Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-16-Speech-4-216"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001116.12.4-216"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, in the first place, I would point out that the Commission is pleased to see that Mrs Villiers’ report relates not only to the evaluation of the Own Resources Directive but also to the current revision of the changes to the regulations concerning capital adequacy. We also think that this report makes an important and satisfactory contribution to the whole process.
Turning to the points in the specific amendments which are to be made and which have been included in the report, I should like to make two comments. Regarding, in the first place, Amendments Nos 8 and 13: the use of an approach based on internal ratings must be introduced in a sound and prudent way. For many institutions, this approach may be neither desirable nor appropriate and, of course, its use must never be compulsory.
Right from the start, the Commission has been in favour of developing a full internal ratings system, subject to standards which may be achieved by well-managed institutions, independently of their size or of the sector in which they operate. This is a positive development we should like to see adopted by as many institutions as possible, but we appreciate that it would not be right to insist on an internal ratings system for all financial institutions.
With regard to Amendment No 12 on the supervisory review system, I should like to point out that it is already within the powers of the supervisors to request or establish levels in excess of the minimum capital requirements. The proposal to use this instrument solely as a type of last resort would reduce the impact of the supervisory review process as a key element of this framework. I therefore think that the position needs to remain as it is.
The reaction to the two consultation documents on this subject – that of the European Commission and that of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision – has been positive, and I should like to comment on the latter document. I appreciate that the capacity of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision has nothing to do with that of the European Parliament. It has no legislative power, but nor should it be forgotten that it is a matter of actual fact that the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision belongs to the Group of the Ten and that, even though it is not a legislative body, its standards apply in 130 countries and are used by a multiplicity of international organisations, including the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and, obviously, third countries. It is therefore important not to dissociate ourselves from what is happening in Basel, even though we obviously have our own legislative procedure. It is, of course, crucial that we should define our own rules to enable us, as the European Union, also to influence what is being decided in Basel.
Having made this initial comment, I should like to point out that I believe that economic operators are also satisfied with the approach adopted towards these regulations on capital, which help deal with the issues related to risk. The Commission believes that the high degree of support given by the report to the aforementioned approach of the Commission’s consultation paper is obviously to be welcomed. The report coincides, to a large degree, with the ideas of the Commission and the objectives we are trying to achieve.
The Commission will continue to be especially vigilant in ensuring that the potentially most vulnerable sectors are taken into account. The report highlights a number of valid concerns regarding the possible damage that may be caused, for example in the SMEs sector, and also to our banking system and to those of our investment institutions which do not maintain a competitive level within the European Union and between the European Union and other countries in the world.
We all know that, on this point, Mr Lamfalussy has prepared a very clear and enormously useful report which may help us produce legislation that is more effective, more efficient and, so to speak, better adjusted to the changes occurring in the market. We have to confront a situation in which we must ensure that the new directives are not superseded as soon as they are adopted and that the standards under existing directives are capable of keeping pace with the rapid development of the financial markets.
Inflexibility and lack of adaptability are damaging the competitiveness of our financial institutions. I should like to say, in the first place, that our legislation must be sufficiently up to date and be flexible enough to respond to the rapid developments in the market. Secondly, we must avoid the excessive costs which can affect financial institutions and, consequently and indirectly, the clients of those financial institutions.
We ought to support these objectives by means of sound and prudent standards which guarantee the security of our markets and institutions. And finally, and this is a key point, we are entirely alert to the fact that we ought to respect the institutional balance established in the Treaty.
It is at present far too soon to speak of the Commission’s adopting a formal position on these subjects, but perhaps we can define a number of outline features of the possible approach. This approach could refer to different levels. A first level would include the basic principles, or
to be included in certain norms such as directives. In the second place, there would be a level of technical detail covering that area which will be most subject to change if we want the regulations to reflect best practice. This could be included in annexes to these directives, and we would have to devise a satisfactory system for modifying them quickly. We would be talking about a second level of decision-making. There would also be a third level corresponding to the implementation of mechanisms enabling us to promote consistency and convergence in the area of supervision and to reinforce what is stated along those lines in the paper produced by the Member States and the Commission.
A basic point for us in the process is the way in which we seek to maintain the present institutional balance. Parliament will, in future, require that the principles underlying its decision-making should be observed by means of an agreement on this future regulation model and that these principles, to the extent that they can be applied, should be of substance and respond to more practical issues rather than to generalities. These are a few initial thoughts on how we might succeed in devising a rapid legislative process which is controllable and efficient within the current Treaty regulations. I hope that Parliament will take an active part in the discussions over the next few months."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"codes principals"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples