Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-24-Speech-4-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021024.2.4-020"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, it is vital to have tough rules to prevent insider dealing and to punish those who abuse the market, including journalists and market practitioners. It is vital to protect consumer investors from the misconduct of market insiders. I would like to put on record my thanks to the Council, the Commission and the rapporteur for taking on board a number of issues in relation to accepted market practices, commodity derivatives and Chinese walls at first reading. But this draft directive leaves a number of very significant problems.
It is of very serious concern, as we have heard, to a whole range of journalists and media organisations across the European Union – media organisations that live or die by their reputation for integrity and a high standard of public conduct. I agree that journalists should be subject to market abuse rules. I agree that journalists should be subject to rules that prevent conflicts of interest. I agree that we should have tough enforcement mechanisms to enforce those rules. However, I do not agree with the rapporteur that the Committee of European Securities Regulators is the appropriate body to do this.
In the case of journalists, the rules should be enforced by specialist media regulators, who know how the media works and understand the issues that relate to journalists. CESR does not have the expertise to regulate journalists. It has already demonstrated that it does not understand how the media works. The proposals in its consultation paper would have been impractical and unworkable.
Special constitutional issues apply to journalists because of the demands and importance of that vital constitutional issue, freedom of speech. It is vital that we respect those constitutional issues. It is at least arguable that, in some countries, giving CESR this role would be unconstitutional and contrary to the principle of freedom of speech.
The free flow of information to the markets is absolutely vital in preventing market abuse and protecting consumer investors. If we disrupt that free flow of information to the market, we will be playing into the hands of market abusers. That would be the consequence of allowing CESR to regulate journalists when it does not understand the media issues.
Throughout the first reading, MEPs believed that Article 6(5) was not targeted at journalists. Despite this understanding, CESR has indicated it will regulate journalists. This is a test case. This is the first time we have used the Lamfalussy process. We need to use our codecision power to send a clear message to CESR that we will stand up for the prerogatives and powers of the only elected EU institution and support Amendment 7."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples