Archive for the ‘Better regulation’ Category

Barroso on the spot before European Council nomination

Monday, June 15th, 2009

People have been grumbling over the last year or so that Barroso’s presidency of the European Commission has been too much influenced by hope of a second term, and that he has leant over backwards not to upset the big member states. I’m not convinced of the evidence for that, but the Commission president has certainly been put on the spot now.

The European Council is expected to give its provisional endorsement for Barroso’s reappointment later this week, but President Sarkozy has threatened that this decision is conditional on the candidate’s good behaviour. Indeed, the French president says that the appointment might need further confirmation after the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty, when ratification in the European Parliament would require a majority of members and not just a simple majority of those voting.

When Sarkozy and Chancellor Angela Merkel gave their conditional approval to Barroso on June 11 they were speaking from a position of strength following their strong showing in the European Parliament elections, in dramatic contrast to British prime minister Gordon Brown who could hardly be weaker and whose party suffered a bitter defeat in the polls.

So what does Sarkozy want? Tighter regulation of financial markets for one thing, with stricter regulation, for instance of hedge funds, derivatives markets and rating agencies. He wants policies which at least purport to show that the era of Anglo-Saxon dominance of these markets, which many perceive as the root cause of the recession, has been weakened for good.

Commission proposals based on the Larosière Report may not go far enough for Sarkozy, although the Brits are fiercely opposed to giving responsibility to the European Central Bank for the European Systemic Risk Council, while firms in the City of London run an intense campaign claiming that new rules will impose unacceptable constraints on their business and force them to move outside the EU.

The broader concern of the French president will relate to the nominations and portfolios of commissioners.  The internal market job, including financial services, is a key one. Competition policy is another. Neither Charlie McCreevy nor Neelie Kroes are favourites of Sarkozy. Barroso will have to tread carefully in selecting candidates for a new college.

The approach of the newly elected European Parliament raises other doubts. Will MEPs choose to await ratification of Lisbon before endorsing anyone as Commission president? Will Barroso achieve the simple majority he needs if there’s a July vote? And where will the Conservatives stand with their 25 GB plus two Ulster seats? If they don’t vote for Barroso, for whom will they vote?
The Conservative position could be especially crucial in the debates over the new financial services legislation, when the Commission’s new proposals come to the Parliament during the forthcoming autumn and through 2010.

As a group outside the EPP the Conservatives are likely to forfeit any influence they might have had in shaping policy towards light touch regulation – an influence which was extremely strong in the previous Parliament.  There will no doubt be those within the EPP who will be inclined towards tougher regulation. Without the presence of the Conservatives their views may well prevail, carrying the group with them. It would certainly be a strange irony if the defection of the Conservatives from the EPP played directly into the hands of the French President!

Council scuppers transfer of telecoms power to Brussels

Sunday, November 30th, 2008

It seems that any major transfer of power from the national level to the European Commission for EU telecoms regulation has been scuppered by the Council of Ministers.

Commissioner Reding had threatened ten days ago to withdraw Commission proposals if ministers refused to go along with them, but the Council’s political agreement on November 27 was unanimous (albeit with abstentions by the Dutch, the Swedes and the Brits), so will form the basis of negotiations with the European Parliament. Gone are the proposed Commission veto on decisions by national regulators, the extensive liberalisation of spectrum access and the functional separation between network and services.

The Commissioner accepted the deal philosophically after what she described as a “constructive crisis” in the Council  – I suppose the political equivalent of “creative destruction”.

It was not all bad news for Viviane Reding. She did win agreement on a price ceiling for roaming text messages (€0.11 as from July 2009 compared with the current average of €0.29) and for data transfer. The price limits on voice calls was also extended by three years to 2013 and the mobile operators must switch to charging by the second.

We can forget about EECMA, IRG and ERG. Assuming that Parliament and Council can agree a compromise – which is essential if legislation is to be agreed before European elections – we will have a new friend called GERT (Group of European Regulators in Telecoms). GERT will remain a private body rather than an EU entity and the Commission will have only limited powers to contest decisions by national regulators after taking “utmost account of the opinion of the GERT before issuing a decision and/or issuing a opinion”.

The tension between regulation and competition policy has been quite a feature of the whole debate and I was interested to see that the Council states its aim to progressively reduce ex ante sector-specific rules (ie regulation) “as competition in the markets develops and, ultimately, for electronic communications to be governed by competition law only”. Music to the ears of the mobile companies no doubt, but it’s still a distant harmony.

The prospect of agreement on a telecoms package echoes progress which has been made on energy liberalisation. The Council reached agreeement in October and we now await second reading in Parliament. Here too proposals for unbundling have been blocked by the Council (although Parliament is in favour), whereas the idea of a European regulator has been welcomed – so much so that Commissioner Piebalgs is pressing for an organisation with teeth.

The Barroso Commission set its sights high in its proposals for liberalising these key sectors and has been forced to abandon some of its most ambitious objectives, but at least it seems probable that new legislation will be on the books by next June which will mark a step towards more open markets.

Bendy bananas and curly cucumbers back on the shelves?

Thursday, November 20th, 2008

In Britain’s popular culture the marketing restrictions on bendy bananas and curly cucumbers have always been associated with the Bureaucrats of Brussels. Nothing so well underpinned a public perception of meddling officials in a foreign country imposing their will on a hapless populace by setting fruit and veg dimensions by millimetre and by degree. The story was always guaranteed to provoke a curious mixture of exasperation and delight.

The Commission has now announced a relaxation of the EU rules. As from July 2009 the EU standards for 26 fruit and vegetable categories will be abandoned altogether and for the 10 most widely purchased, such as apples, strawberries and tomatoes, national governments will be free to permit the public sale of non-classified produce as long as it is labelled as for jam-making or similar.

I suspect that in many cases it is national governments which displayed the real passion for regulating. It’s worth recalling that a year ago Commissioner Verheugen dismissed the idea that the use of imperial measures (pounds and ounces for instance) was illegal under EU law, but this didn’t stop the criminal prosecution of some market traders in Britain for using the old measures.

Certainly past experience suggests that the supermarkets will continue to demand uniformity and quality when negotiating with their suppliers. But at least there should be no more martyrs such as those shopkeepers who did not abide by the rules and were prosecuted in consequence.

The Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel takes credit for the latest moves, but this decision is very much in tune with the campaign for Better Regulation which the Barroso Commission has been pursuing. Its main front-man Commissioner Verheugen is still pushing hard, as you can see from his recent speech. All strength to his elbow!

Reding plays hardball over telecoms regulation

Tuesday, October 28th, 2008

So Commissioner Viviane Reding has decided to play hardball over telecoms reform. Some weeks ago we discussed how the Commission’s proposed telecoms package would hand over extensive new powers to Brussels.

The European Parliament watered down these proposals in first reading, but it seems that the revised version to be sent to the Council gives little ground on the core issue.

As if to remind the member states just how hopeless their regulators can be, the Commission has demanded that the Belgian regulator should do something about Belgacom.

Belgium’s incumbent operator has retained the lion’s share of residential telecoms business despite a liberalised market and has actually increased its market share for business users by value and by volume.

The message seems to be that competition policy has not done its job. The Commission wants action. This is regulation, raw in tooth and claw. What’s more, it enhances the Commission’s image as defender of the consumer – excellent public relations which build on Reding’s assault on the mobile operators’ text and roaming charges.

In last week’s Venice speech to the incumbent operators Reding set out her philosophy quite clearly, emphasising that the virtues of regulation had recently become rather widely recognised in the context of the credit crisis. No apologies there, then.

So the Commission has given little to the Parliament on the issue of control. The main change to her proposals seems to be the creation of an Office for the European Telecoms Regulators (OETR) managed by a 12-strong board, half of them appointed by the Commission and half by member states. The European Regulatory Group (ERG) would apparently have an advisory role and the Commission would retain a veto over the decisions of national regulators, albeit with some OETR involvement.

Some loss leaders have been abandoned or modified, such as previous proposals on network security, spectrum and policing of the internet, but when telecoms ministers meet on November 27 we can expect some fierce skirmishing in defence of national regulators before a qualified majority can be achieved, and maybe further hastily convened Council meetings before the end of the French  presidency.

The package is scheduled to go to second reading in the Parliament in April 2009. The question for Reding is, can she get such a tough package through before the June elections?

Europe’s contrasting reactions to sub-prime crisis

Monday, September 29th, 2008

While the United States and Britain reel from one catastrophe to another in the storm of the sub-prime crisis, the eurozone has seemed remarkably detached, until recently anyway. For the Americans and the Brits the news is totally dominated by stories of collapsing banks, bail-outs, vast lines of credit insurance which turn out to be no insurance at all, and an American administration desperately seeking a safe path for the US economy over the quicksands of collapsing confidence.

I’m not saying that the Land of the Euro is immune from the impact of this crisis – it clearly is not. The turbulence over Fortis Bank, to name but one of the repercussions, deepens the black hole for the missing Belgian government.

But there does seem to be a difference. The US and UK economies are so much more dependent on their financial services sector than most of the countries of the eurozone. What’s more, the great bubble of house prices linked with high mortgage commitments brings this crisis straight to everyone’s front door in Britain and America.

Maybe the continental reaction is also different because the power centres of the eurozone are so widely dispersed. It’s not like London or New York/Washington where the various regulatory institutions are perceived to work closely together. The European Central Bank from its fortress in Frankfurt is responsible for providing liquidity for the banking system across 15 countries; the framework for EU financial services regulation across the EU is crafted and overseen by Brussels; and individual member states have their own particular responsibilities for applying the rules, such as the clamp-down on short selling.

It’s striking to see how different players are reacting to the crisis. In the UK there may be talk of international co-operation, but the British government makes no mention whatever of the European legal framework, although it is evident that most of the legislation governing the solvency of banks and other financial bodies and the activities of financial services firms derives from EU decisions.

As for continental reaction, note the contrast between President Sarkozy and Charlie McCreevy, Commissioner responsible for the financial services sector. The French President is determined to push for more regulation and reserves particular venom for ratings agencies.

The Commissioner, by contrast, is keeping a low profile. He doesn’t like interfering with markets and plays down the need for drastic action on the regulatory front. He has even said that (unregulated) hedge funds and private equity should not be “tarred with the same brush” as the regulated sector.

Nonetheless, McCreevy must be seen to act, and sure enough the Commission is expected to come forward this week with some new proposals tightening up banks’ capital requirements in relation to securitised debt, although according to reports he has been persuaded by the banking sector not to go too far. Rating agencies will also face registration requirements, though short of the controls which the French and Germans would like.

The German finance minister Peter Steinbrück believes that the US will cease to be the global financial superpower following the credit crisis. He blames Washington for its failure to introduce stricter regulation despite European demands and has told journalists that in ten years time “we will see 2008 as a fundamental rupture”.

Apparently the Minister was particularly stung by the actions of a state-owned bank, which earned the soubriquet of Deutschland’s Dümste Banker from Bild Zeitung after it transferred €350m to Lehman Brothers two hours before Lehmans folded. Steinbrück is pushing for much tougher regulatory measures than McCreevy envisages.

After the Enron and WorldCom crises the US introduced Sarbanes-Oxley, a complex set of rules and red tape which many now see as over-reaction. Policy-makers now face another challenge – of preventing the excesses which produced the credit meltdown from ever recurring.

The Commission’s proposals will be a first step for Europe, although getting even such modest measures through Council and Parliament will be tough, given the impending European elections in June 2009. Maybe, though, this will be the opportunity for the EU to take the initiative in establishing a worldwide framework of regulation which does not throw Baby out with the Bathwater.