Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-20-Speech-3-290"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021120.8.3-290"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, there is support for an integrated financial market in Europe, and to this end we must draft appropriate rules speedily and in line with the interests of the market and implement them in Parliament. This was why the Committee of Wise Men created the Lamfalussy procedure. The goal is to achieve faster and better legislation. That was the original intention, and that was why Mr Lamfalussy launched this project, which was then supplemented by the von Wogau report. In general terms, we endorse it. However, we must measure the process as a whole in terms of whether the objectives are being achieved. Fast and better legislation is the goal, as has already been stated. It is not primarily due to Parliament that the legislation did not go through as speedily as had been hoped, and the Council must certainly examine its own role in this context as well.
Before we deal with the issue of implementing the extended CESR-Lamfalussy procedure in other sectors, such as banking, insurance and conglomerates, we must ask one critical question first: how is CESR working today? Is CESR effective in the areas in which it operates? A great many questions and outright criticism can still be heard from various sectors of the market. I think that the first issue we should raise here is that of transparency, and of whether it is sensible for CESR to begin its work already, in parallel with draft directives. The question is whether we are willing to accept this in this form. I am in two minds here: on the one hand, I am fundamentally opposed to CESR working in parallel to a draft directive. We have this situation at the moment with the Prospectus Directive. Here, CESR should wait and see what Parliament and the Council decide before it embarks on its work.
On the other hand, I am actually quite grateful for the fact that CESR does work in parallel, because this means that we find out in time what is going on in CESR's minds and can put the brakes on during the legislative process if necessary. In this context, the issue of technical details undoubtedly arises as well. I almost have the impression that technical detail is regarded as almost anything which, from the Commission's perspective, an average MEP is unlikely to understand – which would cover quite a lot.
However, with regard to the technical details, we should not overlook the fact – and Basle II has already been mentioned – that there is of course political potential here too: there is conflict potential which will only become apparent over the course of time.
For this reason, it is not enough merely to review Article 202; it must be amended. I would have liked to hear braver words from the Presidency today. These brave words must be heard in Copenhagen, at the latest. We need clear words that send out a clear signal that the Council and Parliament stand side by side on an equal basis. There are constant calls to Parliament to the effect that the interests of the market demand fast legislation. There is general agreement with this position, but I urge the Council to take Parliament's arguments seriously. There will be discussions and serious debates, and we do not want any buck-passing on this issue. This is why Copenhagen will be a good opportunity to send out a clear signal on Article 202.
The same applies – and I endorse Commissioner Bolkestein's comments on this point – to the future role of the Commission. The Commission must retain its central role, for it is the Commission which implements and monitors the interests of Europe as a whole.
Finally, let me say a few words about integrated financial supervision in Europe. We must ensure that regional aspects are taken into account. For this reason, I broadly endorse my colleague Mrs Villiers' comments that we do not need an integrated financial regulator at present. We must, of course, also give some thought as to how large European companies will operate in this area in future. Here, I see positive models in the Financial Conglomerates Directive, which sets out a course which we can follow."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples