Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-14-Speech-2-248"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030114.7.2-248"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, like Mr Bolkestein I would like to thank Mr Andria for his hard work on this most important of subjects. I agree with the Commissioner and the rapporteur that it is very important to remove technical and other barriers to cross-border clearing and settlement in Europe. The Commission and the European Union can play a constructive role in facilitating cross-border clearing and settlement as a vital part of creating a single market in financial services.
There are certain points upon which PPE-DE Group opinion is divided, in particular point 11. It is not necessary to separate so-called core and value-added services, contrary to the view of the rapporteur. It is vital to price these different services transparently, so that when people are purchasing they know exactly which service they are buying and which they are not. It is also necessary to ensure that suitable risk management schemes are in place so that if there is a problem with one service there is no contagion between the so-called core services and value-added services. A law which said that a financial institution could only create or provide a certain core service and was not allowed to diversify into others would be too big an intervention in the market. I myself and many in the group therefore support a small amendment to Mr Andria's report on that point.
I have reservations about the proposal that we should move to a directive at this point. We might well need to look at a directive in the future but it may be premature to decide now whether a directive is necessary. There may be many other ways in which the European Union and the European Commission can facilitate cross-border clearing and settlement, without necessarily having to resort to a hard law solution.
Finally, the only other point of substance where I have a slightly different view from Mr Andria is the suggestion that we should prescribe that clearing and settlement systems are based on a 'not for profit' principle. I appreciate that Mr Andria has moved on this and has compromised and added the facility for allowing the services to make proper investments, but we should not prescribe a non-profit status and compel the markets to adopt this model. There are great merits in opting for user-owned systems. These are very good ways to ensure that the clearing and settlement service provides an excellent service to its users, but I am not really sure that we should prescribe on that issue. We certainly should not write in at this stage the requirement that these services must be managed on a 'not for profit' basis. It is important to allow firms to innovate and to invest, and a certain amount of profit generation is necessary to allow that investment.
I welcome much of Mr Andria's report, with those three minor reservations. In particular we should not prejudge the market at this stage. We should allow and encourage the market to produce its own solutions, to produce market-led solutions, although I can see that there are merits in encouraging user-owned systems, because looking around the European Union we can see a number of systems which are working well on a user-owned basis."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples