31 Amendments of Philippe LAMBERTS related to 2017/2253(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
Citation 8 a (new)
- having regard to its resolution of 14 March 2018 on the framework of the future EU-UK relationship,
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 b (new)
Citation 8 b (new)
- having regard to the European Council (Art. 50) Guidelines of 23 March 2018,
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas since the financial crisis, more than 40 new pieces of EU financial legislation have been adopted, of which 15 include ‘third country provisions’ that give the Commission the power to unilaterally deciddiscretion to adopt implementing acts to determine whether regulatory rules in foreign jurisdictions can be considered equivalent;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas equivalence, passporting rights and mutual recognition regimes are distinctly different concepts, providing different rights to and obligations for relevant supervisors, financial institutions and market participants;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas equivalence is a tool to promote international regulatory convergence, which may lead to moreencourage third countries to reach the standards of financial regulation achieved within the European single market, which can allow competition within the EU single market on a level playing field, while preventing regulatory arbitrage;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the forthcoming withdrawal of the UK from the EU will potentially have a significant impact on the regulation and supervision of financial services, given the close relationship that currently exists between the Member States in this areaequivalence is a tool to encourage third countries to reach the standards of financial regulation achieved within the European single market, which can allow competition within the EU single market on a level playing field, while preventing regulatory arbitrage;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that since the financial crisis, the EU has developed its financial regulation through wide-ranging reforms; welcomes the increased regulatory and supervisory cooperation between the EU and third countries; recognises that this has improved global consistency in financial regulation and has madeis expected to contribute making the EU more resilient to global financial shocks although further endeavours are required with that aim;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that thwith concern that some Member States may not always entirely support international cooperation owing to concerns about the protection of national interests and the inherent incentive to shift risks to other jurisdictions;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that, in many cases, the granting of equivalence is a unilateral decision taken by the EU and in many cases is not applied in a reciprocal manner by third countries; considers that international cooperation couldmay in some cases be better advancfostered by dint of international agreements negotiated between the EU and third countries; notes that, unlike equivalence, international agreements can provide mutual access between the EU and third countries for financial institutions and for the mutual recognition of rules;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Underlines that any international agreements should include appropriate tax cooperation arrangements; as well as robust prudential carve-outs without being subject to necessity tests in order to legally guarantee European, national and local authorities’ rights to regulate in the public interest;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Reiterates that equivalence decisions do not grant financial institutions established in third countries comparable rights to passport financial services throughout the EU, but recognises that theypoints out that equivalence decisions may give third- country institutions limited ‘passport-like’ access to the single market for certain products following a piecemeal, ‘legislation specific’ approach;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Underlines in contrast that the ‘EU passport’ gives undertakings the right to provide financial services throughout the EEA, under the license granted by their home country and under the home country supervision and that as such it is not available to financial institutions established in non-EEA countries as it relies on a set of prudential requirements harmonised under EU law; and on mutual recognition of licenses;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7 b. Requests that any third country equivalence decision is subject to appropriate tax cooperation arrangements in order to ensure automatic exchange of information according to international standards and a positive pre-assessment of the third country provisions to fight tax evasion, tax avoidance and money laundering;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7 c. Points out that EU financial services legislation provides for evolving models regarding providers incorporated in third countries involving differentiated authorisation procedures, supervisory and cooperation arrangements; welcomes in particular the ongoing work in the EMIR 2.2 proposals which foresee a recognition process of third country undertakings subject to dual supervision by national and EU authorities and binding supervisory arrangements; is of the opinion that the Commission should consider similar proposals for other market infrastructures and key market players, including third country regimes for credit rating agencies, trade repositories, benchmarks, and possibly trading venues, and data providers;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Emphasises that one of the key objectives for equivalence is to promote regulatory convergence, financial stability and investor protection as well as upgrading supervisory cooperation on the basis of international standards;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that, as it stands, the EU’s process for granting equivalence lacks certainty and sufficient transparency, and requires a structured, streamlined and practical framework outlining clear procedures;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Believes that equivalence decisions and international agreements should be objective, proportionate, risk-sensitive and be taken in the best interests of the Union and its citizens, having regard to the central importance of the single market in achieving the bests economic interests of EU citizens;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Questions the rationale behind equivalence decisions typically taking the form of implementing acts; insists that the process for granting equivalence to a third country in the area of financial services should always be scrutinised by Parliament and that, owing to their political nature whereby different policy objectives are balanced, and for the purposes of greater transparency, these decisions should be taken by means of delegated acts;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Notes that the Commission’s decision of 21 December 2017 to grant equivalence to Swiss share trading venues – limited to a 12-month period with the possibility of an extension provided sufficient progress is made on a common institutional framework – was primarily political, and used to gain leverage in a separate policy matter; deplores the fact that Parliament had no input into this decision; deplores the fact that Parliament had no input into this decision; calls on the Commission to make sure that future bilateral agreements with Switzerland should ensure an equivalent standard and implementation of measures against financial crime, tax avoidance and fiscal state aid;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Is concerned that there is no consistent framework for ongoing supervision of an equivalent third country’s regime; considers that the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) should be equipped with the power and the appropriate resources to monitor regulatory developments in third countries and demands that Parliament should be kept informed of ongoing regulatory monitoring in third countries; welcomes the Commission proposals for the ESAs review which foresees that such ex post monitoring is not to be limited to regulatory issues but also extends to supervision and enforcement;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on the Commission to adopt a legislative act establishing a clear framework for a transparent, coherent and consistent application and regular monitoring of equivalence procedures which introduces a standardised process for the determination, suspension or withdrawal of equivalence;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls for equivalence decisions to be reviewed at least once every three years by the relevant ESA and for such reviews to be made public; calls as proposed by the Commission in the context of the ESAs review process for streamlining cooperation agreements with third country supervisory authorities in order to provide regular notifications of changes regarding the relevant third country legal framework and its implementation;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Regrets however that the Commission has not proposed as part of the ESA review any further scrutiny mechanism for the European Parliament and the Council, and intends to amend the legislative proposals accordingly;
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls on the Commission to conduct an in-depth review of all equivalence decisions taken, in order to determine the successes and failures of the current equivalence regime and to make such review public;
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Stresses that closespecific consideration should be given to the equivalence regimes between the EU and high-impact third countries in order to reinforce the primary of EU law in these relationships and to develop stable and resilient regulatory relationships with those countries which have close financial links with the Union;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Recalls the importancrole of National Competent Authorities (NCAs) in the authorisation process for financial institutions that wish to delegate part of their portfolio management or risk management to service providers in third countries where the regulatory regime is comparabledeemed equivalent to that of the EU; considers thatis of the opinion that such a process should rely on the effective capacity of the authorising competent authority to supervise the outsourced services in order to avoid moral hazard and conflicts of interest; considers that before such a process is authorised, ESMA should verify that the NCAs have sufficient technical knowledge and expertise to properly assess delegation approval; requests that ESMA should provide a positive opinion for such approval in order to foster convergence and uniform implementation on the single market legal framework; encourages the ESAs to develop further cooperation between NCAs in order to share best practices concerning regulatory cooperation and activities with third countries;
Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20 a. Concurs with the ECB and with ESMA that the purpose of branches in third countries is to meet local needs and that the use of non-EU branches needs to be based on objective reasons linked to the services provided in the non-EU jurisdiction and should not result in a situation where such non-EU branches perform material functions or provide services back into the EU;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 b (new)
Paragraph 20 b (new)
20 b. Emphasizes that absent applicable equivalence decisions or alternative international agreements governing the provision of services as per EMIR 2.2, service providers established in the UK would need to relocate into the EU in order to provide financial services across the internal market; underlines in that respect to the need to monitor closely outsourcing arrangements for preventing the establishment in the Union of “empty shells” aiming at bypassing the EU regulatory framework;
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Underlines the importance of the EU’s role in global standard-setting as a means of working towards international consistency in financial regulation, maximising financial stability, reducing systemic risks, protecting consumers and investors and preventing regulatory loopholes between jurisdictions and developing an efficient international financial system;
Amendment 218 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls for active involvement from the Commission, the European Parliament, the Member States and ESAs in global standard-setting bodies in financial services; stresses the need for the consistent implementation of international standards in order to achieve better regulatory cooperation with other jurisdictions and to improve global financial stability; recalls the requests made to the Commission in its report on the EU role in the framework of international financial, monetary and regulatory institutions and bodies;
Amendment 224 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Calls to that end, moreover, for the EU-US Financial Markets Regulatory Dialogue to be upgraded to include more regular meetings; stresses that the EU should push to have a financial services chapter as part of any potential future EU-US trade agreement;