Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-20-Speech-3-280"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021120.8.3-280"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, this debate concerns both the resolution introduced by Mrs Randzio-Plath and the report prepared by Mrs van den Burg. With your agreement, I shall first speak on the subject of the resolution and then come to the report produced by Mrs van den Burg.
What I would counsel against – and here I should like to end my comments on the resolution introduced by Mrs Randzio-Plath – is the adoption of a resolution today which you know in advance is politically undeliverable by the Member States. They cannot give their approval in advance of an Intergovernmental Conference that will not start until 2004. They cannot give their approval to a particular outcome. Surely the reasonable course of action would be to ensure that these important issues are firmly on the IGC agenda when it begins.
Turning to the van den Burg report, the Commission broadly welcomes this report. I should like to thank Mrs van den Burg for having produced a report which is indeed timely, given the current debate on extending the Lamfalussy procedure, a debate which is under way in Parliament, the Council and, as a result of public consultation, also among more widely dispersed interest groups.
In my view the report is very focused. It concentrates on the key developments in the financial sector such as the supervision of conglomerates, the globalisation of financial sector issues and responses to shortcomings in the American regulatory approach. It strikes a realistic note in recognising the different supervisory approaches adopted by Member States. The report calls on the Commission to act in a number of areas. Some of those suggestions are either being addressed or are in the pipeline. Let me mention four of them: firstly, a dialogue with associations representing the financial and consumer sectors; secondly, a dialogue with the United States; thirdly, sound regulatory and supervisory principles for the relevant authorities in the candidate countries; fourthly, impact assessments for new legislative proposals.
The Commission may decide not to take forward all the suggestions in the report but we will certainly give them due consideration. I am pleased to note that the report is supportive of the Commission in a number of areas. For example, it reaffirms the Commission's leading role in framing legislation, enshrined in the Treaty as the right of initiative. Indeed it is a monopoly of initiative. The report also endorses the Commission's role as a fair power broker. It notes the important work the Commission services are doing on creating an integrated financial market which, as Mr Pedersen said a little while ago, is vital to the European Union's medium-term goal of creating the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy by the year 2010.
As you may know, the ECOFIN Council has broadly endorsed the EFC reports on extending the Lamfalussy arrangements to insurance, banking and financial conglomerates. At the request of the Council and the Presidency, the Commission has organised a public consultation which ended last week. Overall the response of market practitioners, consumers and other interested parties has been supportive. We shall shortly make those responses available on our website, which is consistent with the open and transparent approach that Parliament wishes to be applied to the whole Lamfalussy procedure.
The Commission supports the Council in extending the Lamfalussy arrangements, fully respecting all aspects of our arrangements with parliaments and our agreement with this House. I believe it will, in time, bring real benefits as the legislative process becomes faster, more flexible and more transparent. Let us remember what we are trying to do. One of our aims is to encourage the convergence of regulatory structures which, for securities, is now beginning to happen. We strongly believe that this is needed in the other sectors as well.
I acknowledge your concerns about the lack of experience with the Lamfalussy approach hitherto. Inevitably this is a learning-by-doing process. We must examine any shortcomings, a task which has been specifically assigned to the interinstitutional monitoring group. But we still have to prepare, in time, for the decisions ahead, not least because we need time to put in place the framework and the structures to extend Lamfalussy. Moreover, whether or not we extend that process will also shape the type of directives we introduce in relation to banking, insurance and conglomerates. We must also take into account the need to establish efficient decision-taking structures before enlargement. We should not wait, therefore, until the year 2006 and beyond.
Having said that, I fully understand the arguments put forward by this Parliament concerning the need for proper democratic and accountable standards and safeguards. The EFC's proposals have benefited significantly from the input of my services. In particular they respect existing interinstitutional political and legal agreements and the prerogatives of this Parliament. We have insisted on this throughout, as well as urging that the proposal should be submitted to public consultation.
Incidentally, I do not accept that handing over chairmanship of the financial services policy group to a Member State will weaken the Commission's role. The FSPG will have a forward-looking prospective and strategic role but the Commission's right of initiative and indeed its role in the comitology procedure will not be compromised. That is explicitly stated in the EFC's report.
I have noted Parliament's continuing interest in participating in the FSPG. But I should also like to note that the role of the FSPG is to advise the Council and the Commission. It is not an interinstitutional group. However, we have the 2005 Group – the President of the Council referred to that – within which the three institutions could regularly discuss strategic issues.
I have also noted Parliament's call for a clear and unequivocal commitment to reform Article 202 of the Treaty. As you know, the Commission has repeatedly stated that it supports the amendment of this article. President Prodi said just that in this House on 5 February 2002, when we agreed with Parliament the democratic safeguards for moving forward with the Lamfalussy procedure.
It is also in the Commission's governance White Paper, in the Commission's communication on better regulation and in the Commission's contribution to the Convention, its communication of 22 May entitled 'a project for the European Union'. In all those documents you will find the same opinion expressed, namely that we support Parliament in its wish to change Article 202 of the Treaty. The Commission will shortly come forward, probably on 4 December, with its communication on institutional architecture. The content of that is yet to be finalised but I can say that we believe that both branches of the legislature – the Council and Parliament – must in future be treated in an equal manner as regards control of the Commission and the whole comitology process. That is clear."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples