TRIPS, Working Groups and Meetings

8.00 I am at a working breakfast on alternative dispute resolution. I am the first speaker, which works quite well because I am able to cover some of the basic discussion on the mediation directive that we had with the incoming Portuguese presidency. Again I toss in class/collective actions and the question of whether ADR could eliminate the need for court class actions. A question of whether that satisfies the ECJ (who say consumers must have right of redress) without infringing human rights, which I suppose it may not if there is an individual right to court still.

9.30 Into the office and paperwork. I have not had any detailed feedback on the amendments to the van den Burgh report that I launched last week. I gather that Margarita has spoken to Wolf, so let’s see what happens in Group.

11.00 There is a meeting of the European Federalists to discuss the outcome of the European Council. I take Alan along so he can listen in. I thought they might be saying something to us about their thoughts, but by the time I get there it seems the other way around, so I say how it looks from the UK perspective. Leave early in order to get to working group on TRIPS.

11.30 Working group. I say my bit about the TRIPS matter. I still think that the sooner we ratify the better, but obviously others think prevarication gives more opportunity to make a fuss. Not that it will make a great deal of difference. I am asking for speaking time on this next week.

12.10 My individual meeting with the working Group. We go through mainly the financial portfolios I am dealing with and their relevance to individuals: which of course is quite a lot as long as there is more than one sentence to explain it in. The easy approach is to hang it around the Equitable Life enquiry and the need to have good pension planning, which gets us into equity and mortgages and so on.

12.45 LDEPP meeting with Nick Clegg. A general exchange of views about things European and whether we need a referendum on the treaty. I say I have changed my mind: I used to think, when we asked for a referendum on the Euro, that it meant we would proceed to have sensible discussion. However all that has happened is that it has swept sensible discussion under the carpet – the same was true as a result of calling for a referendum on the Constitution, never any detailed discussion. So there should not be a referendum and if people do not like it then they should insist that Europe is talked about when we have General Elections. It is not a side dish or a ‘how to have a free kick’. The most powerful part of the EU legislature, the Council, our Government Ministers, are elected at General Elections, so about time it was an issue then.

14.30 Working group A. The van den Burg report. About two thirds of my amendments are agreed as is. After a bit of a battle we agree there are ways to compromise on the rest. Then we have a bit of a ding dong about a proposed amendment from Margarita, backed by Wolf. It is all about objecting to foreign (Chinese and Russian) investment in hedge funds. I started off gently with free market principles, which did not get me far enough, eventually did the words protectionist populism really fall from my lips? Anyway, amendment not being tabled as a result. Carol thinks it was all very instructive for Alan to listen to me arguing my case.

15.30 Office and papers. I have a look at my notes for speaking on Friday and we collate some information for tomorrow when I appear to have agreed to do a seminar session with some Journalists on economic committee subjects. Some compromise texts on van den Burg go back and forth.

17.30 Group Meeting. We are able to give the good news that we have agreed on our van den Burg amendments. Several of us get annoyed that we are not discussing an Employment paper that we have all turned up for because the lead person can not be there. I have just been checking out Liz’s proposed amendments and they are fine. I shadowed this on ECON.