPP seem to have an overall majority in JURI, not sure how that has happened. So, we will have to fight on in Plenary! Then panic!!! An unexpected (to me) voting list on the JURI opinion on football. My office has not been through these as I am not a member of this committee, but I know enough to worry. So I juggle with papers and make quick decisions rather than blindly follow the Group voting list as I have some suspicions. I think it all goes ok and the possibly suspicious amendments do not get through.
Next is a discussion on private damages actions for anti-trust infringements. My committee (ECON – Economic and Monetary Affairs) is the lead on this and I have been very active (vocal, so I it is useful to see the reaction here to some of the more legal aspects. I am pleased to hear some sceptical voices about the unintended consequences that must be avoided. I seem to have been a bit on my own (though noticed) on this so far.
Commissioner Charlie McCreevy is next, to talk about upcoming things next year. I am here to listen to what he has to say about the future of patent policy – obviously my subject being the only European Patent Attorney in the Parliament, or indeed of any of the institutions. The Commissioner’s line has been very practical so far and he continues in the same way – seeking to explore all options and ideally getting convergence between EPLA (European Patent Litigation Agreement) and a new form of Community Patent. Several MEPs question him and I manage to speak last and counter some of the points that have previously been made. I also highlight that investment in the European Patent System will be needed and that training up and utilising national patent offices may be one way to go, maybe specialisation by subject could also help. This is not the same as mutual recognition and acceptance of (various) current standards.
We also hear about other upcoming legislation – enabling movement of company HQs to another country and private company statutes. I may want to get involved with these.
11.30 Get back to the office. I am too late to go to the AmCham meeting on Transatlantic Relations so it is straight to the Industry Forum Conference on Anti-Trust Policy at 12.00 This is at the Ambassador’s Residence so we get lunch, but in the ‘speak while you eat’ routine.
Philip Lowe, head of DG Comp is first to speak and he gives a good outline of the current state of play. The meeting is under ‘Chatham House Rules’, so one can say what was said but not by whom, but I do not think he said anything that makes me wish it had not been. However it allows a more human presentation. I am the speaker for the second session entitled ‘competitiveness’ and this leads us on to a discussion on the overlap and conflict (in some eyes) between intellectual property and competition policy. The exchanges were useful and follow up discussions with the Commission were sought, by them. I could not stay for the third session as I had to head back to the Parliament.
15.45 I get to the ECON Committee part way through another presentation from Charlie McCreevy. I made no intervention but caught him on his way out to say I wanted to discuss a few of the issues that had been coming out of the Equitable Life Committee of Enquiry that are relevant to the Solvency 2 proposals for insurance companies. The directive proposal is expected next year.
Back in the Committee we then get to our exchange of views on damages actions in anti trust. The Rapporteur’s report is more positive than I an comfortable with, but it has some good points. I indicate where I agree and where I think we need to tread with care. Afterwards we agree to have some private discussions. I think there is a body of opinion that says go forward with care, that is also how the EPP shadow Rapporteur Jonathan Evans expressed himself. The Commission Representative (Paulis) speaks very passionately but I do not think he addresses specific points. Too much ‘we can’ and not enough ‘how’.
Next agenda item is football again and I have a panic again, I cannot see my amendments in the papers. Then I remember that others (Jonathan Evans again) have covered the relevant points here and we put my amendments in to the lead committee (Culture).
18.30 ECON ends and back to office for meeting with Amex on the payments services directive and the definition of ‘open’ systems. I know what we want here; the problem is getting it agreed with the Council. As shadow Rapporteur I have been involved in meetings with the council Presidency and the Commission, but we are still dancing around the main issues rather than detail.
19.30 Final meeting of the day is the Insurance caucus dinner. There are presentations by financial supervisors from Lithuania, where the different sectors of banking, securities and insurance are separate, unlike the UK’s FSA and the new merged German regulators. The chair of the German supervisors is there and he remembers me from his interrogation in the Equitable Life Committee.(!) An interesting difference of view arises between his interpretation and that of the FSA of how capital flow in a Group and Branches may work. However, the difference can be resolved if branches have a legal right to call on funds. This debate was provoked by an enquiry from me about security for policy holders. A useful warm up meeting for Solvency 2.
Next is a discussion on private damages actions for anti-trust infringements. My committee (ECON – Economic and Monetary Affairs) is the lead on this and I have been very active (vocal, so I it is useful to see the reaction here to some of the more legal aspects. I am pleased to hear some sceptical voices about the unintended consequences that must be avoided. I seem to have been a bit on my own (though noticed) on this so far.
Commissioner Charlie McCreevy is next, to talk about upcoming things next year. I am here to listen to what he has to say about the future of patent policy – obviously my subject being the only European Patent Attorney in the Parliament, or indeed of any of the institutions. The Commissioner’s line has been very practical so far and he continues in the same way – seeking to explore all options and ideally getting convergence between EPLA (European Patent Litigation Agreement) and a new form of Community Patent. Several MEPs question him and I manage to speak last and counter some of the points that have previously been made. I also highlight that investment in the European Patent System will be needed and that training up and utilising national patent offices may be one way to go, maybe specialisation by subject could also help. This is not the same as mutual recognition and acceptance of (various) current standards.
We also hear about other upcoming legislation – enabling movement of company HQs to another country and private company statutes. I may want to get involved with these.
11.30 Get back to the office. I am too late to go to the AmCham meeting on Transatlantic Relations so it is straight to the Industry Forum Conference on Anti-Trust Policy at 12.00 This is at the Ambassador’s Residence so we get lunch, but in the ‘speak while you eat’ routine.
Philip Lowe, head of DG Comp is first to speak and he gives a good outline of the current state of play. The meeting is under ‘Chatham House Rules’, so one can say what was said but not by whom, but I do not think he said anything that makes me wish it had not been. However it allows a more human presentation. I am the speaker for the second session entitled ‘competitiveness’ and this leads us on to a discussion on the overlap and conflict (in some eyes) between intellectual property and competition policy. The exchanges were useful and follow up discussions with the Commission were sought, by them. I could not stay for the third session as I had to head back to the Parliament.
15.45 I get to the ECON Committee part way through another presentation from Charlie McCreevy. I made no intervention but caught him on his way out to say I wanted to discuss a few of the issues that had been coming out of the Equitable Life Committee of Enquiry that are relevant to the Solvency 2 proposals for insurance companies. The directive proposal is expected next year.
Back in the Committee we then get to our exchange of views on damages actions in anti trust. The Rapporteur’s report is more positive than I an comfortable with, but it has some good points. I indicate where I agree and where I think we need to tread with care. Afterwards we agree to have some private discussions. I think there is a body of opinion that says go forward with care, that is also how the EPP shadow Rapporteur Jonathan Evans expressed himself. The Commission Representative (Paulis) speaks very passionately but I do not think he addresses specific points. Too much ‘we can’ and not enough ‘how’.
Next agenda item is football again and I have a panic again, I cannot see my amendments in the papers. Then I remember that others (Jonathan Evans again) have covered the relevant points here and we put my amendments in to the lead committee (Culture).
18.30 ECON ends and back to office for meeting with Amex on the payments services directive and the definition of ‘open’ systems. I know what we want here; the problem is getting it agreed with the Council. As shadow Rapporteur I have been involved in meetings with the council Presidency and the Commission, but we are still dancing around the main issues rather than detail.
19.30 Final meeting of the day is the Insurance caucus dinner. There are presentations by financial supervisors from Lithuania, where the different sectors of banking, securities and insurance are separate, unlike the UK’s FSA and the new merged German regulators. The chair of the German supervisors is there and he remembers me from his interrogation in the Equitable Life Committee.(!) An interesting difference of view arises between his interpretation and that of the FSA of how capital flow in a Group and Branches may work. However, the difference can be resolved if branches have a legal right to call on funds. This debate was provoked by an enquiry from me about security for policy holders. A useful warm up meeting for Solvency 2.
Monday, 20 November 2006
Clusters, Football and TV
Having left home at 8am I get to the Parliament in Brussels at 13.15, just in time to ok some papers, collect some others and head off to chair a seminar at South East England House, a short walk from the Parliament along Rue Luxembourg which passes my flat so I can dump my suitcase en route. Lots of rain so I sit through the seminar with wet trouser bottoms wishing I had put my boots on. The seminar included presentations from the Commission about Regional Funds, the attendees mainly from higher education establishments. The South East has a lot of high technology and although we are ‘too rich’ to qualify for structural funds, we can, and do, get funding for innovation projects. ‘Clusters’ is the buzz word, development of clusters of excellence and seeking out other clusters for co-operation. My childhood home of Harwell is to be developed as one centre of excellence.
17.00 Head back to the Parliament just in time to meet representatives from the Premier League. I never realised that as an MEP I would be so involved with football! Anyway, we discussed the progress of a report being looked at by several committees on the future of professional football. I have already submitted some amendments aimed at ensuring matters stay based at a national level with cooperation on codes of conduct. Some members seem to suggest a European super league and that does not seem practical, how could fans travel all over the EU to games on a weekly basis?
We also discussed the on-going saga of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AMS, also known as Television Without Frontiers). For the sports bodies the issue is ‘short news reporting’ i.e. allowing news programs to show football goals etc. This is currently done by agreement, but finding a way to enforce it cross-border, without breaching copyright, is the problem. I am not at all impressed with the arguments put forward by the Commission and others. However, I have now found a way that satisfies me that it does not breach the Berne Convention and I agree to propose this along with amendments indicating that the Copyright Directive and Berne Convention are not overridden.
18.00 Rummaged around with papers ready for morning, agreed to attend and vote as a substitute in the JURI (legal affairs) committee first thing tomorrow as I was going anyway to listen in to relevant discussions. Left at 19.45 with a copy of the Commission work program for 2007 in order to pick things of interest to the Quoted Companies Alliance ready for Wednesday.
17.00 Head back to the Parliament just in time to meet representatives from the Premier League. I never realised that as an MEP I would be so involved with football! Anyway, we discussed the progress of a report being looked at by several committees on the future of professional football. I have already submitted some amendments aimed at ensuring matters stay based at a national level with cooperation on codes of conduct. Some members seem to suggest a European super league and that does not seem practical, how could fans travel all over the EU to games on a weekly basis?
We also discussed the on-going saga of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AMS, also known as Television Without Frontiers). For the sports bodies the issue is ‘short news reporting’ i.e. allowing news programs to show football goals etc. This is currently done by agreement, but finding a way to enforce it cross-border, without breaching copyright, is the problem. I am not at all impressed with the arguments put forward by the Commission and others. However, I have now found a way that satisfies me that it does not breach the Berne Convention and I agree to propose this along with amendments indicating that the Copyright Directive and Berne Convention are not overridden.
18.00 Rummaged around with papers ready for morning, agreed to attend and vote as a substitute in the JURI (legal affairs) committee first thing tomorrow as I was going anyway to listen in to relevant discussions. Left at 19.45 with a copy of the Commission work program for 2007 in order to pick things of interest to the Quoted Companies Alliance ready for Wednesday.
20 – 23 November. Committee Week
This week is a committee week so following the usual pattern it is a week of Parliament Committee meetings and other events fitted around them.
Sunday, 19 November 2006
Welcome to my blog!
I have been in the European Parliament for 18 months, and I now realise why many politicians have kept diaries: if you do not events and time just blur away. So here is the start of mine. It is not comprehensive, but as well as reminding me of what I have done I hope it gives others who dip in a taste of what fills our time.
There are four different types of week in the European Parliament: a Committee Week, followed by a Mini-Plenary week, then a Group Week and finally a Plenary Week in Strasbourg. These weeks follow in regular cycle, except for when there are breaks when the Mini-Plenary is skipped or replaced by a full Plenary. It will become clear what happens in each of these weeks as you read on.
I hope you enjoy reading my blog as much as I have enjoyed writing it!
There are four different types of week in the European Parliament: a Committee Week, followed by a Mini-Plenary week, then a Group Week and finally a Plenary Week in Strasbourg. These weeks follow in regular cycle, except for when there are breaks when the Mini-Plenary is skipped or replaced by a full Plenary. It will become clear what happens in each of these weeks as you read on.
I hope you enjoy reading my blog as much as I have enjoyed writing it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
