Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-29-Speech-1-050"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040329.6.1-050"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, we have taken another two steps forward in the financial services action plan, and fortunately not one step back. I am talking mainly about the Transparency Directive and the criticism concerning mandatory quarterly reporting. Whilst I can settle for the compromise that is now before us, what I do regret is that reports are not subject to more requirements in terms of content. I have made three proposals to that effect.
The first had to do with the provision of information about management salaries and bonuses in annual reports. The Commission has meanwhile announced that it intends to table a separate proposal on this, so that was a successful action.
The second was about the reporting of payments to governments, specifically by extractive industries. This was the wish of NGOs – like the publish-what-you-pay-campaign – as well as the well-intentioned elements among those companies themselves. These companies are happy to abide by an obligation and, as a consequence, competitors that do not yet report these payments or bribes on a voluntary basis would no longer be able to engage in unfair competition. A recommendation to that effect has now been included in a recital to the directive. That is a partial success that deserves to be followed up.
The third point was the reporting, in a verifiable and readily understood format, of what companies claim to do by way of socially responsible business management. Unfortunately, this point has not yet been included in the text, but I would nevertheless like to bring it to your attention once again. This is not, therefore, about forcing companies to do business in a socially responsible manner, but the moment a company boasts about all the good things it does, that should appear transparently and clearly in a verified report, as happens with financial conduct.
I am reasonably satisfied with the ISD Directive. From the outset, I have attempted to build a bridge between the opposing views and interests, and have used my own touchstone in the process. In-house matching by large banks, which breaks the monopoly of the stock exchange, is, from my vantage point, positive and can, under the conditions that we are now stipulating in the compromise, offer additional opportunities for investors and for entrepreneurs who need capital. The compromise has become neither a purely English City directive nor a stock exchange directive, which, on account of the theoretical abolition of the concentration rule would nevertheless lead to a
monopoly of the stock exchange. This middle way has resulted in the proposals I tabled at first reading being adopted. I think that with regard to supervision, additional provisions by the Council have been included, which I also welcome. In that respect too, therefore, this directive has been given the green light."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples