Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-14-Speech-3-179"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010314.6.3-179"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that the Commission broadly supports the main thrust of the report of the Committee of Wise Men, chaired by Mr Lamfalussy.
The Commission is, however, convinced that all sides will have major incentives to make this system work. It is willing to work with the Council and Parliament within the scope of the Treaty and of the comitology decision to clarify any outstanding points. Furthermore, the proposed interinstitutional monitoring committee – on which, of course, this Parliament will be represented – will have a significant role in ensuring all of this. Finally, on this point, there will be a full review of the whole process in 2004.
To conclude, and before I answer the questions put by Mrs Randzio-Plath, the Commission's fundamental objective in the securities field is to create an integrated European financial market through the completion of the financial services action plan, and the sooner the better.
The Commission believes that substantial long-term benefits will flow from that objective. To deliver it, the Commission considers that Community legislation must become more efficient and flexible in order to respond rapidly to developments in financial markets. As the Council representative also stressed, legislation must be delivered in a way which is in conformity with the Treaty and with the 1999 comitology decision. All interested parties will have to be satisfied and have an adequate role within the limits of the Treaty.
I know I shall have the chance at the end of the debate to provide some additional comments, but I should like to reply to some remarks made by Mrs Randzio-Plath.
Indeed the Commission welcomes very much the positive attitude shown by Mrs Randzio-Plath, as chairperson of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, vis-à-vis the report of the Committee of Wise Men under the chairmanship of Mr Lamfalussy. She said that every effort must be made to speed the process up – and the Commission totally agrees with her opinion – otherwise we shall be adopting yesterday's measures for tomorrow's developments. She also said – and here again we concur – that the procedures must be absolutely transparent, and the report of Mr Lamfalussy and his colleagues is very clear on this. Once again, there is a monitoring committee on which, as I have said, Parliament will be represented, to monitor this whole process. If there is insufficient transparency, then no doubt the monitoring committee will make the appropriate observations.
Thirdly, in the case that Parliament should adopt by majority vote the opinion that the Commission has acted
then once again the Commission agrees with the Lamfalussy report in saying that it will take utmost account of Parliament's opinion and act accordingly. That is an important safeguard for Parliament to see that it is not bypassed by any sleight-of-hand. So, there again, we can reassure Mrs Randzio-Plath.
In order to achieve the integration of security markets by 2005, the Commission considers that Community legislation must become more efficient and flexible in order to respond rapidly to developments in financial markets. EU legislation must also be implemented swiftly and consistently, and enforced more rigorously.
Mrs Randzio-Plath has raised five main points on the Commission's position on the report. I should like to try to answer all five, although perhaps in a slightly different order. First, on accountability and transparency of the process, I recall that the essential elements of an act must, according to the Treaty and the jurisprudence, be defined by the legislators and therefore it will pass through the so-called Level 1 normal codecision procedure. Implementing measures, however, shall, in accordance with the comitology decision, be delegated to a Level 2 process, as is clear to any person who has read the Lamfalussy report. The Commission shares the view that it is essential that consumers and industry are fully consulted on all such implementing measures affecting them.
In adopting directives or regulations at Level 1, the Council and Parliament will jointly define the scope of technical implementing measures by codecision, as has been stated, on a case-by-case basis.
On Level 2, the Commission is also ready to consult widely with market participants and end-users in an open and transparent way before adopting tactical implementing measures. The Commission also agrees that the European Securities Regulators' Committee should carry out a full consultation process on draft implementing measures, with the European Parliament being fully informed.
As regards the Commission’s right of initiative, I stress that the Commission, in preparing its proposals for Level 2 technical implementing measures, looks forward to benefiting from the technical expertise that the European Union's regulators will bring – after all they are the experts in these matters. There can therefore be no question at all of the Commission's right of initiative being affected by any such advice. The Commission believes that encouraging European regulators to work in this way will also facilitate over time the convergence of regulatory structures throughout the European Union.
I now come to the third matter raised by Mrs Randzio-Plath: the question of the symmetry of the codecision powers of the two legislative pillars and of the transparency of the Securities Committee. It seems to the Commission that such a symmetry is guaranteed by the codecision procedure provided for in Article 251 of the EC Treaty. That procedure gives Parliament the power to decide, together with the Council, on the scope of the technical implementing measures to be adopted at Level 2. Parliament must decide, together with the Council, on the difference between the general principles and the implementing measures.
For those measures the 1999 comitology decision – referred to earlier by the representative of the Council – confers on Parliament "the right to be informed by the Commission on a regular basis of the proceedings of the committees involved in committee procedures." In conformity with Articles 1 and 2 of the Interinstitutional Agreements on procedures for implementing the 1999 comitology decision, the Commission will send to Parliament all necessary documentation, draft measures and agendas of the European Securities Committee, as the Council representative just mentioned. The Commission is also prepared to follow the committee's recommendation that it should take the utmost account of any parliamentary resolution adopted concerning a proposal to the European Securities Committee.
Let me now turn to the question raised about proposals for implementing measures. If the European Securities Committee were to fail to give a positive opinion to the Commission and the Council were to oppose the measures or Parliament were to express a view that the implementing measures exceeded the delegated powers in a resolution adopted by an absolute majority – the so-called
case – the Commission would, following the 1999 comitology decision, re-examine its proposal. In such circumstances the Commission would be prepared, as I mentioned earlier, to take the utmost account of Parliament's position, as expressed in such a resolution. In those circumstances, and even if the European Securities Committee had already given a positive opinion on the proposed implementing measures, the comitology decision still gives the Commission the possibility of putting forward a legislative proposal on the basis of the Treaty, i.e. through codecision."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples