Whereas the Council of the EU seems to be adopting a highly conservative approach (see EUROPE 11899), Parliament's co-rapporteur, Pervenche Berès (S&D, France), is arguing for a realistic but still ambitious reform of the three European financial supervisory authorities (ESA): ESMA, EBA and EIOPA, which supervise the financial markets and the banking and insurance sectors respectively (see EUROPE 11864).
Although the European Commission chose not to “overturn the financial supervisory architecture completely, there is a certain degree of ambition there, as it is proposing to review the governance, structure and financing”, she told EUROPE on Thursday 8 February. “Wanting to be realistic does not mean that the level of ambition is zero”, she added. This, in any case, is the line she hopes to follow in Parliament.
Discussions are only just beginning and currently focus on the working document drafted jointly with co-rapporteur Burkhard Balz (EPP, Germany). And “all subjects are open”, Berès warned.
During the first exchange of views, at the committee on economic and monetary affairs (ECON) of the Parliament at the end of January, a consensus nonetheless seemed to be emerging: making the balance in dividing up competences between the various players in this reform a central theme of the reflection (see EUROPE 11947).
At that meeting, Berès in particular referenced the proposals of the former Director General of the IMF, Jacques de Larosière, concerning the distinction between the positions of regulator and supervisor of the ESAs. Although more talks are still necessary on this point between the co-rapporteurs, Berès confirmed her preference for this approach.
The distribution of responsibilities between what can be decided upon by the new Executive Committee, which will replace the current Executive Director and the Board of Administration and will make decisions on supervision, and the Council of Supervisory Authorities, which will be competent for regulatory matters, will have to follow this path, she said.
The degree of distinction between the regulatory and supervisory responsibilities is one of the matters dealt with in the working document.
As for the new financing model proposed by the Commission, Berès said that there was an agreement between the co-rapporteurs in favour of finding a way “not to blow the budget out of the water”. She said that budgetary control could be carried out through various means, possibly by changing the thresholds proposed by the Commission, or at least some kind of framework.
The draft report has not been finalised; nor has the table been set. The next stage will be the hearing on the working document, at the ECON committee on 27 February, to be attended by representatives of academic circles, regulators and consumer protection organisations and de Larosière himself. (Original version in French by Marion Fontana)