On Wednesday 11 July, Pervenche Berès (S&D, France) and Burkhard Balz (EPP, Germany) presented the MEPs of the committee on economic and monetary affairs (ECON) of the European Parliament with their vision for the 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). The co-rapporteurs have managed to agree on several points, but differences subsist on several others.
They began their presentation with an apology for submitting the draft reports so late – the evening of the day before by email.
“We worked pretty much up to the last minute and made a few changes after some negotiations we had”, Balz explained.
There is, indeed, an enormous amount of work to do. The three draft reports concerning this reform cover nearly 12 legislative texts, or 300 pages, he stressed.
The point of consensus
Broadly, the rapporteurs agree to reinforce the proportionality of the system proposed by the Commission, Balz explained, in areas such as redress and the participation of stakeholder groups.
They also agree on a strong involvement for the Parliament in the management bodies of the ESAs. “We want an inter-institutional balance in these bodies”, Balz stressed.
Berès said that an original contribution made by their reports is to create a selection committee for the chairperson of each ESA, each to be made up of two representatives each for the Parliament, Council and Commission and which will “play the role of head hunter”.
As regards the European Systemic Risk Board, the co-rapporteurs recognised that its governance needs to be revised. They jointly addressed the question of an assistant director, to give the body more independence, but are not yet in complete agreement over the final wording. “The ESRB must not act under the umbrella of the ECB”, Balz warned.
Disagreements over financing and certain competences
There are still, at this stage, a number of points on which there is no agreement between the co-rapporteurs. This is the case with the strategic supervisory plan, the creation of executive committees and the new model of financing in particular.
Nor can they agree on certain direct competences. “I have taken a more restrictive line than my co-rapporteur”, admitted Balz, who opposes the inclusion of supervisory competencies in ESMA's mandate concerning the central counterparties, or sustainable finance.
Berès is also deeply committed to reinforcing consumer protection and intends to table amendments to reinforce the role of the colleges of supervisors regarding the freedom to provide services.
Although the ALDE is by and large satisfied with these draft reports, there was disappointment for the Greens/EFA.
“I am not going to hide the fact that I'm a bit disappointed by the fact that the co-rapporteur's (…) cannot tell us whether they support the Commission's proposal concerning governance with a greater share of control and European influence”, said Sven Giegold (Greens/EFA, Germany), later describing result as a weak compromise.
“I think it is fair to say that our committee still has its work cut out in the weeks and months to come”, Balz concluded, adding that these draft reports express “dissatisfaction with the Commission's proposal”.
The MEPs also expressed concern at the highly conservative position of the Council of the EU (see EUROPE 11899) and even voiced doubts over the possibility of concluding this dossier before the end of this Parliament's term. Balz feels that a rapid vote in Parliament would make it possible to bring “pressure” to bear on the Council.
The MEPs have until 30 August to table their amendments to this report ahead of a vote at the ECON committee on 5 November. (Original version in French by Marion Fontana)