Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-20-Speech-3-286"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021120.8.3-286"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, following the fall and the serious functional problems of the world financial markets, it is essential to establish stronger European regulations and joint prudential supervision. We could well ask ourselves whether the Lamfalussy procedure is the most appropriate method and whether it should be extended. The procedure rests on the distinction between framework legislation and secondary legislation. In principle, this is justified, but is does pose a fundamental problem for the exercise of democracy. As co-legislator, Parliament must be placed on a strictly equal footing with the Council. Accordingly, it must have a call–back power. Along with my colleagues, I therefore call for Article 202 of the Treaties to be reformed. I appreciate the Commission’s commitment on this issue. I have noted what Mr Pedersen has said, and I await confirmation from the Council.
The quality of consultation is another problem that concerns democratic control. A meaningful debate has yet to be held on the legislative programme. There is now a better consultation of professionals, but much remains to be done to improve consultation with other sections of civil society, and satisfactory schedules have still to be established.
On the whole, I welcome the principle of the Lamfalussy procedure, but I hope the process will be improved before it is in any way extended. Indeed, I call on those involved to ensure this is done.
I believe I am right in thinking that the Council has already ratified the selection of Ecofin Council. Consultation played no part in this decision which appears to me to be a denial of democracy.
On the substance of the matter, I have actually had the opportunity to hear Alexandre Lamfalussy spell out the concerns. These revolve around a significant difference between banks and insurers with regard to the market and the prudential imperative, which is of the utmost importance. We are, however, aware that the national regulatory structures are not just different but entirely out of line with each other. This being the case, I was very surprised to hear Mr Pedersen advocating that we should now establish a single FSA type solution, even before the matter has been discussed.
A much wiser approach is offered by Mrs van den Burg’s report. It aims to introduce genuine coordination. It also proposes defining the role of the European Central Bank, which has an essential role as a lender of last resort.
I would like to discuss one of the problems relating to the rules. It relates to our readiness to align our rules with those of the United States, and to work towards an integrated transatlantic market. This is a crucial political issue that we have not yet debated. I agree with bringing our rules into line with each other, but we must work on the basis that we are devising our own models. Members of the European banking sector have already publicly and courageously raised the question of accounting standards. These professionals do not want to see their establishments and depositors threatened by insecurity, which would ensue if reference were made to market values in drawing up balance sheets. I have to say that the Council acted irresponsibly when it conferred full powers on the IAS board. When the fundamental rules and standards protecting the general interest of the people of Europe are at issue, the issue of democratic control should figure more prominently."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples