Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-20-Speech-3-284"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021120.8.3-284"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to emphasise very strongly that the van den Burg report has come before Parliament at exactly the right moment, because this debate on supervision in Europe is one we need to have. Having said that, it is more important than ever to distinguish between the issue of supervision and that of regulation.
I approve of the very open approach that Mrs van den Burg has adopted in her report. I also approve of the way she has accordingly examined the various supervisory models that we have within the European Union without prescribing a definitive model. I say that because we need to develop a common approach, we need to learn from our experience, and we need above all to endeavour to keep this debate free of any dogmatic or ideological attitude towards a single position. That is why I believe that this report provides us with a good basis for the dialogue with the other institutions.
I would now like to concentrate on the problems we face in connection with extending the Lamfalussy procedure, as what we are chiefly dealing with here is regulation. Mr President-in-Office, you were quite right in saying how necessary financial integration is, but that financial stability is also necessary. This is an area in which Parliament will not let itself be trumped by the Council or the Commission, because we believe that financial market stability is a good thing for the public and that we as Members of Parliament need to champion the preservation of that stability.
We must, however, constantly ask ourselves whether the process selected will help to contribute to that stability. When I consider that just nine months ago I supported – with a very heavy heart – an agreement that meant the Lamfalussy procedure was introduced for the area of investment regulation, it seems rather premature for us to be discussing the ‘birth of the Lamfalussy triplets’, by which I mean the extension of the Lamfalussy procedure to the three new areas of banking, insurance and financial conglomerates, let alone support it.
The issue here is not only, as I see it, that we do not yet have any experience whatsoever in this area. You know as well as I do that the first Lamfalussy directive, on market abuse, is still a long way from being transposed and that the second one is still waiting for a common position. No, the issue here is that the Commission has very clearly conceded that we still have no idea what urgent legislative proposals we may have to deal with. That is why it is so important for us to obtain an assurance from the Commission and from the Council that the eleventh commandment, transparency, will continue to be respected in the event of any extension of the Lamfalussy procedure.
I think – and I am saying this expressly on behalf of this House – that we have scored some successes here. Transparency is certainly a core issue for a properly functioning democracy.
We are not, however, just dealing here with the institutionalisation of further transparency mechanisms. No, we are also dealing with how we can make further progress with legislation. I believe that we have still not achieved institutional balance in the legislative procedure, and that we need to amend Article 202.
Mr Bolkestein has on several occasions pointed out to us that Parliament always has the option of blocking a further directive through the codecision procedure. But it is not a question of us blocking anything. This is all about constructive mutual cooperation. That is why, Mr President-in-Office, I am expecting the Finance Council, and also the European Council in Copenhagen, to agree upon a political declaration on the need for a treaty amendment in relation to secondary legislation, in relation to Parliament's will as regards enablement, and also in relation to the right of call back, and that they will work to achieve this, not forgetting all the legal implications which are bound to flow from this. There must be parity between the Council and Parliament as parties to the codecision process. This is a core issue for the future of this parliamentary democracy, which at the end of the day we all wish to achieve through the convention and through the 2004 Intergovernmental Conference."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples