Jerzy Buzek (EPP, former Polish Prime Minister) said he had not heard one voice yet in the discussion against the directive, but that the directive "as offered today" was not an option. Being a new member of Parliament there was not any ground to mistrust his colleagues, and he endorsed the "red line" that had been put forward in almost a year of work by the current rapporteurs Rocard and Kauppi between what should and be patentable and what should not be patentable. To McCreevy, who had not been commissioner in May 2004, "so we can talk at ease", he highlighted the option that the Commission could take the initiative of pulling the dossier out of the Council, add the Parliament's previous amendments, have that in the Council, and within a few months proceed to the second reading. Even - given a certain level of competition between Commission and Parliament - if that may sound "awkward", it could be considered in the light of the more laborious options of a new first reading or scrapping the directive altogether. Near the end of the debate Klaus Lehne (EPP, Germany) seconded this: although formally the motion for renewed referral would unilaterally bind the Parliament, but it would give the procedure and the commission new means for improvement and hence indirectly improved the Parliament's position. "Doing nothing" would not have been an alternative.
Let's begin with a quip I once heard from the German president Rau: "Everything has already been said by but not everyone yet". I have not heard one voice in the discussion against a directive - but I understand the majority does not want a directive as it offered today.
I think we have enough reasons for that had been examined by the previous parliament - I am new member of parliament and there are many new people - but I am convinced that we have not any ground of reasons to mistrust our colleagues who have prepared the amendments for the directive 2003 ... and I disagree with the opinion we do not know where the truth lies (because there was a suggestion that we are totally lost as the Parliament).
I would like to support the position the position that was put by Mr Rocard and Mrs Kauppi on this issue. Let me add to that (because I understand how much work was put by the previous Parliament - almost a year of work - to draw the red line between what would can and should be patentable and what should not be patentable with respect to computers) ... that we all want to have that directive in place.
My question is to the Commissioner who does not bear any responsibility - any responsibility whatsoever for the directive... so we can talk at ease ... he was not responsible (he was not commissioner in May 2004): is it possible to reconsider the Parliament proposal?
This might sound awkward, because a certain level of competition going on: "is the commission more important or the parliament more important" - but let forget us that for once and assume that the compromise of 2003 is balanced. The Commission has the option to withdraw the directive from the Council, bring in the Parliament's 2003 amendments, and then have it in the council for a few months and then do a second reading. That's up to the level of the commission
... If not so, parliament has the option (1) go back to the first reading or (2) scrap everything.