PaulBraithwaite:

Just back from Brussels: The reception EMAG and Nicolas Bellord received for the two Petitions was better than we had dared to hope. The Equitable hearing lasted for an hour and a half and blew everything else off the day's agenda.

The Irish MEPs were truly amazing, with more than half a dozen of them speaking up for their constituents. The leading Christian Democrat Reiner Wieland spoke out about the shabby treatment received by German investors being given the run around by the British FSA and the impracticability to contemplate their suing the British Government. The German policyholder group DAGEV also made a short helpful speech in support.

But the most satisfying aspect was the unanimity of the British MEPs. Diane Wallis and Sharon Bowles for the LibDems were superb. Our Green MEP spoke up. Sir Robert Atkins for the Tories was repeatedly fluent, flexible but determined. And the surprise of the day was the backing received from Labour MEPs Phillip Whitehead (also the chairman of the Committee on Consumer Protection) and the Petitions Committee deputy chairman Michael Cashman, who was truly a star. Oh, if only their Westminster counterparts would display such steel and balls!

Michael Cashman led the debate after our 30 minutes of formal presentations by acknowledging the difficulties and defects in a legal framework which does not cater for problems that can take decades to reveal themselves but he proposed a radical way forward: the dramatic step of forming a Special Committee of Enquiry. This was taken up by speaker after speaker but it was Mr Cashman who first embraced this route, previously identified by EMAG's Counsel.

We owe a debt to Iain Ogilvie for making the time to go and tell the Committee in detail exactly what the PO 2 investigation CANNOT examine, thus disarming the British Establishment 's attempt to hide behind Anne Abraham's skirt, having sought to discourage any European interest by saying: "Not necessary, because the job's already being done by the PO."

ELAS were notable by their absence - they sent a lawyer to observe - but Charles Thomson's written submission beggars belief.

A VERY SUCCESSFUL DAY, WHICH GUARANTEED ONGOING DETERMINED INTEREST FROM THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT.

Tom Lake:

The Petitions Committee set aside about 1hr and 45 mins for our petition and took a decision to go for a Temporary Committee of Enquiry. All this with about 30 translators in their booths supporting simultaneous translation all-to-all. The president chairs in Polish.

Nicolas Bellord spoke well in support of the late Arthur White's petition on fraud and malfeasance. Paul and I had our 22 minutes or so to give the logic of our petition and ask for action.

We have introduced a strong line of attack on the FSA as unaccountable, possibly in breach of European constitutional principles. Markus Weyer spoke for German policyholders stressing the imbalance between consumer protection and the right to sell across Europe, the ping-pong of referral between BAFIN and FSA and the difficulties for German policyholders in having to face UK courts or complaints procedures.

Iain Ogilvie gave a brief and clear account of what the PO's office was doing and what it could not. He also named the FSA exclusion as being the most significant.

The Commission gave a fairly legalistic brief response. They could only work within their competences, the current regime was still under examination but not known to be out of compliance, "Remedy" in the Third Life directive, meant correction of practice not compensation. They would continue to monitor!

Michael Cashman, the committee’s Vice-President, agreed that the Commission could not rule or act on the PREVIOUS regulatory regime. But he cited evidence from Baird and Penrose suggesting the Commission SHOULD look again. The route through the Courts was impractical. The holes in the PO's investigation could be made good. He called for a Temporary Committee of Enquiry. The Member State had to be taken out of the equation - this was not a party political or national matter.

Diane Wallis echoed this demand. Assistance has to be provided if there were to be any faith in EU at all. Commission view? “We’ve heard it all before!” Legal proceedings in the UK would be expensive, sent from pillar to post – and get nowhere. A European class action procedure SHOULD be available. She was struck by the comments of the German petitioner. These problems were pertinent to the Services Directive debate. Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) and Economic and Monetary Affairs (EMAC) could take this up usefully [their support would be important in getting the request for a committee of enquiry through the Presidents’ Committee, which has to approve it]. A Committee of Enquiry could fill the big gap in the infringement proceedings procedure. Proper redress has to be the aim.

Gay Mitchell (Fine Gael, Republic of Ireland - RoI): "Nobody should be judge and jury in their own cause. All governments look into their hearts and find in their own interest! There is a reasonable case that the UK regulators failed and the UK Treasury has refused to acknowledge it. It took years to discover the black hole. Regulatory clean-up after is needed to preserve confidence.

Mairead McGuinness (Fine Gael - RoI): Many Irish policyholders affected. The Commission’s response is too clinical - look again and see more re Third Life Directive. We need to see this story moved on. People will need to be persuaded to take out pension provision again.

Philip Whitehead [Labour UK MEP Chair of IMCO]: "All of us are owing a debt to the EMAG group " – but he disassociated himself from some of the hyperbole (!) and comments about the ombudsman [FoS], but this was a great injustice - letters from constituents - trustee of several pension funds and knew the impact. MEPs own funds had been partly in ELAS. It is right to have EU observations fed back into the debate. Temporary Committees are not always speedy. Must undo individual losses where we can. The example of Arthur White is already beyond recompense.

Sharon Bowles agreed very much that it needs thorough and open investigation. To be seen to be done is important. Concerned in general re oversight of regulators - FSCS is no good in the case of a company in "suspended animation", like Equitable. Supported a Temporary Committee of Enquiry.

Peter Skinner (also member of EMAC). An oral question with debate in Committee (or in Plenum?) can be very effective e.g. in getting an EU wide asbestos ban. Confidence needs to be re-asserted!
Re Class action: Do we want to go the class action US lawyer route? (This has never been proposed by anyone!)

Reiner Wieland (Germany CDU). Support in respect of German policyholders. Tactics - Committee or decide in plenum? Commission needs to report on when the law was breached.