Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-17-Speech-4-021"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000217.2.4-021"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, the proposal for a directive now under discussion brings with it several welcome reforms to the current legal provisions. The preparatory work has largely consisted of a viable balance between increasing the efficacy and growth of the European investment markets and preserving a sufficient level of protection for consumers who buy fund units. The greater the trust consumers have in investment market operations, the more consumers will be prepared to invest on the open market. And the more consumers invest, the brighter the prospects will be in the European business money markets. It is quite clear that when businesses can more easily have access to their own capital-based finances their financial structure will be more firmly based, and, thus, opportunities for growth and investment will also improve. Whether or not the money will come onto the equity market in the form of direct investment or via UCITS is not relevant here.
Although in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs we were very much in agreement with the aims of the legislative amendment, the debate we had was not the easiest one. For me personally at least, difficulties were caused by the directive’s technical division into two different proposals, which certainly did not make it easier to familiarise oneself with this very difficult technical subject. However, I would like to express my position with regard to a few detailed proposals.
Firstly, I am very satisfied that the proposal for a directive as a whole increases the scope of investment funds for targeting capital at different instruments. As regards derivatives, I consider the position adopted by the committee justified – unlike Mrs Randzio-Plath, for example. The directive should not treat over-the-counter derivatives differently from standard derivatives because they are used in many Member States and were also used before. With regard to Article 5g of the other proposal for a directive, the so-called Article on Delegation, I think the Commission’s original proposal on rules concerning authorisation was better than the one now approved in the committee, so I would support some of Mrs Villiers’ amendments to this point."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples