Lamfalussy follow up - Future Structure of Supervision (debate)
The next item is the report by Ieke van den Burg and Daniel Dăianu, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on Lamfalussy follow-up: future structure of supervision.
rapporteur. - Mr President, since 2002 I have been dealing with the issue of stability and supervision on the financial markets. Already at that time, in a report for Parliament on prudential supervision, I pleaded for a strong system of European supervision comparable to the European system of central banks.
Thank God we have the euro and the ECB in these turbulent times, but it is all the more embarrassing that we do not have this strong supervisory architecture. At the time I could not get a majority of Parliament behind a revolutionary reform; everyone was speaking about evolution. Nevertheless, when I have spoken over the years with a number of supervisors and other high-level representatives from the industry and supervision, people told me: 'We cannot say this publicly, but you are right that something more has to happen; a real crisis situation will show that this is not sufficient'.
So we needed a crisis to create the sense of urgency. Needless to say, I would have preferred to avoid such a crisis and I wish that we had been better prepared. But the crisis is there now and the tsunami that Mr McCreevy still did not want to look at some weeks ago, when we dealt with the Rasmussen and Lehne reports, is there and it is unprecedentedly heavy, I would say.
I would now expect this momentum to be there, but I am disappointed and embarrassed that what we are doing in the European Union is too little, too late. The whole world is watching but we are not managing to really get a common approach. Even economists and commentators that were the cheerleaders of this wonderful innovative financial engineering that should not be hindered by regulation are almost unanimous in their disappointment at what Europe's leaders have done so far. I could refer to the editorial in yesterday's Financial Times for instance, where they say: 'Thus far, Europe's leaders have displayed a purely declaratory brand of unity, jointly proclaiming that they will each take care of the problems in their own back yards.' So the Financial Times also concluded that we need a conductor and not only solo singers.
Tomorrow I think there is an opportunity for Parliament to show that we not only sing our own arias of regret and anger and play the blame game, but we can make a real contribution constructively to establish leadership and pick up on very concrete proposals that the European Commission could immediately initiate.
It may look quite technical for many other Members of Parliament but I can assure you that these have been well thought through and well prepared by us in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. It only needs leadership and courage from you, Commissioner, to give the green light and to start up the process. You should not listen too much to the City lobbyists keeping you from doing things, and of course you should listen to experts - but the political responsibility is with you to take these initiatives.
Mr Barroso has already mentioned some short-term measures. I am happy with what he said about a wise persons' group but, here again, this was something that we in Parliament proposed two years ago, and we did not get your support for this. In relation to the CRD proposals, the measures for the credit-rating agencies: it is not quite clear to me what measures you are going to present on the recommendation on executive pay. Here, I hope, you are not listening only to the weak proposals of the Ecofin Council but that you are prepared to move a bit further. Finally, on the supervision: it is not only long-term measures for the wise persons' group; we should already start with something now. Concerning my Amendments 5, 6 and 7: I hope there will be support for a proposal which immediately leads to an independent chair and vice-chair for the European supervisory structure.
rapporteur. - Mr President, I am going to use this moment just to say a few words on issues which seem to frame the public debate on regulation and supervision.
Firstly, free markets are not synonymous with no regulations. A lax monetary policy can lead to higher inflation and eventually to recession but cannot by itself cause the meltdown of a financial system. The features of the financial system that have brought the threat of collapse are structural traits of the new financial system.
The root cause of this crisis is an inadequately regulated financial system. Mortgages are not toxic per se; badly constructed securities based on them are toxic. The packaging of financial products can bring a lot of opacity to markets. Compensation schemes that make behaviour irresponsible: that is toxic. Misleading models are toxic; extreme leveraging is bad. Not to address these problems would be terribly wrong.
Not all financial innovation is benign. It is baffling therefore to hear that fresh regulation is bad because it would stifle financial innovation.
Building up proper regulation and supervision is not about bringing in socialism. It is about what kind of market economies we want to live in. That may lead to the recreation of elements of state capitalism, I agree, and that is for discussion.
Relying on industry-led initiatives is quite insufficient, for such initiatives frequently serve vested interests.
Why is it that we fail to learn from previous crises? Clearly, vested interests can have a long arm and try to influence regulations and supervision, including the behaviour of people like us.
Do moral values matter? Yes, I believe they do matter. The mess that we are in today is also because some believed that moral values do not matter in business. Regulators and supervisors should understand that there are systemic risks. They should always be alert to financial stability.
Strains and crises cannot be entirely avoided, but we can limit the damage they cause. We need comprehensive answers to crises and genuine coordination among the EU, US and other major financial centres, particularly during bad times.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, let me start my remarks with the situation on financial markets. We are in the most serious crisis in living memory. What started as a sub-prime crisis has now moved way beyond this to embrace the whole economy. Fears about the ability to raise financing are creating even greater lack of confidence among all economic actors. Unless there is a rapid unfreezing of lending, we face a continued downward spiral with obvious impact on economic activity. Freeing up lending is the number one priority today. The measures taken by central banks today will be an important contribution to unblocking the flow of lending.
One thing we have seen over the past few weeks is that no economy or financial market is immune from what is taking place.
At ECOFIN yesterday the concern of Finance Ministers was evident. We recognised the need for governments to intervene to shore up the financial markets, whether it be by capital injections, guarantees or other means. There is no silver bullet here. Strong, fast responses are essential.
For its part, the Commission is showing its capacity to respond quickly. I will be bringing to the college next week amendments to the deposit guarantee scheme which will increase the minimum level of protection, as well as requiring Member States to put in place procedures for rapid pay-out.
At Ecofin yesterday it was agreed that Member States would increase the current level to at least EUR 50 000, with many going beyond this to EUR 100 000. This reflects to a degree the differences in average savings in Member States.
In addition, we are urgently putting into place changes to our accounting rules to ensure banks in the EU can avail themselves of the same flexibility that is offered to banks in the United States, namely the option for individual banks, if they wish, to move assets from their trading books to their banking books. This is a comitology measure to which I hope Parliament will be able to give its agreement as a matter of urgency. In the mean time, I would hope that national supervisors would apply these new provisions already so that banks who wish to could avail themselves of this new possibility for their third-quarter results. In addition there is the IASB's acceptance of the US SEC's clarification of the use of fair-value accounting when there is no active market information. This is also highly relevant for banks and should be used for third-quarter reporting.
We are, of course, continuing to work for the rapid implementation of the Ecofin road map to strengthen the European Union's capacity to prevent and manage future financial crises. Overall the implementation of these initiatives is on track.
In times of crisis, politicians need to be seen to do things so as to reassure the public. Things are no different here in Brussels, except that our margin for manoeuvre is more limited. We do not have access to the financial resources that are necessary to combat this crisis. It is central banks and finance ministers who control the purse strings. What we have do is endeavour to maximise a common approach by Member States. There can be no doubt that, by working together, Member States are in a much stronger position to counteract the downward spiral we are currently in. We must continue to assist Member States to work towards common goals and shared approaches. Where we have the tools, we will continue to move forward quickly with any necessary measure.
Turning now to your report on the 'Lamfalussy follow-up and future structure of supervision', I would like to congratulate the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee - in particular Mrs van den Burg and Mr Dăianu - for their excellent work in producing such a thought-provoking and wide-ranging report. It highlights many of the challenges facing us now in the context of the current financial crisis. Innovative and well-thought-through proposals for regulatory and supervisory reform are crucially needed in the current situation.
You include in your report quite a demanding list of recommendations of where legislative action will be needed. It is heartening to see that so many of the issues you highlight are those that the Commission is also prioritising. In many cases, work is either ongoing or is planned on initiatives corresponding to the recommendations.
Let me mention here some of our most important ongoing initiatives, such as the Solvency II proposal, the proposals for revisions to the Capital Requirements Directive, which was adopted by the college of Commissioners last week, and the legislative proposal on credit-rating agencies, due shortly.
This reflects many of the recommendations put forward in your report.
The proposal for amendments to the Capital Requirements Directive covers critical areas and will fundamentally strengthen the regulatory framework for EU banks and the financial system. I hope you will fully support us on this. Reaching agreement by next April is essential.
Soon we will also go forward with a proposal on credit-rating agencies. The proposal will aim to introduce a legally binding authorisation and robust external oversight regime, whereby European regulators will have to supervise the policies and procedures followed by the credit-rating agencies. The Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) will play a strong coordination role.
On the EU supervisory framework, we are working on a revision of the Commission's decisions establishing the three committees of supervisors. By the end of the year, these committees will be assigned specific, practical tasks, such as (i) mediation, (ii) drafting recommendations and guidelines, and (iii) an explicit role to strengthen the analysis and responsiveness to risks to the stability of the EU financial system.
Also, we have now to think about the longer-term vision of European supervision. Current events are showing its limitations today. The European Central Bank's handling of the crisis has been exemplary. We now have to reflect seriously on how our supervisory arrangements for the cross-border financial institutions are constructed. As President Barroso announced earlier, we want to establish a high-level group to work through the various options and make recommendations on how we should proceed.
This takes up the suggestion in your report of a high-level group to tackle European supervisory arrangements.
I have been around here long enough to know that agreement on reforms to supervisory arrangements will not be easy.
But if we do not draw the lessons from the current crisis, then we are doing a great disservice to the European Union. This reflection should not blind us to the necessity to take the pragmatic steps to strengthen supervision that we have put forward in the Solvency II proposal and in the Capital Requirements Directive. Colleges of supervisors are essential.
The time ahead will be fraught. All of us have to take our respective responsibilities. Now is the time for us to show that, by working together, we can confront the challenges. I look forward to the strong support of Parliament in this regard.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, I think it was Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell who said in Nice in mid-September that the worst mistake we made was not to include the financial supervisory architecture into the Maastricht Treaty. We should have dealt with this issue already, together with EMU final phase decisions.
I completely agree with this view, and Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell is definitely not the only one who has said this. But whom are we to blame for the lack of progress on supervisory architecture? I do not think it is the Community soldiers we need to blame - and by Community soldiers I mean the European Commission, which has delivered, and also Parliament: as Mrs van den Burg said, we have been dealing with this issue since the beginning of 2000, and we have made several proposals to the Council, but the Council seems totally reluctant to move.
I still wonder how it was possible to have the Lamfalussy regime in place. Maybe it was the deal between the UK and Germany to offer the CESR location to Paris which finally made the difference, but I think that in Council they have been totally unwilling to move forward on this issue. So now it is the right time; maybe it is too limited and too late, but at least something is also now being done in the Council.
Parliament has made several very important proposals. In order of priority, these three are the most important:
First, the mandatory colleges for all cross-border financial institutions, with legally binding rules on how they operate, how they share information and what kind of decision-making procedures they use.
Second, improved legal status for the Level 3 Committees, and more effective working methods for them too. Maybe on this issue, the Commission could give a little bit more room for manoeuvre to Level 3 Committees, so that they would not only be consultative but also decision-making bodies in the future.
And third, strengthening the role of the ECB in financial stability. The ECB should get more information. It should be linked to CESR and CEOPS and they should work more together.
Finally I want to say something about the transatlantic dialogue. Now is not a good time to put the transatlantic financial services on hold. I know this is not the fault of the Commission but it mainly depends now on US actions, but I think the more you can do to keep that discussion going, the better it is. It is very important for the future...
(The President cut off the speaker.)
Mr President, we cannot shut our eyes to this. The current crisis has revealed a lack of supervision and economic governance in the financial markets.
Citizens are very clear that identifying risks and preventing them is much better than correcting them when they have resulted in imbalances and caused damage to the financial markets and to the real economy. The times when a large proportion of these financial markets operated in an opaque, uncontrolled manner, abandoned to the irresponsible games of imprudent or unscrupulous operators need to come to an end.
Free movement of capital, Economic and Monetary Union, the growing complexity in the field of financial services and globalisation demand that we go beyond a national supervisory framework. We need to move towards European supervision. The European Union cannot be absent from and left out of new concepts such as macro supervision, systemic risks, global financial stability, and the need to participate in global economic governance.
We therefore need to move towards European supervision and do so in a decisive way. Not to do so will be a serious strategic error at a time when global power is changing. We will need to overcome inertia in order to break the deadlock on Solvency II, and we will therefore have to rectify and accept an integrated European approach.
In order to ensure consistency and fairness in resolving differences between authorities or between the different financial sectors we need to abandon unilateralism and progress towards a genuinely operational European system. The differences between two authorities cannot be solved through a decision made by only one of them; it is not possible to be both judge and interested party at the same time.
I therefore fervently support the van den Burg and Dǎianu report. I am grateful that my amendments have been taken into consideration and have inspired some of the compromises, and I hope that their most ambitious proposals will triumph. This will be good for our citizens and essential for the financial markets.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at the start of this decade, Baron Lamfalussy presented a report in which he suggested ways in which supervisory authorities in Europe could cooperate better and more intensively. At the time, the Council welcomed these suggestions, but did nothing about them. If the financial crisis that we are currently experiencing has a positive side, then perhaps it is that the topic of improving supervision has moved to the top of the agenda.
It is surprising, however, that it takes a report from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs according to Rule 39 for the Commission to start to tackle this topic seriously. What is certain is that we can face the challenges of an integrated and growing financial market successfully only if supervision develops increasing convergence and becomes increasingly integrated. In the meantime, 58 of the 100 financial conglomerates are now active across borders. That statistic alone shows how much has to be done!
The report by the two rapporteurs points in the right direction. Mrs Kauppi alluded to it: the wide-ranging establishment of colleges to supervise cross-border financial conglomerates; the strengthening of the Level 3 committees. That is fine, but it should also be remembered that the small Member States are often represented in these colleges only as a host country supervisor and that it is therefore important to take proper account of their interests.
In the short and medium term there are probably no other ways to improve the situation; in the medium to long term it will not be enough. We must have a system that earns the right to be called a European supervisor, and this system should align itself with that of the European central banks.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE. - (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, I said earlier on behalf of my group that we supported the conclusions of the Ecofin Council. I notice that the stock markets have plummeted again today, and that markets across Europe have gone into freefall. These measures are therefore insufficient.
On the question of responsibility, I agree with Mrs Kauppi on the fact that there has effectively been a great deal of resistance in the Council, but it is clear that the Commission - yourself in particular - has never been a fan, to put it mildly, of more regulation at European level. Your entire tenure has been dominated by this idea of industry self-regulation. This is why we are lagging far behind in terms of European legislation on the topics under discussion today.
In terms of the report that will be put to the vote tomorrow, my group will support all of the amendments tabled, particularly by the rapporteur Mrs van den Burg. From our point of view, these also try to ensure that there will be more binding provisions on securitisation and the mechanisms that hinder speculation. They mean that the Lamfalussy Level 3 Committees are almost a forerunner of this European supervision, of the European supervisor that we want.
This is the direction that we would like to move in, and I believe that the Commission, which has a monopoly on legislative initiative, has failed in its duty during this legislature. From this point of view, grandstanding is all very well, but you have very little time in which to get up to speed.
Madam President, I appreciate the co-rapporteurs' willingness to work towards a consensus on this report. It is still not perfect as far as I am concerned - they will probably be pleased to hear that! - but it is much more appropriate than it was, and I feel we can be justified in supporting it.
I raise two particular points. Securitisation is seen as one of the demons of the current financial crisis, and now it seems to be seen as a necessary solution that we require originators to retain a percentage of their products. The Commission is proposing 5% in its capital adequacy review. We must at the very least have an impact assessment of this idea. I hazard to suggest that the only result will be to clog up the financial markets, and investors may even be tempted to omit full due diligence because of it. What really matters is being able to trace back originators through intermediate repackages and hold them to account for any misrepresentation, negligence or incompetence.
And the second matter is the way of settling disputes or disagreements in the colleges of supervisors. The rapporteurs have suggested a rather complex and formal appeal process with chairmen and vice-chairmen and a new bureaucracy. Surely such situations must be resolved quickly, and we have proposed therefore that the parties to any disagreement which cannot be resolved amicably should agree mutually on a mediator whose decision, at least in our view, should be final.
Lastly, Commissioner, I appreciate the introduction that you gave to your speech on the present crisis and am sorry you were not present during the previous debate with Mr Almunia and Mr Jouyet, when all these matters were represented by the Members of this Parliament, including myself. Maybe you can read through those speeches at great length and give us a response to our points of view.
Madam President, this report is ambitious but also realistic. It analyses the causes of the financial turmoil and proposes future changes. Many of these changes, as others have said, would have been suggested without the present situation, because there was already a view that the Lamfalussy process had not progressed as far as it could or should have done.
So this is about the next generation of supervision, rather than a fix for the current crisis - though we think it will help prevent any similar occurrence, and now there should be more willingness at Member State level to have formal integrated decision-making structures.
But I reiterate that it is important for regulation to be smart. The solution to our current problems, and the calmer future when it arrives, will not take the form of regulatory spam with thousands of compliance tick boxes, which, as we now know, causes it to be pushed off to specialist departments to do the ticking, without proper 'hands-on' at board level.
We should have clear, simple rules. Some, yes, fuller in scope, but rules that do not swamp the big picture, so that those at the top are properly accountable and know what is going on.
Finally, as part of crisis resolution, we need improvements on winding up, but that is not just in crisis situations: we also need to look at cross-border winding up in normal times. Here again we may need to tread on territory that makes Member States uncomfortable, but it has to be faced.
Madame la Présidente, first of all allow me to disagree with those saying that we are not able to deliver an EU-wide response to the financial crisis. We responded by bold actions at national level where they were needed. Because our national financial markets differ, we have room for manoeuvre in stressful times, taking into account the different level and scope of our financial markets in Member States. In Vilnius we do not have a City, so our actions are different.
Somehow I am not surprised that the Commission proposals are based on the needs of cross-border financial groups; I have been a Member of the European Parliament for five years. What does surprise me is that the Commission cannot figure out that the cross-border group model cannot survive during downturns in the economy. We are witnessing this now. Business leaders have to come up with plans to modernise their model by adding flexibility at subsidiary levels, to reflect the diversity of needs of the real EU economy. The EU supervision and regulation system has to ensure the smooth restructuring of the financial industry. The starting point for reform has to be an answer to the question: 'Which treasury will pay for the bail-out bill in the end?' This is in the interest of the stability of the whole European Union.
However, I would like to ask my colleagues not to forget one small neighbour of the European Union which is closely related to us - Iceland. We have left them on their own.
(SV) Madam President, Europe is now feeling the full brunt of the financial crisis. The decision taken yesterday by Europe's Finance Ministers on a common minimum level for deposit guarantees is an important step, as are the rescue operations being undertaken by individual banks. Today's coordinated interest rate cuts by several central banks are necessary to restore confidence in the financial markets. These measures are targeted and must resolve a crisis here and now.
We decision-makers also need to take responsibility for ensuring that the market functions in the long term. This means that we must adopt a methodical and clear approach when we introduce new legislation so that it also creates good prospects for growth. The importance of impact analyses is no less as a result of the financial crisis; on the contrary they are even more vital now.
The proposals which have been presented here in the Lamfalussy process mean better coordination of European supervision and are an important step towards a better European market. I would like to thank both colleagues, in particular Ieke van den Burg, who has done a magnificent job for many years and has been extremely persistent. That is a good thing in politicians!
The proposals build on already existing systems which must also be improved and made more effective without checking the economy. We must not confuse our responsibility for reacting quickly and managing the crisis with an even greater responsibility - that our rules must work, not only in this crisis period but also for the benefit of Europe's future growth.
Protectionism is never the answer and this is not the end of the global economy.
Madam President, I should like to welcome Commissioner McCreevy. I have listened to many colleagues' reaction to the Irish response to our banking confidence crisis and liquidity problems and the follow-through from other countries in the days since, because, having criticised the Irish, they then had to follow on. It is more than ironic that we now debate today the supervisory architecture for financial services in Europe. I do not know if you could call it a happy coincidence or too little, too late.
Would things have been so much different if we had had some sort of supervisory architecture in place, particularly in terms of the rating agencies? It seems to me, when you go back to the first base, that they are really the cause of many of the problems. They allowed the sub-prime crisis to get out of control by continuing to give strong ratings to institutions that had packaged these devious products and sold them on. Hence the problem we have with us today.
Let us be sure that our response reflects cool heads and proper thinking, given the crisis within which we are talking.
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, when, if not now, will it be necessary to improve European supervision? All the omens are clear: there is a need for action and we have something to do here. The provisions for monitoring the stability of the financial markets are critical. We need stricter monitoring regulations for macroeconomic policy and financial market supervision, particularly by the European Central Bank.
Key parameters for making decisions via qualified majority voting in the colleges of supervisors dealing with a cross-border institution in the European authorities are critical. Naturally, we must work on a case-by-case basis when it comes to dealing with and assessing the size of the Member States. A smaller country must not be swamped by a larger country. There needs to be a structure at EU level, backed up by legislation, to run the blockades and resolve conflicts between national and sectoral supervisors. We must make use of all the management options at Level 3 in order to create a better architecture.
(PL) Madam President, the main reason for the current collapse in the financial sector is the irresponsibility of financial institutions, unsuitable risk management, bad loans and allowing excessive debts to arise without proper guarantees, which has ultimately led to a loss of liquidity. The entire supervision system was also ineffective. It seems that the current solutions are failing to keep pace with the rate of change in global finance. We therefore need to bring them up to date, to soften the potential consequences of further crises in the future. Bearing in mind the current difficult situation in the financial markets, we should give absolute priority to legislative work to establish cohesive and effective means of supervision. At the same time, in recognising the fact of increasing integration and growing dependences between individual financial markets, we need to ensure maximum compatibility between the new European system and the American, Japanese and Chinese systems.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, can I briefly respond to a few points made. One relates to the previous debate, referred to by Mr Purvis. I was not invited to the previous debate. I would seldom pass up an opportunity of coming to the European Parliament to hear regular fans of mine on the Left praise my contribution to all things European. I could never miss an opportunity to hear people as eminent as Mr Schulz and Mrs Berès and many others speak about me in such glowing terms, so if I had been invited I would have gladly been here.
Regarding European solutions, I should like to give two examples.
My predecessor initiated an item regarding pay; this was issued in the form of a recommendation, which is possibly the one of the softest instruments that the EU has at its disposal. That was the only chance it had of having anything accepted, because the competence in this regard lies with Member States. We produced a report about a year and a half ago, but only one Member State has implemented most of the recommendations. The others have, by and large, ignored it. The Member State that implemented it - to give credit where credit is due - was Holland. I am not saying it has implemented every exact letter of it, but it is the only Member State that has gone down that particular road.
So a European solution was there. A lot of comment is being made at the present time about the bonus culture and executive remuneration. We tried to come forward with a type of European solution, which was put forward by Mr Bolkestein - I think it was technically me who put it into effect but I give credit to Mr Bolkestein for initiating it. That is what we did, and that is what our report shows.
Secondly, regarding supervision - the main subject of this report - I have spoken on many occasions in the Parliament and elsewhere about the issue of the cross-border supervision of financial institutions. I have spoken at Ecofin and at press conferences. It is practically impossible to move forward on this particular issue because Member States do not want us to have a European solution to this.
However, I should like to point something out to Members of the European Parliament.
Last year I initiated the Solvency II proposal regarding insurance, and advanced the idea of colleges of supervisors, group supervision and group support. Both in the Council of Ministers and in the negotiations with the European Parliament, it has been watered down considerably. If we are to get this directive through in the lifetime of this particular legislature, a lot of heavy lifting will have to be done with the Council of Ministers because there are large divergences, not only on those particular items but on other items as well.
Although I have been in politics for all of my adult life, and have ceased to be amazed at contradictory positions that politicians may adopt - and no doubt, if you look over my long political career, you might find some of them as well - I still find it totally ironic and amazing that, when we advocate a European solution, for example regarding supervision to do with Solvency II, the people who advocate European responses - both Ministers and Members of the European Parliament - are often the same people who come back and lobby for their own national state positions when a particular piece of legislation comes before them.
Those of us who were brought up in the Catholic religion know the prayer of Saint Augustine which says more or less, 'Make me pure, but not just yet'. It is a bit similar here. This does not surprise me because I have been a politician for all of my adult life so I am used to that type of irony, to put it in its politest terms.
Be that as it may, there are only 44 or 45 cross-border financial institutions and we have a supervisory system which is way out of date for such operations.
Finally, may I make this point regarding the current crisis, which I have spoken about here and in other forums including press conferences. There is not one single magic bullet solution to all of this. If there had been, it would have been found long ago. These are unprecedented times and unprecedented responses have been given, both on this side of the Atlantic and in the United States.
Can I just remind Members here - and I am sure President Barroso did so as well in his contribution - that we in the European Commission do our best to coordinate and encourage Member States to give a total response. But, as I said in my opening remarks, these responsibilities lie with Member States, with Member States' central bankers and with Member States' ministries, because they are the elected people. They are the people who are in control of taxpayers' monies and they are the people who must give the responses.
We have attempted - and we have succeeded somewhat - to get a European response in some of these particular areas. May I finally make the point that we must remember the structure of Europe. We are not a federation like the United States. We are not a central government, as found in the 27 Member States, and therefore we can only act to the limit of the powers that are given to us.
rapporteur. - Madam President, there is a lot of material for debate.
If I may quote the Commissioner on some of the things that he said, I should like to start with his statement that, in times of crisis, politicians should do something.
I think they should do it much earlier. Before a tsunami comes over us, we should take the measures and be proactive and prevent this type of thing from happening. So I agree with what others have said: if we are starting to act now, it is too little, too late.
My second point is this issue of the supervisory steps to be taken. You mentioned the Solvency II example where you also accuse us, Parliament, of weakening these proposals on group supervision. I do not think it is a weakening of the structure that has been proposed, as I think my colleague Mr Sánchez Presedo has mentioned already. What is proposed in fact by the Commission is a system of group supervision where lead supervisors, which often are the big Member States, take the lead in the process of a college.
I support the idea is that we should create colleges and that we should take some of these supervisory issues at a common, joint, level, because these cross-border groups act at the joint level. But the point is that there may be conflict between the interests of these lead supervisors of one national Member State and the supervisors of a host Member State, a big part of whose markets may dominated by this other group.
So in these cases of conflict, it is not fair to just say that you can have a sort of voluntary mediation by the Level 3 Committees followed simply by advice to the lead supervisor, and then in the end the lead supervisor can either comply or explain that he is deviating from this advice.
This is what is worrying the host Member States, and that is why you cannot stick solely to national supervisors dealing with this. There you need a neutral, impartial, independent arbiter at European level, and this is what I have already proposed in this report: not a bureaucratic supervision structure, just something to build on the present structure simply by adding to the other chairs of these three Level 3 Committees an independent chair and an independent vice-chair to act together with these Level 3 Committees and to deal in a binding way with the resolution of conflicts that may remain between supervisors.
This is what I think should be the guarantee to enable host Member States, smaller Member States in particular, to give their assent to this type of group supervision and these mandates to lead supervisors.
So this extra level, the extra add-on that we need to solve this problem, as well as for the short term, is in Amendment 7 that I have tabled for the vote tomorrow.
Another issue is the role of these supervisory committees as compared to the Commission. I also have the impression, like Mrs Kauppi, that in the Commission you would only prefer to have these supervisors as advisors and not really have an independent role for them to play, for instance in the international connection, in connection with the IASB standard-setting board or the FSF.
A direct question to you. We have been told that Mr Barroso was very proud that now the Commission is invited to this financial stability forum, but that although you were invited last week you did not go to that meeting. Maybe you can directly respond to say whether this true or not?
A final thing, on the executive pay recommendation, the only thing you have mentioned is that this is soft law and one Member State is following up on this. There is room to come up with stronger proposals, so please come up with your proposals.
rapporteur. - Madam President, let me say something which, in my view, has not been properly outlined. Regulation and supervision is not only about the building; it is about the object: what we regulate and supervise - and that is the crux of the matter.
We could have had an independent, EU-wide oversight body regulating in Europe and we would still have experienced the eruption of the crisis, because the problem is that the flaw lies in the financial system, not necessarily in the non-existence of a unique body of oversight and supervision.
Secondly, we are going to experience a very severe recession. We have to recapitalise the banks, and this will cost a huge amount of money. It is going to put tremendous pressure on public budgets, and I am asking myself - because we have to look at the broad picture - what is going to happen. I think that the current crisis shows that the size of the EU budget is nothing when the time comes to intervene and do something, so we have to rethink the EU budget.
(The President cut off the speaker.)
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.
Written Statements (Rule 142)
In the absence of effective mechanisms at European level, we are witnessing a cascade of often disjointed and even competing emergency financial interventions by various countries.
Action at European level has been reactive, 'a posteriori', seeking to forestall even greater damage. The net result is that the confidence of EU citizens has been dented.
Regulation needs to be thought through in calmer times. Neither citizens, nor we, their elected representatives, can understand the apathy that has greeted Parliament's many specific initiatives.
Now, in the midst of the turbulence, is not the right time to discuss where the responsibility lies.
One thing is certain, however: the rules of the system have to change.
The text that we shall vote on tomorrow is central to better regulation and supervision of the EU's financial markets. It is a proactive response by Parliament and not a reaction to recent events - which unfortunately have just served to confirm its relevance.
Many of those who were politically opposed to a minimum degree of transparency, regulation and supervision of the new financial instruments are now holding their tongues or changing their tune.
We hope the Commission will finally shoulder its responsibilities for initiative, strengthening the soundness of European financial institutions and helping to restore some confidence to citizens.
in writing. - (RO) The financial crisis that has extended to almost the entire planet should be analysed at the level of the European Union's institutions. It is inadmissible that the youngest territorial organisation in the world, the European Union, cannot intervene in identifying a solution acceptable to all parties and I insist on creating fast action instruments, as the EC high-level task force is also defined. We presently live in historical, unprecedented times.
We are on the edge of a financial collapse endangering the achievement of the goals undertaken by the EU, both for the 27 Member States and for the other countries on our planet. Any second lost in administrative and bureaucratic proceedings means huge losses for the international banking system and the financial stock exchanges on all continents, as well as the deterioration of the standard of living for all inhabitants. Europe is forced to make a stand and become a standard bearer in the fight for stopping the current financial crisis.
At this moment, we need to prove the functionality of the European system and institutions; we need coordination and cooperation between the Member State governments, the European Commission and the European Parliament. We have the necessary maturity and expertise to intervene in solving a dangerous situation for the future of the European Union, as well as of humankind.


Implementation of the social legislation relating to road transport (short presentation)
The next item is the report by Alejandro Cercas, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the implementation of social legislation relating to road transport.
Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for being here. As you are aware, in March 2002, the Council and Parliament came to an agreement, through conciliation, on Directive 2002/15/EC, which establishes the requirements that have to be fulfilled for the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities, in order to ensure their health and safety, to ensure road safety and also to align conditions of competition for all enterprises. It included all types of work, not only driving but also the physical work that these drivers sometimes do in loading and unloading or cleaning the vehicles.
That conciliation procedure resolved the most significant problem, which was whether or not self-employed workers should be included, and the parties agreed together, with the support of the Commission, that self-employed workers would be included, in order to put an end, once and for all, to the problems of double legislation, the double standards applied to self-employed drivers and employed drivers.
The lack of common regulation raised huge problems: these self-employed workers were working extremely long days, causing problems for their personal lives and for road safety, and also because drivers were posing as self-employed and undermining the rules of fair competition.
It was therefore a great achievement to put an end once and for all, with a reasonable transition period, to this double legislation, and in 2002, the Commission, the Council and Parliament all reached the conclusion that it was the most rational and logical step.
We have produced this own-initiative report, with the support of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Transport and Tourism because, Commissioner, it now appears that this principle, this commitment from the Commission, the Council and Parliament, is not so firm; it appears that there are ambiguities; it appears that there are confusions and explanations that we are not satisfied with.
The Commission was meant to have produced a report to set out legislation to ensure that these self-employed workers were indeed included. The truth is that the report was presented last year, but it was, in its own words, inadequate and we are waiting for the final report, which means that now, six months from the end of the term established for integration, we do not have a report or any initiatives from the Commission.
That is why, Commissioner, with the date approaching for the inclusion of self-employed workers - and we are neither clear nor convinced that there is still the will that existed at that time, and there are rumours that there are thoughts of reviewing the criteria - Parliament has produced this report with two objectives: as a reminder and as a demand.
It is a reminder of the commitments made by the Council, the Commission and Parliament to workers, businesses and all citizens to put an end to this situation, which is a hotbed for lawsuits, and a demand that the promises be kept. There are no circumstances that have arisen to change the reasons. There is still the same need; therefore, for the health of workers, for road safety and for perfect competition, we should include self-employed drivers in the Directive.
A final request, Commissioner. I think that it is very important, at the end of this term, that you do not go back on the commitment made. Economic demands or sectors of the profession seeking excessive competitive advantages should never be put ahead of the public needs that I am referring to.
Therefore, and because it is important, Commissioner, I want to call on you, on behalf of all my fellow members, not to upset the balance and for the promised legislation to be put in place soon.
Member of the Commission. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament is today discussing the implementation of, and the possible ways of further developing, the Directive on the working time of persons performing mobile road activities. This specific legislation organises the working time of persons performing mobile road activities, such as bus drivers and lorry drivers. However, the Directive does not include self-employed drivers.
Many Members will recall that the Directive was adopted in 2002 following an arduous conciliation procedure, on the basis of which a complex clause was approved. This clause establishes that with effect from 23 March 2009 the scope of the Directive will be extended to include all self-employed drivers if the Commission sends a report to the Council and the European Parliament concerning an impact assessment of the present circumstances under which self-employed drivers are not included, and drafts a legislative proposal concerning self-employed drivers.
Although the question of whether or not to include self-employed drivers in the scope of the Directive is a genuine dilemma, let me say that it is also a false problem. The Commission's main aim when drafting a legislative proposal concerning road transport working conditions is to ensure a high level of social protection and fair competition as well as improve road safety. Consequently, the Commission considered it necessary to introduce a special regime for road transport mobile workers through a specific law accompanying the general Directive on working time.
However, the post-2002 provisions of the legislation concerning drivers have changed significantly and it has been a positive change. Thanks to your help, and Mr Markov's help in particular, new rules on driving times, rest periods and inspection procedures were adopted in 2005.
While the Working Time Directive adopted in 2002 originally applied only to employed drivers, the rules adopted in 2005 apply to all drivers, both employed and self-employed. The rules apply to 80% of the working time of all drivers. Consequently, Parliament's founded concerns about this issue which were voiced in the course of the conciliation procedure for the 2002 Working Time Directive were properly allayed. Regarding the revision of the 2002 Working Time Directive, it is no secret that the attitudes of the individual Member States to this issue are very different and that opinions are also divided within the Member States and within the transport sector.
The Commission published its report on the consequences of the exclusion of self-employed drivers from the scope of the Directive in May 2007. The report reached two conclusions. Firstly, it stated that there were both advantages and disadvantages of including and excluding self-employed drivers. Secondly, the implementation of the Directive had caused some problems because the Member States had found it difficult to enforce it. This problem was chiefly due to the mistaken classification of some drivers as self-employed. This is how the transport sector describes those drivers who, although officially self-employed, are in reality dependent on one company and are unable to plan their work themselves as they would like to do. They are socially vulnerable and, as I said before, although the Directive applies to them already, we need to see significant improvements in its implementation. The Commission very carefully monitored the transposition of the Directive into national legislation and, when necessary, commenced proceedings where breaches were observed. As soon as the Member States completed the transposition of the Directive into national legislation, we performed a thorough check of the quality of this transposition. In many cases this resulted in the commencement of proceedings where breaches of duty were observed.
At present the Commission is also carrying out an impact assessment with a view to establishing a compact basis for a legislative proposal to be developed this year. Consequently, it would be premature for the Commission to adopt already a view on those aspects of the issues concerning self-employed drivers that pose the question of whether or not to include them in the scope of the Working Time Directive.
I welcome the report by Mr Cercas, particularly the developments concerning the issue of transposition. However, as I said before, the Commission is of the opinion that the solution put forward in the report does not take into account the problem of the full and correct transposition of the Directive for the workers it already covers. This is what we have been working on up until now and what we hope to achieve with the next amendment.
That concludes the debate.
The vote will take place tomorrow.
Written declarations (Rule 142)
in writing. - Road transport is an essential economic activity in the EU. Compliance with rules for driving, working time and rest periods are basic requirements for ensuring road safety and the health and safety of drivers and passengers.
We particularly welcome the inclusion of all workers in the sector, including self-employed drivers, within the rules on working time which will guarantee fair competition within the sector.
It must also be clear that the Directive establishes minimum requirements and must under no circumstances lead to a levelling down of the more favourable conditions that already exist in some Member States.


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes


Petitions: see Minutes


Closure of the sitting


Control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Százjer, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers - C7-0073/2010-.
rapporteur. - Mr President, it is only about one year since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, which envisages considerable changes in the delegation of powers by the European Parliament and Council to the Commission.
A few months ago in this Parliament, we discussed my report about delegated acts. Delegated acts are when Parliament and Council delegate powers, but from now on, compared to the previous situation, we can take them back any time. We can set a deadline, we can change and we can veto if the Commission is not in line with what the legislator wanted.
In the case of the present regulation we are discussing based on Article 291 of the Treaty, we are speaking about implementing acts. In the case of implementing acts, the situation is a bit different. Here, it is the Member States which exercise their rights on how to implement the different legislation of the European Union. So there is a clear difference.
The new regulation and the new system of delegated acts gives us very wide powers. From Parliament's point of view, it changes our influence considerably, especially in certain areas of legislation.
However, in the field of implementation, we have the right as Parliament, as legislator, to regulate how the implementation procedure for the Member State should go.
I think Parliament was right after long negotiations to take the position that we would like to confirm and get clear commitments from both the Council and the Commission that Parliament's rights are met. After very long negotiations, we have made very serious progress in this area which has influence and an effect not only - and particularly not only - in the area of implementing acts, but also on delegated acts.
Even in the case of implementing acts, Parliament got and kept the right of scrutiny which means that, on the basis of the agreement with the other institutions, we have a procedure which we can apply.
My first priority was that we could keep these important positions. There is also another issue here, which is that there are other ongoing discussions in this Parliament represented by other committees - especially the Committee on International Trade, the Committee on Development and the Committee on Foreign Affairs - and also between Parliament and Council on the legislation concerning financial instruments and whether and how they should be regulated.
My goal in this framework was that this regulation should not prejudge this discussion. We want to help our colleagues who are fighting our position in an important discussion with the Council so that we can finally end up with the cooperation of the Council.
Finally, since my time is over, I would like to thank both the Commission and the Council for their flexibility in the negotiations. I understand that it was very difficult to get an agreement in Council. I think this is the deal which Parliament wanted and this deal can be satisfying for all Members, especially because this is not only about the text we are discussing now, but we expect both the Commission and Council to take part in the common understanding concerning these important issues. We also expect declarations which make clear that there is a clear commitment from the Commission for the alignment of the remaining part of the acquis communautaire. This text attached to my report should be satisfying for all Members of this Parliament.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, this morning we heard a very good debate on the citizens' initiative and tonight we are discussing the very important topic of comitology. I think it is a very good sign that here, after the Treaty of Lisbon has entered into force, we are actually finalising the main pieces of the legislation necessary for its full implementation.
The regulation on implementing acts will have a major impact on the way the Commission implements European law in the future. It will have a very important influence on the Union's ability to deliver its policies in the interests of its citizens. When we presented our proposal we set out its main objective: that new rules should put in place a system for the adoption of implementing acts by the Commission which would be simpler, more efficient, and more transparent and in full compliance with the Treaty.
How did we achieve these goals in the proposals we are about to discuss? As in the past, the control mechanism foreseen by the regulation is based on comitology, meaning committees composed of representatives from Member States to which the Commission will submit draft measures but, contrary to the present system, there will no room for intervention by the Council as such.
As the Treaty makes clear, only Member States and not the Council can control the exercise of the implementing powers by the Commission. Moreover, the regulation provides that all special procedures will disappear and that all implementing measures including those on trade - various measures such as anti-dumping or countervailing measures - will be subject to the regulation. This will represent a real revolution in the field of commercial policy.
We want to have simpler procedures, so not only will the new regulation establish just two procedures - advisory and examination - instead of four, but it will also provide for an automatic adaptation of the existing comitology procedures. The new procedures will begin to apply to all existing legislation from day one. Of course this is without prejudice to the nature of the powers conferred on the Commission on the basic acts.
The Commission has committed in a declaration to review all the acquis in order to adapt it as far as legally required to the regime of delegated acts, and I know how important this is for this House. We have so far identified 153 acts which were not submitted to codecision before the Treaty of Lisbon, and which confer powers on the Commission that have to be turned into delegated powers. In addition there are 299 acts which were previously aligned to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, which will now have to be reviewed in the light of the provisions of the Treaty on delegated acts. But our aim is that before the end of Parliament's present legislative period all existing legislation will be fully in line with the new provision of the Treaty of Lisbon.
This means full alignment. You know how ambitious this goal is and therefore I am particularly pleased that the Belgian minister Mr Chastel kindly asked me to deliver to this House the commitment and the statement of the Presidency.
It states that the Presidency is aware of the ambitious intentions of the Commission in this regard; it welcomes these and supports the objectives. It can confirm that it is willing to do its utmost to make sure that this alignment is concluded as soon as possible once proposals by the Commission have been submitted. The Presidency is ready to cooperate in a loyal manner with Parliament and the Commission to achieve these objectives.
Of course we would like to have this statement enshrined in an official written record, but I think that we have to welcome the very cooperative spirit and collegial approach from the Belgian Presidency.
We want to have a system which is more efficient; accordingly the new rules fully reflect the Commission's role under the Treaties - with just one regrettable exception which I will come back to later - because only a qualified majority vote by the Committee against the draft implementing act can prevent the Commission from adopting it.
The one exception I just mentioned, where the Commission explicitly needs a positive opinion of the committee before being authorised to adopt the draft implementing act, relates to definitive multilateral trade safeguard measures. Even though only a limited number of acts are adopted in this area, we were against these exceptions on institutional grounds as we would have preferred a full alignment with the new rules.
I wanted to make this institutional point here although in the end this was the only possible basis for the compromise for the legislator and we welcome it. We want to have a system which is more transparent; the whole procedure will be conducted in full transparency.
All documents submitted to the committees are simultaneously sent to the European Parliament and to the Council; these two institutions will have a right of scrutiny on a completely equal footing. At any time during the procedure they may indicate to the Commission that they consider that the draft implementing act exceeds its powers; if we are overstepping our powers you have the right to make it very clear to us.
To conclude, all in all the text presents a very good result for Europe; it clearly strengthens the Community method and it clearly expands Parliament's power of scrutiny into all areas.
For instance, the new regulation provides that in some cases the Commission might be obliged to discuss the matter in an appeal committee. However this committee will be a normal comitology committee chaired by the Commission and subject to the same rules; only qualified majority against the Commission's draft can then prevent the Commission from adopting it.
If the new comitology regulation is approved today by the European Parliament it will enter into force very soon, already on 1 March 2011, and this is indeed very good news. We need to have the new legal framework operating as soon as possible, and I also hope that in parallel we could launch a common reflection about the line of demarcation between the delegated powers and the implementing powers of the Commission. We need these not only to avoid further conflicts when discussing proposals for the new legislation but also to streamline the alignment exercise.
To conclude I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Szájer, for all the work done throughout the negotiating process and also to all political groups for their cooperation and the flexibility they demonstrated. A final word of thanks goes to the Belgian Presidency who did a remarkable job in getting this file through the Council, in finding this very difficult compromise. I believe that what we are about to discuss, and I hope tomorrow approve, is very good news for Europe.
rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Development. - Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Szájer, for his efforts and for his report.
Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the current comitology provisions will be replaced by delegated acts and implementing acts under Articles 290 and 291, as has been explained, but I worry very much about the role of the Commission in implementing the decisions made in relation to the Treaty of Lisbon.
I think I heard the Commissioner just say that their aim is to do so by the end of this Parliament. That is another three and a half years, and they only have an 'aim'! This is not a residents' association, this is Parliament! If the Council is involved, Parliament is involved. As a parliamentarian - and it gives me no joy to say this - it seems to me that often, instead of acting as honest broker between Council and Parliament, the Commission is far too close to the Council, while Parliament, being of such numbers, is easily divided and far too easily sometimes facilitates what is a common view reached by the Council and by the Commission.
I must stress firstly that Parliament, in my view, should not be under any pressure to sign up completely to the proposed first-reading text in this regard. The most important thing is that we reach a fair compromise that is the best option available for this House and for the citizens we represent, while noting what our colleague, Mr Szájer has said. If this means waiting for a second-reading agreement, then so be it. As I said, the rule must be that if Council is involved, Parliament is involved. We are codecision makers, colegislators in this regard.
As the rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Development, I feel it is of paramount importance that we assert the independence of Parliament and that the Commission respect both institutions. I am not sure that this 'compromise' achieves that.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. - (NL) Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur for his work on what is a complex and very technical dossier, but one that is, nonetheless, very important for our future activities.
The old comitology procedure with four different options was not unknown to us, the Committee on Transport and Tourism, and we have been familiar for a long time with how to deal with implementing decisions. However, with regard to the adjustments which need to be made under the Treaty of Lisbon, I would like to say that we support the compromises which the rapporteur has agreed with the Council. There are, nevertheless, two things which we consider need your attention.
First of all, we want the maximum flow of information to Parliament and also the maximum involvement of Parliament in the preparation of the Committee's decisions.
Secondly, I would like to emphasise the importance of a good approach to the transitional period, and in that respect we ask the Commission to be generous in favour of Parliament when reforming the comitology procedure, as defined in the acquis, to the new delegated and implementing acts, where the choice between the two procedures may be open to debate.
Therefore, this does not apply to the reform alone, but also to the application of the current acquis ahead of any reform.
rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development. - Mr President, I worry that rejecting the inclusion of delegated acts in financial instruments might set a dangerous precedent for other policies. It also raises interinstitutional distrust and we are all concerned by this situation.
The forthcoming proposals on the legislative package for regional policy after 2013 might require application of implementing acts, but might also require delegated acts. We cannot accept the prior exclusion of delegated acts. This should be a matter of negotiation among the colegislators on a case-by-case basis.
This position is, in my view, consistent politically and legally and I believe that the Council and the Commission will evidently share it with Parliament. Ahead of us lie a number of difficult years, without doubt. Our duty as European institutions is to make the most of our policies, and by avoiding unnecessary conflicts and procedures we can be more effective in this common task.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as Chair of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I am deeply disappointed for several reasons with the contents of Mr Szájer's report, which is being voted on tomorrow.
Firstly, none the amendments voted for by my committee unanimously - and I stress, unanimously - were taken into account, even though the common agricultural policy is one of the policies with the most acts adopted under the comitology procedure and is therefore one of the ones most affected by the adaptation of legislative acts under the Treaty of Lisbon.
Secondly, under the text of Article 10, the European Parliament will have no power to exert pressure nor a margin to negotiate with Council over the adaptation of CAP legislation to the new treaty.
We are aware, in fact, that the Council has already demonstrated its unwillingness to agree acts delegated to the European Parliament and, with the adoption of this Regulation, the Council will not have any interest in proceeding with negotiations because the automatic adaptation - which excludes delegated acts and only covers implementing acts - has no deadline because it is transitional.
For this reason, together with other fellow Members, I tabled an amendment that makes the automatic alignment genuinely temporary and I call on you all to support it in order to reinforce the role of the European Parliament. There is no reason, in fact, to come to an agreement at first reading over such a sensitive file that sets the rules for implementing the treaty for the coming years. This is the reason why, for this all-important file, we have the right - I would even go so far as to say the duty - to improve the text as much as possible and therefore proceed to a second reading without giving in to blackmail by the Council, which is threatening not to move on this file in order to force us to accept this negative agreement.
After the budget, I think this is the most important file we have to vote on, because it redraws the balance of power between the European institutions. Here in this Chamber, we must vigorously defend the prerogatives of Parliament, which has been democratically elected and represents all European citizens.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Treaty of Lisbon introduces substantial changes to the process of developing and implementing EU legislation, by distinguishing between delegated acts and implementing acts. The previous primary legislation only provided for implementing measures.
This regulation is essential for an orderly transition from the old system to the new system, and for appropriate use of the implementing powers granted to the Commission by the Treaty of Lisbon. It strengthens the democratic principle because it recognises Parliament's right to control, increases transparency through the annual report and incorporates a review clause in order to perfect it based on experience. It therefore satisfies the requests that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs had made in this respect.
In the area of financial services, it will help to increase legal security and the effectiveness of legislation. It complements the objective of the Omnibus Directive of limiting the powers entrusted to the Commission in the old framework that are compatible with the current framework to a period of three years from the entry into force of the new Treaty, and establishes provisions so that the technical implementing standards, which are part of the new supervision structure and the sectoral regulations in the area of financial services, can eventually be adopted.
Therefore, as the rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I view the report positively and I congratulate Mr Szájer.
I would like to thank the President for his generosity and to give you all my best wishes for this festive season and for the coming year.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a series of explanations are needed, including here in plenary, with regard to misleading debates which have taken place in the groups, in the Conference of Committee Chairs and in some cases in the committees.
First of all, this regulation is not about deciding what delegated acts are under the terms of Article 290 and what implementing acts are under the terms of Article 291. This regulation will definitely not come to a decision on this. This is decided in the basic act. In other words, the law itself will decide on the authority under the terms of Article 290 or Article 291, if provision is made for this. The regulation only covers the procedure in the case of Article 291.
My second point concerns the criticism of Article 10. This article also relates only to the procedure and nothing else. In this context, the Commission has once again clarified that it does, of course, intend to review all the existing acts from the pre-Lisbon period as part of the alignment and to make new proposals to both legislative bodies: Parliament and the Council. This has been reinforced once again in comparison with the previous Interinstitutional Agreement.
The only thing which is really new is the procedure for external trade. I admit that the compromise which the Belgian Presidency has come up with is rather bureaucratic. There is no doubt about that. However, given the two blocking minorities in the Council, this was the only possible solution.
For me, this question is all about weighing up the benefits. We also need to weigh up, as the rapporteur has said, what Parliament has negotiated. We have a procedure for reviewing implementing acts which is not provided for in the treaty. That is a very significant step forward, in particular with regard to the involvement of Parliament, which goes beyond the terms of the treaty. Therefore, when the benefits are weighed up, it is clear that this deserves our support. This is why I am in favour of the report as it is, without amendments. We will not be able to achieve any more in the first reading than we could achieve in a later conciliation process after an unspecified period.
Mr President, the regulation that is being discussed today has been largely disregarded by all the committees over a long period. However, some people in this House have now woken up at the end of the process when the results are on the table. Some of them have unfortunately not attended the debate, which is a pity because it would have been very interesting to hear their views.
As a former member, I have a clear memory of the spirit of the convention. It called openly for the European Parliament to be given specific rights in several areas, to ensure that it remained credible in the context of the institutions and with regard to the citizens.
Despite the convention's demands, nothing was done. The very tough negotiations which the Belgian Presidency had with the Council were what enabled important progress to be made. I remember what Mr Lehne said. It was a question of the permanent possibility of investigating whether the Commission had exceeded its powers.
Of course, some of the regulations are not exactly ideal, such as the international trade agreement, but nevertheless I agree with the outcome. I would like to thank the Belgian Presidency. It has made every effort to ensure that something was achieved. I would also like to thank the rapporteur, who negotiated sympathetically and intelligently.
(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when we vote on Mr Szájer's report tomorrow, we will give the go-ahead for one of the new instruments - on implementing acts - contained in the Treaty of Lisbon.
This will simplify the old comitology system. It is a measure that will ensure greater transparency during the adoption of legislative acts, regulating methods of control by Member States over the exercise of powers conferred on the Commission. The fundamental importance of the Regulation has made the legislative procedure complicated both at inter-institutional level and within Parliament where, however, because of the involvement - albeit belated - of all committees, I hope it will be possible to adopt the proposal at first reading.
I therefore congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Szájer, for succeeding in achieving the priority objectives for the European Parliament: I refer to the guarantees to align the current comitology procedures with the new procedure, the right to scrutiny by Parliament and the Council, the creation of an appeal committee chaired by the Commission and the inclusion of a review clause that will make it possible to evaluate the efficiency of the procedure.
Allow me a final comment on what was the last obstacle to the negotiations: the inclusion of the common commercial policy within the scope of the future Regulation. Although the final agreement will allow the application of a simple majority voting system for the adoption of anti-dumping measures during a transitional period of 18 months, subsequently the measures will be adopted by qualified majority. This solution was the outcome of a difficult compromise but I am convinced that it satisfies both the needs of industry and the European Union executive, removing decisions of a technical nature from the risk of dangerous politicisation.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I totally disagree with the last speakers. Personally, I find that this measure is harmful to the priorities of Parliament and is against the spirit of the Treaty of Lisbon.
We are about to conclude 70% of the agreements at first reading with the Council, but I fail to understand the rush to conclude such a sensitive measure as this at first reading since it concerns the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon, which has extended our powers, particularly on commercial policy. At the very opening of the anti-dumping procedures, we are changing from the objectivity of legal certainty to an intervention by Member States, which threatens to become the outcome of bargaining between the Commission and Member States.
I therefore think it is a step backwards, as is automatic alignment without any time limits from the old comitology system to the present system in the agricultural field, which strengthens the role of Parliament.
Therefore, I do not believe it is wise to rush into an agreement with the Council at first reading, because we also run the risk of disputes before the Court of Justice.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I should like to thank everyone for all the contributions, which reflect how complex an issue we are dealing with.
Allow me to react to some of the comments. Concerning the review and our commitment to it in relation to all the relevant acts, we have here an extremely ambitious plan and I have been discussing it with Mr Lehne during our framework agreement discussions: we have 299 plus 153 acts to align. I think that if we say we would like to do it within the period of this legislature, it is a very ambitious plan. If I say it is 'our' ambition, I mean that on behalf of the three institutions because this clearly requires loyal cooperation from all of us.
I would like to assure Mr Mitchell of the Commission's utmost respect for Parliament.
I would like to highlight one paragraph in the draft Commission statement which is attached to the proposal. I will just read it out: 'While this alignment exercise is under way, the Commission will keep the European Parliament regularly informed on draft implementing measures related to these instruments which should become, in the future, delegated acts.' So our commitment to transparency and clarity is absolutely clear. I would also like to confirm, here in this House, that we will offer Parliament the maximum amount of information. Parliament will receive all information at the same time as the committees, so we will do our utmost to keep Parliament informed also in this procedure.
I think I have to thank Mr Lehne for clarifying the situation in the debate. What we are discussing today are implementing acts, and this regulation does not prejudge in any way whether we should use delegated or implementing acts in the future.
Concerning the issue of alignment, I think Mr De Castro was not here when I was reading out the agreed statement of the Belgian Presidency with a full commitment to loyal cooperation to achieve this ambitious goal of full alignment in the coming years. I think there is a reassurance here that it is not only in Parliament' interests, but also in the Commission's and the Council's interests to proceed very quickly. I think this is very clear and I am sure that we will honour this agreement.
Concerning the issue of politicisation of anti-dumping and countervailing measures, I think, actually, that we will see the opposite, because you know what the system is today: that a simple majority of the Member States' representatives can block a Commission proposal. This would be much more difficult in the future because you would need a qualified majority of the Member States representatives to block it. So I think that what we are doing here will actually strengthen the Union approach and strengthen the position of the Commission in the trade talks, exactly as prescribed and projected by the Treaty of Lisbon.
If you will allow me, I will conclude by underlining the importance of legal certainty in this matter because, of course, when we are dealing with sensitive issues like trade, like anti-dumping measures, like countervailing measures, we need to have very well established procedures and we need to have a clear division of roles and responsibilities. Parliament needs the very clear scrutiny rights which have been given to it by the Treaty of Lisbon, and we need the legal certainty to operate in this very important legislative area because you know how often these measures are disputed in various international fora.
Therefore, I would plead with the honourable Members to support these proposals without amendment because I think they are really good for the position of the European Union in world affairs.
rapporteur. - Mr President, I should like to thank everyone for their contributions, both now and during the last nine months we have been working on this issue.
First, a procedural thing. Many colleagues have voiced their worries about the fact that we are rushing into a first-reading agreement under pressure from the Council. Both the Commission and Council and several colleagues involved in the negotiations can testify that the pressure was the opposite. It was Parliament and myself who said to the Council that if it did not reach agreement then the whole thing could fall apart.
We got a very clear commitment from both the other institutions because like Parliament, as Mr Šefčovič just mentioned, they are for the stability of the Treaty of Lisbon. The later we accept, the later we adopt this kind of regulation, the longer the old comitology procedure - which we do not like because of its many problems - will go on. From that point of view, nine months is not a short time and could encompass two readings. There has been full transparency, and several colleagues can bear witness to that.
I have been in the Conference of Committee Chairs six times during these nine months and have also met with shadows and coordinators from all the committees. It was I who decided to go for agreement because we were getting everything I wanted. Maybe the Council and the Commission do not like it, but we got everything.
What does a rapporteur do when everything I and the different committees requested is there, although perhaps not in the form we want? Mr De Castro is right. His requests are not in the form of the text of this regulation, but this is about implementing acts, and they are there in the Commission's commitment. I have done this alignment - the omnibus - before, and the same commitment was given by the Commission, which it honoured with very minor exceptions. In that sense, I thought I could trust this promise and if the Commission does not honour it, I will stand up and claim it and align, as Mr De Castro is doing.
In that sense, there is no pressure. The pressure came from me. Through good cooperation in many difficult negotiations we agreed on something which I can unreservedly offer to the House to take on board.
Thank you very much to everybody, especially to the colleagues who took part in this very difficult process. I apologise to the general public, which does not understand a word of what we are discussing, but I can definitely say that transparency and parliamentary control of European Union issues will be much better after this regulation is adopted.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.
Written statements (Rule 149)
This legislative initiative on the control of 'executive instruments' by the Commission has been imposed by the Treaty of Lisbon, which includes this under the legislative powers of the European Parliament. It is also undeniably a positive piece of legislation overall, taking account of the existing situation.
But several aspects fall short of full compliance with the Treaty of Lisbon. Amongst these negative aspects, two stand out. Firstly, there is no cut-off point for mandatory adaptation of the countless existing situations to the new system and to the Treaty of Lisbon. It was for this reason that I tabled an amendment introducing such a clause. Secondly, and principally, the derogations provided for in the case of trade defence instruments (specifically anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures, as well as safeguard measures), according to which Member States will have more intrusive control over the Commission, are unacceptable, as they will make it more difficult to apply these measures and will lead to their politicisation. These measures are essential for defending European companies from competition from imports that benefit from such illicit benefits.
There is no constitutional or political basis for this discriminatory treatment of commercial defence measures, which undermines the ability of the Commission (and the Union) to defend European industry against unfair competition from outside its own European internal market.


Closure of the sitting
(The sitting was closed at 19.05)