On Wednesday 24 January, the committee on economic and monetary affairs (ECON) of the European Parliament held an initial exchange of views on the European Commission's legislative proposal to revise the three European financial supervisory authorities (ESAs): ESMA, EBA and EIOPA, which supervise the financial markets and the banking and insurance sectors respectively (see EUROPE 11864).
The discussions, which were carried out on the basis of the working document drawn up by co-rapporteurs Burkhard Balz (EPP, Germany) and Pervenche Berès (S&D, France), noted an initial consensus: striking a balance in the distribution of competences between the various players involved in this reform must be a common thread of their reflection.
“The national competent authorities should not feel relegated to the rank of second-class institutions”, Wolf Klinz (ALDE, Germany) warned.
Essentially, this first exchange of views in Parliament resembles the one that took place in July between the European finance ministers (see EUROPE 11899). The co-rapporteurs also hope to start by consolidating the current structures to make them more effective before going any further.
“With its proposals, the Commission is not looking for a revolution. And we at the European Parliament are certainly not looking to spark one”, Balz said. Berès said that the Commission had originally planned a more ambitious revision, before realising that in order to carry out a realistic reform, it should not be too “greedy”.
Germany's Sven Giegold (Greens/EFA) said that the Parliament's role would be to defend the modest progress the Commission has made to increase the European dimension of the ESAs. He called for more European governance and a system of architecture that will help to limit conflicts of interest.
Echoing the proposals put forward by the former Director General of the IMF, Jacques de Larosière (see EUROPE 11781), Berès made no secret of her preference for drawing a distinction between the functions of regulator and supervisor of the ESAs.
On this point, Kay Swinburne (ECR, UK) is sceptical. She argues that technical knowledge at regulatory level is necessary and this knowledge is acquired from supervising the markets.
She believes the priority should be to ensure coherence between the future competences of the ESAs as set out by the Commission in its proposed pan-European personal pension product (PEPP) and that of a new supervisory mechanism for central counterparties located outside the EU (see EUROPE 11807).
Finally, the MEPs also discussed the role of the Parliament in this process, particularly with regard to the creation of an independent executive committee within the ESAs.
“Creating an executive committee which will grant decision-making competences on its own initiative is not at all what I understand by balance of powers”, said Balz. In the opposite corner, the Liberals approve of the creation of a committee of this kind, but consider that its functioning should be reviewed, in particular the frequency of its meetings. Berès considers that the conditions for the Parliament's involvement in its creation should be improved.
“We are only at the start of the process, and so opinions are rich in their diversity”, the French Socialist concluded.
Discussions will continue on 27 February at a hearing of the ECON committee. The precise timetable for the examination of the legislative text has not yet been decided upon. (Original version in French by Marion Fontana)