Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-10-Speech-3-123"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101110.16.3-123"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Reynders, Commissioner, the text we are debating this evening, and which will be put to the vote in Parliament tomorrow, is the result of a long period of work. On 30 April 2009, the European Commission published its proposal for a directive on alternative investment fund managers. It aims to establish a safe, harmonised framework at European Union level to monitor and supervise the risks presented by managers for their investors, their counterparties, other actors in the financial markets and financial stability, while making it possible for managers, subject to observing strict requirements, to provide services and market their funds throughout the internal market.
In this respect, I need to make it clear that the progress sought by Parliament was achieved gradually in the course of negotiations and not, of course, only in the last trialogue during which some adjustments were made, but at the political level, it was decisive.
I would now like to emphasise the areas in which Parliament’s intervention has been decisive. First of all, on two highly political issues, with regard to relations with third countries, the existence and implementation of a passport – well, now I really do not understand because normally I have four minutes – for managers residing outside of the European Union have been approved. Specific conditions for the granting of a passport have been laid down. With regard to private equity, Parliament has succeeded in ensuring that the directive includes provisions to avoid potential asset stripping of the target company and also specific rules concerning reporting obligations in relation to target companies, their employees or their representatives.
Given the erratic behaviour of the clock, I shall not go back over some of the provisions that were achieved in accordance with Parliament’s wishes. I shall simply say that Parliament would have liked to have gone further, but it was able to influence negotiations so as to give more recognition to the ESMA’s role. The solutions that were upheld nonetheless constitute significant progress towards improving monitoring at European level. Parliament has been careful to strengthen the powers of the Council and of Parliament in the process of adopting acts delegated by the Commission.
A majority in Parliament would have liked very strict control over passive marketing, or even its prohibition. The inclusion in a recital of the principle whereby professional investors have to carry out due diligence when they invest in funds located outside of the European Union constitutes a significant first step.
That, Mr President, Mr Reynders, Commissioner, is what I wanted to say in opening the debate. In closing, I shall take this opportunity of two minutes to thank all those who have contributed to this success.
Mr President, may I just pause a moment, I wanted to know whether, given the length of our work, I had no time limit, because I see that the clock has not started. It does not bother me but, for honesty’s sake, I wanted to draw it to your attention.
Parliament received the text about 14 months ago. It has aroused obvious interest among Members of the European Parliament, as a record number of 1 690 amendments have been tabled. Professionals have been involved very extensively and the rapporteur has had nearly 200 discussions on this text, not counting the discussions with national authorities.
Finalising the compromise text that is being debated today has been particularly hard work. Half a dozen informal trialogues took place under the Spanish Presidency during the first half of 2010 in order to facilitate the exchange of information on the progress of the work. No agreement was reached in the Council during this period.
On 17 May 2010, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, by a large majority, voted in favour of the report, which was the result of collective deliberation by Members of the European Parliament. Parliament introduced proportionality, differing rules for different categories of funds, regulation to protect the private equity of target companies and jobs and a passport system for funds and alternative investment fund managers based outside of the European Union.
There then followed a dozen trialogues. A working party was also set up between the three institutions specifically to deal with the technical aspects of the proposal in a number of meetings with the Belgian Presidency and the Commission.
On 26 October 2010, the trialogue, which was to become conclusive, was held, with the active participation of the President of ECOFIN, Mr Reynders, and of Commissioner Barnier, and an agreement was reached on a compromise text which the rapporteur felt could be put to the vote in Parliament.
I shall not go into the detail of this lengthy technical document but will highlight the essential points. The directive will make it obligatory for alternative investment fund managers located in the European Union to be authorised or registered, and to comply with operational and organisational requirements, codes of conduct and transparency rules, and will make them subject to the power of the competent authorities of the Member States and of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) to supervise and to impose sanctions.
It will give them access to the Union’s internal market by means of an intra-European passport to manage and market their products. Eventually, managers based outside of the European Union will be able to qualify for a passport provided they meet the same requirements as managers whose head office is in the European Union. The number of meetings and the intensity of exchanges and negotiations between the rapporteur, the shadow rapporteurs, the Presidency at the time and the Commission have very significantly enriched the initial proposal in a number of areas."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples