Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-22-Speech-1-107"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011022.7.1-107"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – I should like to begin by saying that the Commission would firstly like to thank very much the rapporteur, Mr Schmidt. On behalf of my staff – about whom Mr Schmidt had some extremely kind words to say – I thank the rapporteur, and the Members of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for their extremely constructive approach on these important files. The common positions are crucial elements for delivering the FSAP – the financial services action plan – on time, in other words, by the year 2003 for an integrated European Union for securities markets and 2005 overall. These proposals, taken as a whole, represent a highly delicate and complex compromise which the Commission fully supports, as does European industry. That is an important fact to bear in mind.
The second reason why this amendment is not acceptable to the Commission is that the UCITS Contact Committee's mandate was discussed by Parliament at first reading. Parliament then gave its full support to the mandate of the UCITS Contact Committee. Indeed, the first common position fully incorporated what this Parliament wanted. So I suggest that Mr Goebbels does not back-track on what Parliament has previously agreed.
The third reason why that amendment is unacceptable to the Commission is that accepting it would lead to an institutional dispute in conciliation and seriously put at risk the adoption of both directives. That is the last thing the Commission and – I assume – this Parliament would want.
So let us agree on Amendments Nos 1, 2 and 3. In particular, I would address the following words to Mr Purvis, who referred to the United States' system, which is different from the European system. Depositing is fundamental for the European system. We are going to consider updating, following the Ecofin Council of December that the European form of UCITS need capital because they cannot assume debts in order to provide themselves with working capital. That is possible in the United States. Therefore the need to provide such undertakings in the United States with capital is less than in Europe. Once again, the European undertakings cannot use debts for their working capital and therefore must provide themselves with capital.
I believe the vote will be taken tomorrow and I hope we can now agree to Amendments Nos 1, 2 and 3 and to the proposals as such. This would allow us to move ahead constructively for the sake of European investors, European industry and the European economy. I hope that after twelve years of discussions these proposals can now find their way to the statute book.
Given the capitalisation of the UCITS market – nearly EUR 4 trillion – the expected benefits to be had are large. Firstly, the proposals will widen the set of financial instruments eligible to be used in UCITS portfolios while enhancing risk management requirements. Thus they will provide greater financial diversity while keeping the original concept, namely risk diversification with the highest standards of investor protection.
Secondly, the management companies which generally run these savings schemes will enjoy a European passport and will be allowed to provide additional services to customers who request, for example, individual management of their assets. But they will have to comply with a comprehensive set of requirements and rules.
Thirdly, investor information will be strongly improved by detailed disclosure of risk profiles, along with a fully harmonised, simplified prospectus to play the role of a single, investor-friendly pan-European marketing tool.
Now I come to the amendments tabled. I should like to stress that the provisions contained in the first three amendments, namely the twin review clauses and the grandfathering clause, pose some difficulties for us – not because of the substance, but with the timetables proposed in each case. We would much prefer a single deadline for both, that is, 2005 – the date of the conclusion of the financial services action plan, which we think would be more logical.
However, in a spirit of compromise and because we must now lay this matter to rest after twelve years of discussion, and in recognition of the efforts this Parliament has undertaken, also considering the last amendment of the rapporteur with would shorten the grandfathering period foreseen in Amendment No 1, the Commission will, in the end, support Amendments Nos 1, 2 and 3.
I now turn to Amendment No 4, which would introduce a so-called "call-back" clause regarding the UCITS Contact Committee. I should like to be clear that this is not acceptable to the Commission. We believe that it would not be acceptable for the Council either. It is not acceptable to the Commission because firstly, the clause which has been tabled is not compatible with Article 202 of the Treaty, as Mr Goebbels knows full well. It is also in contradiction with existing comitology rules. Of that, Mr Goebbels is also aware.
Not before 2004, Mr Goebbels, as I have explained on behalf of the Commission many, many times."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Interruption from Mr Goebbels)"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples