Volledig verslag van de vergaderingen

Woensdag 14 juni 2006 - Straatsburg

15. Uitvoeringsmaatregelen (niveau 2) van Richtlijn 2004/39/EG (debat)

  Le Président. – L'ordre du jour appelle la déclaration de la Commission - Mesures de mise en œuvre (niveau 2) de la directive MIFID 2004/39/CE.

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. Mr President, on behalf of my colleague, Mr McCreevy, who could not be here tonight, I should like to thank Mrs Kauppi, who has been an outstanding rapporteur in terms of her mastery of this difficult and highly technical subject and her willingness to work constructively with the Commission and all parties. She has done a first-class job, along with Mrs Berès, the chairwoman of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Thanks also go to the Committee of European Securities Regulators for its excellent work.

Under the terms of the Prodi Declaration, the Commission is committed to taking the fullest possible account of Parliament’s view. We have more than met that obligation. Indeed, we have incorporated around 90% of Parliament’s amendments into the Commission’s draft measures, which will be voted on by the European Securities Committee at the end of this month. On all the key points we agree.

The level of institutional cooperation on this file has been exemplary. It shows that Parliament, the Commission and Member States are able to work together in a sensible and pragmatic way in order to achieve the right result for Europe’s financial markets and Europe’s investors and consumers.

The Lamfalussy procedure, which we have all worked hard to develop over the past few years, works. Of course it is important to agree as soon as possible on the European Parliament’s legitimate right of call-back, which the Commission supports. We believe that Lamfalussy procedures will serve us well in the years ahead, allowing us to adapt our legislation rapidly to keep pace with market and technological developments, while maintaining essential democratic checks and balances.

The Markets in Financial Instruments Directive will intensify competition among investment firms, stock exchanges and other trading venues and improve standards of service to investors and benefit companies by lowering the cost of capital. It will update the single passport for investment firms, allowing them to operate across the European Union on the basis of an effective single authorisation and across a wide range of financial instruments. Aside from stimulating cross-border competition, it will diversify the range of products and services that investors can access and markets that firms can tap into. But crucially and essentially, investor protection rules will be harmonised at a high level so that investors can feel confident in using the services of investment firms wherever they are in Europe and wherever the investment firms originate from in Europe. Furthermore, these rules are principles-based in that they put the onus on firms to behave and to always act in the best interests of their clients.

The rapid globalisation of financial markets is an opportunity for Europe. These implementing measures for the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive mean that we are well placed to stay ahead. Our financial markets are in good shape. They are growing strongly and are set to grow even faster in future as the Union enlarges further, as our middle class expands and as people increasingly take responsibility for their own pension provisions.

Our common regulatory framework is more or less in place. MIFID is the last piece of the jigsaw where markets are integrating fast. The European financial landscape is becoming commercially more attractive. Leaving politics aside, the potential stock exchange measures represent a vote of confidence in Europe, in our stock exchanges, our technological prowess and our regulatory system. In the end what matters is that the cost of capital in the EU remains as low as possible overall for all EU economic actors, that European Union financial markets are properly regulated by European regulators, that European Union markets can grow strongly, that cross-border clearing and settlement costs are significantly reduced and that the European Union, through its new regulatory regime, can influence and develop strongly its financial relations with the rest of the world, using its good emerging model of regulation as its passport.

The Markets in Financial Instruments Directive is a key step towards positioning Europe as a global leader in financial services. That is why the Commission is particularly thankful to Parliament for its cooperation on this vital subject.

  Piia-Noora Kauppi, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, we can all be very satisfied with the resolution before us. It is based on a remarkable effort by the Commission, the European Parliament, the European Securities Committee Regulators and market players, which has resulted in the successful conclusion of the implementing measures for MIFID.

The directive itself is nothing short of revolutionary in the way it opens up investment markets in the EU and achieves better guarantees for investor protection than in previous legislation. The implementing measures before us, which establish some 17 key provisions of the directive, represent balanced and measured regulatory arrangements for bringing these twin promises to fruition.

The procedure by which these implementing measures have been drawn up is also highly significant. This is the first time the European Parliament has been fully involved in concluding implementing legislation at the comitology phase. In the end, the percentage of Parliament’s amendments scheduled to be adopted by the ESC is about 87%. This compares highly favourably with, for example, what we obtained in the underlying MIFID directive, where that percentage was about 50%. All the parties involved can feel justified pride in the way we managed to overcome potential interinstitutional pitfalls since, as we all know, Parliament’s role in comitology is the topic of an often heated debate. In fact, we are still awaiting some answers from the Commission and Council.

I should like to address special thanks, however, to the Commission for its open and forthcoming cooperation with me and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which was instrumental in bringing about this very positive outcome. I agree with the remarks made by the Commission on Monday to the effect that we have achieved something historic not only for the financial markets but also in the manner Level 2 legislation and other comitology legislation is framed.

Despite the positive outcome, I should like to mention a few points. I am somewhat perplexed that the Commission did not accept our modification which sought to clarify the best execution obligations of investment firms towards clients when dealing on their own account. I hope that the Commission and national regulations will interpret the resulting provision in the light of the agreement reached in the Level 1 Directive. Furthermore, I should have liked to have seen more flexibility on the delayed reporting of large trades. We will have to be vigilant and promptly invoke the review clause if it becomes apparent that premature reporting of large trades is harming the provision of liquidity to clients, making it more expensive or rendering EU markets less competitive than markets in other parts of the world.

Finally, I had hoped that a more modern interpretation of the business in derivatives could have been found. It will be important to amend the Level 2 measures promptly if it becomes apparent that new clients and new markets, especially transactions using the Internet, are being disadvantaged.

The number of criticisms is nonetheless dwarfed by the overall positive result. I should like to thank all the participants and all my colleagues who helped in this endeavour.

  Pervenche Berès, au nom du groupe PSE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, vous direz à M. McCreevy qu'ici, au Parlement européen, ce soir, nous avons, pour la première fois, mis en œuvre toute la procédure Lamfalussy. Le Parlement européen y a apporté une contribution que, je crois, chacun saluera pour sa qualité et son professionnalisme, pour, aussi, avoir défendu, au niveau 2, l'équilibre entre l'ouverture des marchés et le principe de transparence que nous avions défini pour le niveau 1.

Ce que nous avons fait, ici, au Parlement européen, met en avant la contribution du Parlement au bon fonctionnement de la procédure dite Lamfalussy et nos raisons d'espérer que l'accord en matière de comitologie garantira les droits du Parlement. Par ailleurs, nous nous félicitons de la reprise par la Commission de nombre de nos propositions allant dans le sens de l'équilibre en matière de transparence et de droits des consommateurs.

Enfin, permettez-moi également d'attirer votre attention sur ce que contient notre résolution, s'agissant du rôle, des pouvoirs et des capacités d'intervention du régulateur des marchés, le coordinateur des régulateurs nationaux, le CERVM. Les États membres doivent prendre leurs responsabilités et doter cet organe des moyens de veiller à la bonne application de cette directive essentielle pour le fonctionnement du financement de notre économie.

Monsieur le Commissaire, lorsque nous avons commencé toute cette aventure, certains membres de la commission économique et monétaire avaient plaidé pour que, outre le marché lui-même, nous nous occupions de ce qui se passait en aval de ce marché, ce qu'on appelle le post-marché, le règlement-livraison. Vous l'avez dit vous-même, ce post-marché est aujourd'hui trop onéreux. C'est pourquoi, sans être une fanatique des rouages du marché, je pense que ce qui est appliqué ailleurs doit aussi s'appliquer ici, à savoir le découplage qui devrait être un bon moyen de réduire les coûts. J'espère que le commissaire n'interviendra pas trop tardivement ni trop timidement dans ce domaine, comme il l'a indiqué à certains acteurs du marché.

  Margarita Starkevičiūtė, ALDE frakcijos vardu. – Gerb. Pirmininke, visų pirma norėčiau nuoširdžiai padėkoti visiems dalyvavusiems ruošiant šią rezoliuciją ir dokumentus, ypač jų pakeitimus, sudarančius teisines prielaidas vieningai investicinių paslaugų rinkai atsirasti. Kompetentingų ir turinčių didesnę patirtį kolegų geranoriškas bendradarbiavimas man, mažos ir naujos Europos Sąjungos narės atstovei, yra geriausias įrodymas, kad mes galime kartu dirbti išsiplėtusioje Europoje ir kartu įgyvendinti svarbias reformas. Manau, tai tikrai reiktų pažymėti.

Kitas dalykas, kurį aš norėčiau pažymėti, yra tai kad mes turime žiūrėti į ateitį, nes sparti ir ambicinga finansų rinkų plėtra kasdien kelia naujus uždavinius. Apgailestauju, kad pono C. McCreevy ne tik nėra šiandien mūsų debatuose, bet taip pat kad nelabai juntamas pono C. McCreevy ir Europos Komisijos vaidmuo dabartinėje pertvarkų laikotarpio Europos finansų rinkoje.

Tad norėčiau pati, remdamasi sukaupta patirtimi, pasakyti, kokius dalykus mes turėtume akcentuoti kalbėdami apie globalius pasaulio finansų rinkos iššūkius. Manyčiau mūsų strateginiu uždaviniu turėtų būti siekis žengti savito europietiško finansų rinkos reguliavimo modelio plėtojimo keliu. Tai mums reikia vis dažniau pabrėžti, nes mes atrodome pasimetę agresyviai plėtojantis rinkoms. Mes turime savo tam tikras europietiškas finansų rinkų tradicijas ir jas reiktų puoselėti ir dažniau minėti. Sutinku su Komisijos nario nuomone, kad dabar Europa turi didžiules galimybes tapti lydere finansų rinkos reguliavimo srityje, įvertinant labai kruopščią Jungtinių Amerikos Valstijų reguliavimo praktiką ir problemas, su kuriomis susiduria naujos besivystančios ekonomikos valstybės reguliavimo srityje.

Kokie būtų to išskirtinio Europos modelio elementai?

Visų pirma, mes turime aiškiai pasakyti, kad naudosime principais pagrįstą reguliavimą, nesiekdami detalaus taisyklėmis paremto reguliavimo, kuris yra daug lankstesnis ir leidžia greičiau reaguoti į pokyčius globalioje rinkoje. Ruošiant MIFID dokumentus buvo sakoma, kad detalesnis reguliavimas užtikrins vieningą požiūrį įgyvendinant numatytas priemones visose Europos Sąjungos valstybėse, tačiau tą patį galima pasiekti geriau koordinuojant priežiūros institucijų darbą.

Antras sudėtinis modelio elementas turėtų būti priežiūros institucijų interpretavimų ir reikalavimų konvergenciją skatinančios nuostatos. Jokios taisyklės nepadės išvengti, sakykime, skirtingų finansinių kultūrų, kurios yra Pietų Europoje, Dž. Britanijoje, Šiaurės Europoje. Vadinasi, reikia remtis Euronext ir šiaurės rinkos patirtimi koordinuojant vieningą įstatyminių normų interpretavimą. Skeptiškai žiūriu į Europos Centrinio Banko pasiūlymus kurti harmonizuotus standartus arba pasiūlymus teikti daugiau teisinių dokumentų, kad būtų sukurta rinka. Mes turime pakankamai dokumentų, tiesiog reiktų daugiau dėmesio skirti jų konvergencijai. Aišku, galbūt ateityje finansų rinkai reikės savo vieningos priežiūros institucijos, bet tai – ateities perspektyvos ir dabar nelabai realios.

Trečias dalykas, kurį aš norėčiau pažymėti, tai kad finansų rinkų veiksmingumas turi būti vertinamas atsižvelgiant į galutinio vartotojo pozicijas, tai reikštų paslaugų atskyrimą, didžiųjų finansinių konglomeratų vidinių kaštų atskleidimą ir tarpusavio interesų konfliktų valdymą bei atskleidimą.

  Alexander Radwan (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren! Zuerst einmal möchte ich der Berichterstatterin Frau Kauppi und allen, die an diesem sehr komplexen Thema mitgearbeitet haben, insbesondere den Schattenberichterstattern, recht herzlich für ihren großen Einsatz hierfür danken.

Ich muss erneut meine tiefe Enttäuschung über unser Präsidium zum Ausdruck bringen. Heute ist ein historisches Datum, und wir haben heute den Beweis, dass parlamentarische Beteiligung im Bereich des Ausschussverfahrens effektiv ist. Wir, die Vertreter der Bürger, der Menschen Europas, erreichen innerhalb der Institutionen etwas, und wir debattieren darüber kurz vor Mitternacht und werden ermahnt, wir sollen uns kurz fassen. Das ist ein Wiederholungsfall! Ich weiß, dass es im Präsidium und in der Verwaltung auf kein Interesse stößt, trotzdem werde ich nicht müde, es zu sagen: Wir sollten uns darauf konzentrieren, die Rechte, die das Parlament hat, der Öffentlichkeit zu zeigen.

Wir diskutieren zurzeit die Stärkung der Rechte des Parlaments im Rahmen des Ausschussverfahrens, insbesondere des Lamfalussy-Verfahrens. In der Woche, in der die entscheidenden Sitzungen stattfinden, setzt das Präsidium das Thema kurz vor Mitternacht an. Ein schlechteres Zeichen in diesem Bereich könnte es nicht geben. Das positive Zeichen dieses Abends ist, dass wir bewiesen haben, dass das Parlament im Dialog zwischen Rat und Kommission ein kooperativer Partner ist und dass es nicht an uns liegt. Den Rat fordere ich auf, diese und nächste Woche dieses positive Beispiel wahrzunehmen. Wir haben bewiesen, dass wir im Rahmen des Ausschussverfahrens zu Entscheidungen kommen, die effizienter sind, die bessere Rechtsetzung und somit auch das Fortbestehen des Lamfalussy-Verfahrens ermöglichen, d.h. das Prüfungsrecht des Parlaments, eine rechtzeitige Unterrichtung des Parlaments und eine entsprechende Institutionalisierung und Perspektive des call back. Entsprechendes sollte hier verabschiedet werden.

Ich sehe, der Hammer wird bald geschwungen. Die Zeit ist das Wichtigste in diesem Hause. Nichtsdestotrotz sollte die Kommission auch darauf achten, dass es in Zukunft bei den Finanzmärkten — darum geht es bei dieser Richtlinie — zu einem europäischen Modell kommt, bei dem alle Stärken der Beteiligten entsprechend berücksichtigt werden.

  Le Président. – Monsieur Radwan, je vous précise que ce n'est pas le Bureau mais la Conférence des présidents qui fixe notre ordre du jour.

  Ieke van den Burg (PSE). – Mr President, I would like to support the remarks made by various speakers on this being a historic moment. I am not referring to the time of five minutes to midnight, but to the historic moment in which we reached this sound agreement and were able to modify the proposal. I say modify the proposal, because the Commission did not like that terminology, but I think this is what has been done, through the good cooperation and professionalism of the people involved.

I would also like to emphasise our adherence to the Lamfalussy procedure and cooperation between the different players in the field, and to underline what Mrs Berès said about the role of the regulators and the importance of getting the tools to enforce the legislation and measures we have now adopted. This enforcement needs tools and instruments and it is up to Member States to provide them.

The last point I want to mention is something I think we have to discuss with the Commissioner responsible, Mr McCreevy. I hope we can invite him to the next Strasbourg session and have a debate – maybe not at such a late hour as this but earlier in the day – on the developments in the stock exchanges. I was particularly surprised by something he said the day before yesterday in a speech in Ireland. He compared the globalisation of the financial markets with an ocean steamer and said that the European Union is on the bridge, in control and taking the lead in this process. We are not sure that this is in fact the case, because the Commission is not proactive in what is happening at the moment in the market. We are keen to debate this with him.

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I thank Parliament for the very valuable contribution it has made to the whole process. I consider that this is a perfect example of how well all three institutions can work together to the benefit of the European financial markets.

Europe should be proud today to give itself a regulatory framework for financial markets which will put it at the forefront of the world’s financial centres and improve the competitiveness of the European economy as a whole. I congratulate everyone for achieving this result.

On two proposed amendments which were not accepted by the Commission – Amendments 4 and 7, to which the rapporteur made reference – I should like to say that with regard to the disclosure of the identification of the client, the Commission favours a more flexible approach. Practices, as well as assessment of the usefulness of requiring identification, vary in Member States. It can be an invaluable tool in the investigation of market abuse. The Commission prefers to leave this issue unharmonised at this stage.

The Commission is not in favour of Amendment 7, which relates to deferring the publication of information relating to portfolio trades. Our current proposal on portfolio trades is that the block regime will apply with respect to each constituent share. If accepted, the amendment could weaken transparency requirements. By including only one transaction for which delay is permitted in a portfolio trade, a delay for the whole portfolio would be obtained.

Finally, I am certain that Commissioner McCreevy will gladly accept your invitation to discuss this subject further with you at the next part-session in Strasbourg.

  Le Président. – J'ai reçu, conformément à l'article 103, paragraphe 2, du règlement une proposition de résolution⁽¹⁾.

Le débat est clos.

Le vote aura lieu demain, à 11 heures.

(1) Voir procès-verbal.