John Berrigan started work as the Deputy Director-General for DG Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union on December 16 2015. Before moving to the DG, first as a director, Mr. Berrigan worked for many years at the Commission's DG Economic and Financial Affairs, most recently as Director for Financial Stability and Monetary Affairs. He talks to Finance Newsletter about the main challenges he sees ahead and about what his previous professional experience has brought him. 

You were recently appointed Deputy Director-General for DG Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union. What do you think your main priorities will be in the first few months?

The main priority in the first few months will be to make progress on the projects that we have started already and really keep the momentum going. So obviously Capital Markets Union, the European Deposit Insurance Scheme and the follow up to the Retail green paper.

Another priority will be the call for evidence, which we launched in September to get feedback on EU rules for financial services. In fact, although now it seems like something exceptional because we launched it following a period of continuous legislation, I actually think this is going to become a regular feature of our work. We now have a body of legislation in place, so there will be no need to introduce another huge amount of legislation. Instead, our job will be to keep reviewing the block of legislation, spotting areas where there may be gaps, or areas that need to change because the market has evolved or where we have spotted that our rules are not effective.  So I do see the kind of work that we are now doing under the call for evidence becoming a permanent feature of our work.    

In this context, we also need to continue the process of integrating the DG. We have to create a more policy-oriented DG, no longer just a legislative DG or an analytical DG, but one that combines the two. When you're building a policy DG you have to be able to take policy through all of its elements. So there has to be a conceptual phase, an analytical phase, an implementation phase – and of course enforcement, which is also important.

How do you see financial sector regulation in the context of the Commission’s broader goal of restoring economic stability and promoting growth and jobs?

There will always be a trade-off between financial regulation and growth to the extent that regulation manages the risk/reward relationship. In a steady state that trade-off is very manageable, it's a tweaking exercise.

The problem is we're not in a steady state – the European economy is still very weak, the financial system is still very fragile. And in that environment this trade-off becomes a bit more challenging. The incremental benefits of new regulation must be even more carefully assessed against the incremental costs.

Obviously there are some areas where there is work to do, because there are still holes. But in areas where we already have regulation, there will be a stronger focus on implementation, more than let's say five years ago. I am not suggesting that we're going into a new world of deregulation or that we'll stop producing regulation. It's more that the decisions, in balancing growth and regulation, will become that bit more challenging and refined.

Between July 2013 and November 2014, you were involved in the assistance programmes for a number of Member States, for instance Greece and Portugal. What conclusions would you draw from this experience?   

The sovereign debt crisis was a rather existential thing. It was basically about saving the euro area. So there was a great deal of stress. It also demanded a very practical response. Here in Brussels we have a tendency to operate on policy at a very high, almost abstract, level. When you're on a programme, on the other hand, policies become much more concrete and your decisions have very tangible consequences. As a Commission, I think we have to improve our understanding of the effect of policies in real terms. For our DG, this means boosting our country knowledge of Member States. Because if you understand a country a little better, then you have a greater understanding of the likely implications of what you're doing and you'll make better decisions.