Debate in Committee concentrated among others on the supervisory architecture, and the access to finance in retail services.

Supervision:
Mr Hoppenstedt argued that the vision of a European Supervisory Authority is too overstated. Mrs Kauppi supported the report stating that a single supervisor – or “super structure as mentioned in the report” – might be a “long term goal”. The report should include a stronger statement on gold-plating. Mrs Starkevicute recalled that existing legislation should be strengthened to decrease the administrative burden.

Mr Hoppenstedt underlined the need for the retail sector to get access to finance. He would favour pilot and also referred to the recent development of the US mortgage market. Mr Hoppenstedt finally focused on the impact Hedge Funds might have on systemic stability and also noted that the Solvency II project has to be observed carefully.

Mrs Kauppi criticised that concentration as referred to in the draft report is not a problem in itself. She also called on the Commission to undertake further studies on possible implications of Alternative Investment Vehicles.

Timetable:
11 April – Deadline for amendments

Finally he welcomed the progress reached so far on the Code of Conduct in Clearing and Settlement. The Commission will check the progress of the compliance measures at the next meeting of the Monitoring Group on the 20 of April.

Hedge Funds:
Debate in Committee concentrated to a large part on Hedge Funds. Mr Radwan called for further studies on their impact. Mr Hoppenstedt and Mrs Beres referred to possible systemic risks Hedge Funds might have. Mr Bullman called for a jointly organised symposium on Hedge Funds (EP and Commission).

The Commissioner referred to what he and the Commission services already stated and what has been agreed on among heads of government on the G7 meeting. Member States do have regulations for Hedge Funds. They are not unregulated. He called it “absurd” that some people want that Hedge Funds disclose their positions.
In case of premature European legislation, the hedge funds would simply leave Europe, which would in no way contribute to solving the underlying problems.
A very different question was, if pension funds and other investors should be allowed to be overexposed to hedge funds. This falls into the remit of national supervisors, who were taking this point very serious.

One Share one Vote:
Mrs Beres and Mr Schmid asked on the one share one vote study and if that means to restart a debate on takeovers. The Commissioner pointed out that a study is under way. He is absolutely open-minded on the outcome but does not intend to enter into a discussion on takeovers like his predecessor Mr Bolkestein.

Code of Conduct:
McCreevy agreed with Mrs Kauppi that with regard to the question of ‘interpoerability’ and the short time, he would accept if industry would present a road map.

Lamfalussy:
The Commissioner referred to the IIMG report to come at the end of the year which will include a review of Lamfalussy.

Solvency II and Supervision:
McCreevy confirmed that the Commission intends to publish the proposal on Solvency II in July. He noted that the initial proposal will be far reaching with regard to supervisory aspects.
Ms Ferreira and others welcomed the Commission's intention to come forward with a legislative proposal. She pointed to the problem of host or home supervision of big conglomerates and their possible subsidiaries. In her opinion, big and small companies, if operating across borders, should be treated alike.

Speech McCreevy

© European Parliament