Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-24-Speech-4-012"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021024.2.4-012"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Goebbels, for all his efforts. As we all know, he has been working under heavy pressure. This is a very complex and sensitive issue. I applaud the fact that he has resolutely defended the aim of the directive, which is to enhance the integrity of European financial markets. I should also like to thank the shadow rapporteur and Members of this Parliament and, in particular, of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for their readiness to proceed as quickly as possible.
So the Commission can agree with Amendments 1 to 5, but we cannot agree, for the reasons which I have already explained, to Amendments 6 and 7.
Should Parliament adopt the common position together with Amendments 1 to 5 and reject Amendments 6 and 7, for which I am now making a plea, I hope the Council will be able finally to accept this text in the next few weeks. Adoption of the directive before the end of the year would be a major step towards the integration of European financial markets by 2005 that we all aspire to.
I recommend adoption of this directive to Parliament and I hope that all who take part in the debate will agree with Mr Goebbels and myself.
After all the discussions we have had on comitology in the past, let me highlight the successful cooperation between our institutions in drawing up this directive, the first to apply the Lamfalussy approach in full. I believe that today’s text will provide a good basis for effective cooperation between the European Commission and the European Parliament in the future. As Mr Goebbels knows, the Commission is in favour of amending Articles 202 and 211 of the Treaty to bring the positions of Parliament and the Council into line. I hope that will become even clearer in the contribution the Commission is preparing for the Convention, which, I hope, will be finalised by the end of November. Mr Goebbels, his colleagues and the Commission think alike on that topic.
I assure this Parliament that the European Union has no truck with greedy financial cheats – certainly not with the equivalent of financial mad cows, as Mr Goebbels called them. That is a very vivid phrase which the Commission finds very apt. We want stable, transparent, integrated and efficient European markets for every consumer and investor.
The directive will indeed enhance investor protection and make European financial markets more secure and attractive in future. It will dispel the international concerns expressed over the last few years about insider dealing and manipulation on European markets.
As we are all aware, recent events have shown how important these issues are. Scandals like Enron and other household names show clearly the need for strong rules to make markets more transparent and safe, to ensure that they remain free of abuse and free of fraud. The smooth functioning of financial markets and public confidence in them are essential to sustained economic growth and the creation of wealth. Abuse of markets leads to companies paying more for the finance they need; investors will stay away and the economy will suffer as a result.
We must do everything to stamp this out and to restore public confidence in our markets. The directive aims to do just that.
Since there has been an in-depth discussion about the application of the directive to journalists, which Mr Goebbels referred to, let me say a few words on that subject. Firstly, may I make it clear that under no circumstances do we want to add to the burdens of journalists. The directive does not do that. Journalism is a difficult profession; the pressure of work is great and we do not want to add to that. The directive guarantees freedom of expression and the liberty of the media. That is clearly expressed in the recitals, and the text of the directive itself introduces several safeguards for journalists, including the possibility of self-regulation.
However, recent scandals in several Member States have shown how recommendations by journalists to buy or sell a specific share can influence its market price to their advantage. What we do not want is to exempt from transparency obligations the small category of highly specialised financial journalists who recommend investment strategies. The Commission cannot therefore accept Amendments 6 and 7. It would not seem justified to exempt this rather small category of persons from basic market integrity standards which apply to all the other market participants.
In addition, completely or partially excluding journalists from the scope of the directive would mean harmonising the definition of ‘journalist’ at Community level, not a very easy task and something we do not wish to do. Therefore, Amendment 5 is a compromise proposed by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for today’s plenary. It is fair both to journalists and to the public interest, and therefore acceptable. I strongly hope that Members of this Parliament share the view of Mr Goebbels and of the Commission on this point. After all, financial journalists who specifically recommend a certain strategy to the investing public should declare any conflict of interests they may have. I do not see why that should not be a useful aspect of this directive."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples