SOUTH WEST FIRST
LETTER FROM STRASBOURG - June, 2002
CHANGE FOR THE BETTER
For a moment I thought there was
another travel story in the making as the dread words “I can’t check
you in because the computer is down and there is an aircraft change”
greeted me at the crack of dawn (well pretty early anyway).
However the moment was brief and the change was to a larger
aircraft with more room.
LEGIONNAIRES DISEASE
In the car on the drive from
Stuttgart to Strasbourg the talk was about legionella or legionnaires
disease in the Parliament building at Strasbourg.
A Greek colleague said don’t use the water for anything and buy
bottled water to drink. This
sounded a bit drastic to me, with visions of universal unflushed loos
etc.
HIDDEN AGENDA
On arrival I was greeted with a
request to sign 49 motions to defer items on the agenda to the July
session. The plan was,
evidently, to defer all the business or to transfer the whole session to
Brussels, so as to protect our staff, and ourselves from the threat of
exposure to the disease. Once
I realised it was more an exercise in stirring up the issue of where the
Parliament sits and not an unseemly and flabby response to risk, I
joined the fun. I admit I
did presume that if there was a real risk the authorities would have
acted.
RIOT AVERTED
A more serious threat to health
and happiness was revealed when I checked the television (we have one
with 70+ channels in each members office) to be sure BBC One was
working. No BBC One in
sight but a Sky TV Guide instead, with instructions to press all sorts
of different coloured buttons (you can tell we don’t have Sky at home)
which didn’t exist on my remote control.
I rang the Services to report a fault with the suggestion there
might be a riot if it didn’t get fixed by Wednesday morning.
Well, even we MEPs want to watch England in the World Cup!
INFORMAL TRIALOGUE
As if to show that we do
important things as well, my first meeting after the opening of the
session at 5 p.m. was what is called an informal trialogue concerning
the regulations on participation in the Sixth Framework Programme of
European Research. The Spanish Research Minister as President in Council was
there, along with Research Commissioner Busquin, my colleague Mrs
Quisthoudt-Rowohl the Rapporteur and fellow co-ordinators from other
groups. The purpose of the
meeting was to iron out some final, minor details to enable an agreement
between the political groups in the Parliament, the Council and the
Commission, to be voted through successfully.
OUTSTANDING POINTS
The problem was that there had
been a meeting the previous week at which everyone present thought
agreement had been reached on all outstanding points, yet when a new
draft text arrived from the Council, our side felt it did not entirely
reflect what had been agreed. So
the key players came together to sort it out.
The informal tag to the meeting meant that it was held in the
Members Bar and the working language was English with the occasional
foray into French. In case
you wondered, the proceedings were lubricated with mineral water.
WORKING TOGETHER
This was about the final piece
in the jigsaw of legislation covering the next European Framework
Programme of Research. We
have already adopted the main Framework at second reading and this month
were hoping to adopt “Rules for the participation of undertakings,
research centres and universities and the dissemination of research
results” for the framework programme, plus “Rules for the
participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in the
European Atomic Energy Community framework programme of research”.
These two proposals are subject to co-decision which is why we
and the Council were in close negotiation.
CHANGE OF PRESIDENCY
The Spanish Presidency was very
keen to complete the process before the end of their period in office at
the end of June. Every six
months the Presidency changes and each country wants to notch up a list
of achievements on their watch, so to speak.
This makes for a new raft of
initiatives every half year,
bliss for Blairite spin types, and a flurry of activity just before the
changeover. In a way this
would be like a change of government every six months, truly a monument
to short-termism, were it not for the longer perspective of a European
Parliament elected for five years and a Commission appointed for a
similar term of office. Of course the steady sequence of changed governments in
Member States is another factor for varied policies.
SPANISH COINCIDENCE
On this occasion the details are
sorted out but the price is to delay the vote in Committee until the
next week and the plenary vote until July i.e. in the next Presidency. This sensible but pleasing decision follows on news that
another vote on a matter dear to the Spanish Presidency had also been
deferred one month. This
one was the Ayuso Gonzales Report on the Biofuels draft directive.
This is another piece of legislation the Spanish were desperately
keen to push through before the end of their presidency. Lets say that the coincidence of a proposal from Spanish
Commissioner Loyala de Palacio, with a report by a Spanish MEP in a
committee with a Spanish Chairman coming up in the Spanish Presidency
seemed quite a strong co-incidence.
BIOFUELS PROPOSAL
This Biofuels proposal is quite
tricky in any case because it purports to be an energy security of
supply issue by encouraging alternative fuel to substitute for petrol
and diesel (in part for petrol and in part or whole for diesel).
It is also viewed in some circles as a more sustainable,
renewable fuel than petrol or diesel (mineral oils as they are called in
EU circles) with less CO2
and other greenhouse gas emissions. The European Environmental Bureau is not so keen on biofuels
becaue it says more CO2 etc. is used converting
the raw materials such as rape seed oil or sugar beet into fuel, than is
used producing the mineral oils fuel it is substituting.
A DIFFERENT ASPECT
A third aspect to this is the
enthusiastic support from my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee
because this proposal would, of course, open up a new way of supporting
output from land in set-aside or not under cultivation for food.
The other side of this coin is the enthusiasm of the industry
that will do the processing or conversion into fuel for 50% or more
reduction in road fuel tax for biofuels to make them competitive.
WINNING THE DAY
My contribution has been to put
down amendments making the targets for biofuel percentages of road fuel
indicative rather than mandatory (a re-run of the battle I had with the
German social democrat rapporteur for the electricity from renewable
energies directive). It now
seems there is a clear majority on the Council for this approach, so my
amendments should win the day. And,
as co-ordinator, I had some influence over the decision to defer the
vote. Another little bit of grit in the works!
SELECTION APPROACHING
On Tuesday afternoon we hear a
briefing on the proposed selection procedure for our candidates for the
2004 European Elections. A
matter of great interest to all of us who wish to stand for another
term. The good news is that things are likely to happen sooner
rather than later so we will know where we stand and can concentrate on
working towards the campaign. One
of the malign effects of regional list proportional representation is
that there is more competition with your own party colleagues than with
our opponent parties. A
more positive aspect is that the final round hustings will be organised
on an area basis with each area deciding whether to hold one on its own
or jointly with a neighbouring area.
This probably means four opportunities for members to hear
candidates and question them (which means more work for candidates
having to go through it all four times) and hopefully even more members
will want to participate than last time.
NATIONAL PRIDE
Wednesday morning found a large
proportion of British MEPs and staff ensconced in Committee room N1.2
before a large screen showing the BBC One broadcast of the England vs.
Nigeria world cup match. Our
reward was a somewhat unconvincing draw
which was sufficient to put England through to the next round of
the event. Possibly the largest cheer went up when Sweden kept Argentina
out of the next round. This
competition has thrown up plenty of surprise results.
STRASBOURG PROTEST
Two important items came up
during the noon votes. First
was our annual vote on the calendar of meetings for 2003.
This decides when we hold the Strasbourg sessions and Brussels
mini-sessions, but is also the occasion for a further protest over the
seat issue of where we want to hold our main sessions.
For some two years now as a small protest against Strasbourg, we
have voted against meeting there on Fridays.
This year, surprise, surprise, some French mole has re-inserted
the Fridays to the initial proposal
from the Bureau of the Parliament.
UNDERLYING ISSUE
Consequently there are a series
of amendments against Fridays, plus another set proposing deletion of
Mondays and increasing days in session in Brussels.
This may seem rather schoolboy ‘tit for tat’ stuff but the
underlying issue and members feelings about it are all too serious.
Because the French succeeded in writing Strasbourg into the
Treaties, we are stuck there for the time being, but the strategy of
chipping away at the time we spend there and thereby lessening it’s
status is clearly annoying the French and continues to make the point
that the Parliament should be able to decide for itself where it wants
to meet.
STREAMLINING THE
SYSTEM
The other point was a long
awaited Report proposing changes in the way we work so as to streamline
voting procedures in plenary session and generally adapt to cope with
the additional MEPs that will come from new Member States following
enlargement (if it happens) in 2004.
One of the problems identified was the situation where a report
is adopted in Committee, comes to the plenary and all of a sudden there
are a hundred or two more amendments put down by political groups or
motions signed by 32 individual members (more often than not by we
Conservatives when we can’t persuade the EPP-ED (European Peoples
Party – European Democrats), of which we are allied members. New proposals provide for Reports with more than 50 further
amendments to be sent back to Committee.
It is the smaller political groups which are particularly prone
to re-submitting amendments that were resoundingly defeated in
Committee, just so as to make political capital of it all over again.
BUREAUCRATIC NONSENSE
However one aspect of these
proposals, cutting down on explanations of vote, did not find favour
with many of us. Members
may make a short speech explaining why they voted a certain way, or
submit it in writing, which can then be used for a press release etc.
One of our members is the only MEP from the Pensioners Party in
Italy and he has cottoned on to how he can exploit this opportunity to
get speaking time. It has
become something of a tradition for Fatuzzo to stand and say something
at the end of voting. Most
of us are only too happy to get away for some late lunch or submit a
written explanation. Some do get irritated at Fatuzzo doing it every time, but it
seemed mean spirited to limit MEPs to two explanations each per session
when Fatuzzo is virtually the only one who does it.
A bit of bureaucratic nonsense.
ALL TALK
On Thursday morning I spoke in
the debate about the Vlasto report on a Communication from the
Commission about the so-called Lisbon process.
This is a rather grandiose Blairite project aimed at making
Europe the most dynamic
competitive knowledge based
economy in the world by 2010. You
know the sort of thing, sweeping mission statements
strikingly lacking in substance.
Two years on and it is still mostly talk and not much progress.
The report recalls the commitments made at Lisbon to reduce the
tax burden on employment among other things, which gave me the
opportunity to regret the bad example being set by Chancellor Brown in
increasing, not decreasing, the tax burden on employment through his two
lots of 1% National Insurance increases (yes two, one on employee and
one on employer).
MISSED OPPORTUNITY
Final word on the health and
safety front at Strasbourg. On
Thursday there was more than a distinct whiff of drain smell around the
chamber. The Labour Whip
got up to protest that last month it had been blamed on a dead animal
somewhere in the building and it better not be the same excuse this
time. I confess I missed
the opportunity to jump up to say the whiff was much stronger on the
Socialist side, but I didn’t think of it in time.
I know it was smellier on their side, I had to walk through it to
reach our side!
A HAPPY OCCASION
At home our big family event was
the party to celebrate our son’s twenty-first birthday, deferred from
May due to exams. The
young, all kitted up in dinner jackets and evening dresses, were a fine
looking bunch and seemed to have a good time.
We enjoyed the evening as well and it was a happy occasion,
despite my little speech heaping praise and good wishes for the future
on our firstborn. He, it
must be reported, was a little slow next morning, so he clearly enjoyed
himself!
|
