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.