SOUTH WEST FIRST

LETTER FROM STRASBOURG - July, 2002

Subscribe to this newsletter and receive free regular email copies - click here

TALK ABOUT STRESS!

On arrival at the European Parliament building in Strasbourg for the last session before the summer break, we were greeted by an inflatable balloon (resting on the ground it must be said), plastered with notices and slogans about stress relief. The European Agency for Safety and Health at work had decided to grace us with a visit to measure our stress levels and help us do something about them. So, that’s alright then. I can relax, safe in the knowledge they have the situation in hand! Actually I was far too busy and stressed out all week to spare time for them to measure me.

A NEW APPROACH

Tuesday morning, my first meeting is with a member of my Committee Secretariat, a Greek called George, to discuss tactics over my Report on the Measuring Instruments Draft Directive (M.I.D.). I am due to meet the Commissioner responsible, Erkki Liikanen, on Wednesday, to negotiate procedural and substantive issues about this draft directive. This is a so-called ‘New Approach’ measure aimed at harmonising rules for regulating standards for measuring instruments within the Single or Internal Market. My ambition is to simplify and reduce the text to make what is a complicated, technical document a bit easier to comprehend.

POINTING THE FINGER

During Tuesday the Parliament debated three matters (among others) that seem important to me. First was the Annual Report of the European Central Bank (E.C.B.) submitted by President Wim Duisenberg. He noted a worsening economic outlook and an upwards pressure on prices, but saw no reason to change the interest rate from 3.25% despite observing some worrying developments in fiscal policy in some countries over the last few months. No names from him, but we can point the finger at Portugal, France and Germany within the Growth and Stability Pact eurozone and at the UK Labour Government outside, thanks to Mr Brown’s projected spending bonanza.

LABELLNG OF GMOs

Next was the proposal for a regulation concerning traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and traceability of food and feed products produced from GMOs to amend the 2001 Directive. This issue has generated a fair amount of concern and correspondence from constituents. The objectives are to establish the same requirements for producers from outside the EU, as those within, to have products containing GMOs clearly labelled and to define a threshold of GMO content below which their presence need not be labelled. In the event the Parliament voted for a threshold of 0.5%, half what the Commission had proposed.

MORE BURDEN ON INDUSTRY

The third item was on a proposal for a transparent system of harmonised rules for restrictions on heavy goods vehicles involved in international transport on designated roads. This boils down to a ban on weekend and public holiday movements for those Member States who wish to impose one with exemptions for lorries carrying fresh fruit or flowers. This seems a very curious compromise to me as the directive would only apply on trans-European network Routes (TENs) for movements between countries. Yet another restriction and burden on industry with confusing conditions seems dotty to me, especially as it was Europe which said it wanted bigger, heavier lorries in the first place.

POSITION OF INFLUENCE

At lunch it is time for a discussion on a series of papers from the co-ordinators of the four committees covered by EPP-ED (European Peoples Party – European Democrats political group of which we Conservatives are allied members) Working Group ‘B’. This was about looking further ahead to consider issues and policies for the next European Parliament elections in two years time. The four committees cover Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (mine); Employment and Social Affairs; Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport; and Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities. As you may imagine, this mixture of subjects gives huge scope for debate, so all I would say is that being a co-ordinator places me in a position of influence to shape policy within my own committee areas but rather helpless in the face of the huge shopping list of “wimmin’s” rights emanating from that Committee!

BARGAINING POINTS

After that, I have to head off to chair our regular meeting for EPP-ED members of our committee to discuss attribution of reports and opinions (i.e. who does what), any issues of the week and the agenda for the next full meeting of the Committee. There is an issue of the week, the Ayuzo Gonzalez report on the Biofuels Directive. A compromise deal with the Council to get the measure adopted at first reading with indicative targets, rather than mandatory ones, for the amount of biofuels to be produced, has fallen apart. The Council won’t accept most of the other amendments so many MEPs want to revert to mandatory targets as a bargaining point at Second Reading. Our German colleagues seem keen on this, but a machiavellian colleague suggests this is because they think the Council might reject the whole proposal which is what our Germans really want. Interesting!

PERSUASION & COERCION

Late on Tuesday I meet my socialist shadow on the MID report to brief him on what we have done so far, what I hope to persuade the Commissioner to do and, hopefully, to enlist the support of the Socialist group (yes it’s a funny old world I work in!) for the overall package. Fortunately, we appear to be on a similar wavelength and so the meeting goes reasonably well. He agrees to leave his visitor group for 20 minutes next morning to look in on the meeting with Mr. Liikanen to show his support. This is important because it means we can deliver a qualified majority i.e. more than half the members of the Parliament, in a vote at 2^nd Reading. That really is bargaining power.

COMMISSIONERS GALORE

The Wednesday turned out to be a day of Commissioners. First the meeting with Commissioner Liikanen to try to persuade him to produce a further draft text for a new 1^st Reading. This would hopefully take in our various concerns about the scope of the directive, the new regulatory committee proposal and the lengthy technical annexes. I am able to quote a precedent for this but he comes back with a different suggestion for doing more or less most of the things we want. Conclusion, to think about it some more and have further meetings.

DOUBTFUL SIMPLIFICATION

After that I have a discussion with George the Greek about the new Rules of Procedure which were voted in the previous session. To my horror the new book is A4 instead of A5 but just as thick, so

we have managed to double the size of the rules by a process which was meant to simplify them. How typical of the way things happen in this institution. And you can bet your bottom dollar (or euro), that they will make life more difficult.

A LIGHTER NOTE

During votes (460 of them we were told), there was a brief debate about a dispute between the Environment Committee and the Legal Affairs and Internal Market Committee, over which should be the lead committee handling the draft directive on environmental liability. This argument had gone through all the procedures for settling such matters without a conclusion. The Chairman of each committee spoke and my colleague Dr. Caroline Jackson MEP enlivened proceedings by suggesting that if the vote was tied and her environment committee lost, then the report should go to the Women’s Committee since they were always looking for something to do!

NO SENSE OF HUMOUR

Well the vote was quite close but fortunately by a small majority the Parliament decided in favour of Legal Affairs, and thereby partially protecting the proposals from the fanatics of the environment committee (whom Caroline strives doughtily to contain). The sequel to this was an email letter to all MEPs, from the Greek socialist Chairman of the Womens Committee, expressing her outrage at this denigration of all the splendid work done for women in the Women’s Committee. Sad really that she couldn’t take a joke even from her own sex.

CONTRADICTORY EMISSIONS

Then I went to meet my next Commissioner, Mrs Wallstrom, who had accepted an invitation for an exchange of views with the informal cross-party working group on emissions trading over a lunch hosted by the European Energy Foundation. This was quite a lively, interesting discussion going over most of the trickier aspects of this proposal. There are something like 600 plus amendments to be considered by the Environment Committee (again), but they have decided to defer voting until the autumn to allow more time for compromises to emerge. We on the Industry Committee have already voted on our Opinion on this issue and it turned out full of contradiction. A tricky issue.

TRADE MATTERS

My third encounter with a commissioner was with Pascal Lamy who handles Trade matters. He had come to speak to the Ciel et Espace Intergroup (aerospace) about a number of the issues in dispute between the US and the EU with particular relevance to aerospace and aviation.

LOOKING TO THE AUTUMN

In between, particularly on Thursday, I spent a fair amount of time working on the arrangements for a meeting I am planning for September for briefing local farmers about the Temporary Committee on Foot and Mouth Disease and the Fischler proposals for the Mid-Term Review of the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy). Also, with my research assistant Natalie in Brussels, we worked on the text of my next project, a pamphlet for small businesses as well as drafts of various letters to constituents.