Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-06-Speech-3-457"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2005-07-06"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Kliiring ja arveldus Euroopa Liidus⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050706.34.3-457"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-07-06-Speech-3-458⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Piia-Noora Kauppi⁶
lpv:spoken text	". Mr President, it is a pity that Mr McCreevy cannot be here. It would have been nice to talk to him personally. When I took over this report from Mrs Villiers, who deserves considerable thanks for her thorough approach and hard work, it was quite clear to me what the outcome should be. It is even clearer now. As we know, the Commission recently produced a Green Paper on financial services. It explicitly stated that any new European proposal for financial services legislation and implementing rules should pass a number of economic tests. They involve a careful study of the expected economic benefits as well as ‘the extent to which measures facilitate cross-border business and enhance the competitiveness of Europe’s financial markets, while, at the same time, protecting internal stability’. The Commission paper also states that there is clear market evidence suggesting that genuine financial integration is under way in many key sectors, such as in clearing and settlement. That sentiment is strongly echoed in our daily dealings with the financial services industry. The report before you sends a clear signal to the markets that the achievements will not be hampered by unnecessary regulation. That message is a result of a broad cross-party compromise and it has the strong backing of market participants. Some of the amendments that have been tabled depart from this functional approach and seek to prejudge the need for regulation. I appreciate and respect the cultural differences in regulatory philosophy, which lead some to these conclusions. However, it would be a serious mistake to apply this philosophy in the case of clearing and settlement. We have agreed to wait for the results of the regulatory impact assessment and of the different working groups set up by the Commission, to which you referred, Commissioner, in order to determine whether there is any market failure and whether a directive is the right solution after all. More importantly, our clear signal in support of the developments that are taking place in the clearing and settlement markets should not be diluted with confused concerns regarding potential developments sometime in the future, for which no evidence currently exists. I refer here to some Members’ wish to implement competition rules for clearing and settlement service providers. There is no need for that at this stage, as evidence suggests that markets are, in fact, generally developing towards more open and transparent competition. The call for new competition legislation is a misguided call for a short-term directive, with the risk that it will develop into wide-ranging legislation on clearing and settlement before we have the results of the different Commission impact studies. Instead, the plenary tomorrow should fully endorse the committee line, that we should focus our efforts on the removal of the ‘Giovannini Barriers’. Here I fully support the initiatives of the Commission. The removal of such barriers promotes openness, equal access and transparency in the industry. We should not seek to implement some arbitrarily defined single utility or service model across the EU, as that would hamper ongoing market-led cross-border integration and consolidation, along with the tangible benefits accruing to customers of clearing and settlement services. As the Commissioner has stated, this is not a technical, minor issue. It is a very important field of the single market. I fully appreciate Commission efforts in this respect. I would like to thank all your staff who have worked hard with Parliament in reaching this compromise. I hope we can continue this very fruitful cooperation in the future."@en⁴
lpv:spokenAs	member; FEMM (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² member; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)²² member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2004-08-31--2008-11-18)²² unknown; Kansallinen Kokoomus (2004-07-20--2008-12-31)²² substitute; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2007-03-14)²² member; ECON (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² member; JURI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²²
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, it is a pity that Mr McCreevy cannot be here. It would have been nice to talk to him personally. When I took over this report from Mrs Villiers, who deserves considerable thanks for her thorough approach and hard work, it was quite clear to me what the outcome should be. It is even clearer now. As we know, the Commission recently produced a Green Paper on financial services. It explicitly stated that any new European proposal for financial services legislation and implementing rules should pass a number of economic tests. They involve a careful study of the expected economic benefits as well as ‘the extent to which measures facilitate cross-border business and enhance the competitiveness of Europe’s financial markets, while, at the same time, protecting internal stability’. The Commission paper also states that there is clear market evidence suggesting that genuine financial integration is under way in many key sectors, such as in clearing and settlement. That sentiment is strongly echoed in our daily dealings with the financial services industry. The report before you sends a clear signal to the markets that the achievements will not be hampered by unnecessary regulation. That message is a result of a broad cross-party compromise and it has the strong backing of market participants. Some of the amendments that have been tabled depart from this functional approach and seek to prejudge the need for regulation. I appreciate and respect the cultural differences in regulatory philosophy, which lead some to these conclusions. However, it would be a serious mistake to apply this philosophy in the case of clearing and settlement. We have agreed to wait for the results of the regulatory impact assessment and of the different working groups set up by the Commission, to which you referred, Commissioner, in order to determine whether there is any market failure and whether a directive is the right solution after all. More importantly, our clear signal in support of the developments that are taking place in the clearing and settlement markets should not be diluted with confused concerns regarding potential developments sometime in the future, for which no evidence currently exists. I refer here to some Members’ wish to implement competition rules for clearing and settlement service providers. There is no need for that at this stage, as evidence suggests that markets are, in fact, generally developing towards more open and transparent competition. The call for new competition legislation is a misguided call for a short-term directive, with the risk that it will develop into wide-ranging legislation on clearing and settlement before we have the results of the different Commission impact studies. Instead, the plenary tomorrow should fully endorse the committee line, that we should focus our efforts on the removal of the ‘Giovannini Barriers’. Here I fully support the initiatives of the Commission. The removal of such barriers promotes openness, equal access and transparency in the industry. We should not seek to implement some arbitrarily defined single utility or service model across the EU, as that would hamper ongoing market-led cross-border integration and consolidation, along with the tangible benefits accruing to customers of clearing and settlement services. As the Commissioner has stated, this is not a technical, minor issue. It is a very important field of the single market. I fully appreciate Commission efforts in this respect. I would like to thank all your staff who have worked hard with Parliament in reaching this compromise. I hope we can continue this very fruitful cooperation in the future."@cs¹ "Hr. formand, det er en skam, at hr. McCreevy ikke kan være til stede. Det ville have været rart at tale direkte til ham. Da jeg overtog denne betænkning fra fru Villiers, som fortjener stor tak for sin omhyggelige tilgang og hårde arbejde, stod det helt klart for mig, hvad resultatet skulle være. Det står endnu mere klart nu. Som vi ved, har Kommissionen for nylig udarbejdet en grønbog om finansielle tjenesteydelser. Heri står der udtrykkeligt, at ethvert nyt europæisk forslag om lovgivning omkring finansielle tjenesteydelser og gennemførelse af regler skal bestå en række økonomiske test. De omfatter en omhyggelig undersøgelse af de forventede økonomiske fordele, samt "i hvilket omfang foranstaltninger letter grænseoverskridende forretninger og forbedrer Europas finansmarkeders konkurrenceevne og samtidig beskytter den interne stabilitet". I Kommissionens dokument konstateres det også, at der er klare tegn på markedet på, at der er en ægte finansiel integration på vej i mange centrale sektorer, f.eks. clearing og afvikling. Det er i høj grad også den fornemmelse, vi har i vores daglige kontakt med den finansielle servicebranche. Den foreliggende betænkning sender et klart signal til markederne om, at disse fremskridt ikke vil blive generet af unødvendig lovgivning. Det budskab er resultatet af et bredt kompromis på tværs af grupperne, og det har stærk opbakning fra markedsdeltagerne. Nogle af de ændringsforslag, der er stillet, afviger fra denne funktionelle tilgang og forsøger på forhånd at fastslå, at der er behov for lovgivning. Jeg anerkender og respekterer de kulturelle forskelle i lovgivningsfilosofien, som får nogle til at drage disse konklusioner. Det ville imidlertid være en alvorlig fejl at anvende denne filosofi, når det gælder clearing og afvikling. Vi har indvilget i at vente på resultaterne af konsekvensvurderingen og fra de forskellige arbejdsgrupper, som Kommissionen har nedsat, og som De henviste til, hr. kommissær, for at kunne afgøre, hvor der er markedsmangler, og om et direktiv er den rette løsning, når det kommer til stykket. Endnu vigtigere er det, at vores klare signal om støtte til de udviklinger, der sker på markederne for clearing og afvikling, ikke bliver udvandet af forvirrede bekymringer om mulige udviklinger engang i fremtiden, som der ikke er belæg for i dag. Jeg tænker her på nogle medlemmers ønske om på forhånd at gennemføre konkurrenceregler for udbydere af clearing- og afviklingstjenester. Det er der ikke behov for på nuværende stadium, for der er faktisk tegn på, at markederne generelt udvikler sig i retning af en mere åben og gennemsigtig konkurrence. Kravet om ny konkurrencelovgivning er et misforstået krav om et direktiv på kort sigt med risiko for, at det vil udvikle sig til en vidtrækkende lovgivning om clearing og afvikling, før vi har fået resultaterne af Kommissionens forskellige konsekvensanalyser. I stedet bør plenum i morgen fuldt ud støtte udvalgets linje, nemlig at vi bør koncentrere vores indsats om at få fjernet Giovannini-forhindringerne. Her støtter jeg fuldt ud Kommissionens initiativer. Hvis sådanne forhindringer fjernes, fremmer det åbenhed, lige adgang og gennemsigtighed i branchen. Vi bør ikke forsøge at gennemføre nogen tilfældig enheds- eller servicemodel i hele EU, for det ville genere den igangværende markedsbetingede grænseoverskridende integration og konsolidering samt de håndgribelige fordele for kunder til clearing- og afviklingstjenester. Som kommissæren sagde, er dette ikke noget lille, teknisk spørgsmål. Det er et meget vigtigt område af det indre marked. Jeg anerkender fuldt ud Kommissionens indsats i denne henseende. Jeg vil gerne takke alle Deres medarbejdere, som sammen med Parlamentet har arbejdet hårdt for at nå frem til dette kompromis. Jeg håber, vi kan fortsætte dette meget frugtbare samarbejde i fremtiden."@da² ". Herr Präsident! Es ist schade, dass Herr McCreevy nicht hier sein kann. Es wäre schön gewesen, ihn persönlich zu sprechen. Als ich diesen Bericht von Frau Villiers übernahm, der für ihr sorgfältiges Herangehen und engagiertes Wirken großer Dank gebührt, war mir ziemlich klar, worin das Ergebnis bestehen sollte. Jetzt ist es sogar noch klarer. Wie wir wissen, hat die Kommission unlängst ein Grünbuch zu Finanzdienstleistungen vorgelegt. In ihm ist ausdrücklich festgelegt, dass jeder neue europäische Vorschlag für Rechtsvorschriften und Durchführungsvorschriften für Finanzdienstleistungen eine Reihe wirtschaftlicher Prüfungen bestehen muss. Hierzu gehört eine genaue Untersuchung des erwarteten wirtschaftlichen Nutzens sowie des Umfangs, in dem die Maßnahmen die grenzübergreifende Geschäftstätigkeit erleichtern und die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der europäischen Finanzmärkte bei gleichzeitigem Schutz der internen Stabilität steigern. Im Kommissionspapier heißt es ferner, dass aus Marktindikatoren eindeutig hervorgeht, dass sich in vielen Schlüsselsektoren, darunter Clearing und Settlement, eine echte Finanzintegration vollzieht. Das zeigt sich auch in unseren täglichen Kontakten mit der Finanzdienstleistungsindustrie. Der Ihnen vorliegende Bericht sendet ein deutliches Signal an die Märkte, dass das Erreichte nicht durch unnötige Regulierung behindert wird. Diese Botschaft ist Ergebnis eines breiten, parteiübergreifenden Kompromisses und findet starken Rückhalt bei den Marktteilnehmern. Einige der eingereichten Änderungsanträge weichen von diesem funktionalen Konzept ab und versuchen, vorschnell ein Urteil über die Notwendigkeit von Regulierung zu fällen. Ich schätze und respektiere die kulturellen Unterschiede bezüglich der Regulierungsphilosophie, die manche zu solchen Schlussfolgerungen veranlassen. Es wäre aber ein großer Fehler, im Falle des Clearing und Settlement eine solche Ex-ante-Philosophie anzuwenden. Wir haben vereinbart, die Ergebnisse der Bewertung der ordnungspolitischen Auswirkungen sowie der verschiedenen, von der Kommission eingesetzten Arbeitsgruppen abzuwarten, auf die Sie, Herr Kommissar, Bezug nahmen, um festzustellen, ob es sich um ein Marktversagen handelt und ob eine Richtlinie überhaupt die richtige Lösung ist. Noch wichtiger ist, dass unser deutliches Signal zur Unterstützung der in den Clearing- und Settlementmärkten stattfindenden Entwicklungen nicht durch konfuse Befürchtungen hinsichtlich potenzieller Entwicklungen abgeschwächt wird, die irgendwann in der Zukunft eintreten könnten und für die es gegenwärtig keinerlei Anhaltspunkte gibt. Ich beziehe mich hier auf den Wunsch einiger Abgeordneter, im vorhinein Wettbewerbsregeln für Anbieter von Clearing- und Settlementleistungen einzuführen. Hierzu besteht derzeit keine Notwendigkeit, da Indikatoren dafür vorliegen, dass Märkte sich im Allgemeinen zu einem offeneren und transparenteren Wettbewerb hin entwickeln. Der Ruf nach neuen Wettbewerbsvorschriften ist ein unangebrachter Ruf nach einer kurzfristigen Richtlinie, wobei die Gefahr besteht, dass sich diese zu einer umfassenden Rechtsvorschrift über Clearing und Settlement entwickelt, ehe uns die Ergebnisse der verschiedenen Folgenabschätzungen der Kommission vorliegen. Stattdessen sollte das Plenum morgen vollständig die Ansicht des Ausschusses billigen, wonach wir unsere Anstrengungen auf die Beseitigung der „Giovannini-Hemmnisse“ konzentrieren sollten. Hier unterstütze ich die Initiativen der Kommission uneingeschränkt. Die Beseitigung derartiger Hemmnisse fördert Offenheit, gleichen Zugang und Transparenz im Sektor. Wir sollten nicht versuchen, ein willkürlich definiertes einheitliches Versorgungs- oder Dienstleistungsmodell in der gesamten EU umzusetzen, weil dies die stattfindende marktgetriebene grenzüberschreitende Integration und Konsolidierung behindern würde, ebenso wie die spürbaren Vorteile für Kunden von Clearing- und Settlementleistungen. Wie der Herr Kommissar feststellte, ist dies keine technische, zweitrangige Angelegenheit. Es handelt sich um einen sehr wichtigen Bereich des Binnenmarktes. Ich weiß die Bemühungen der Kommission in dieser Hinsicht sehr zu schätzen. Ich möchte all Ihren Mitarbeitern danken, die mit dem Parlament intensiv daran gearbeitet haben, diesen Kompromiss zu erreichen. Ich hoffe, wir können diese sehr fruchtbare Zusammenarbeit künftig fortsetzen."@de⁹ "Κύριε Πρόεδρε, είναι κρίμα που ο κ. McCreevy δεν μπορεί να παραστεί. Θα ήταν καλό να του μιλήσω προσωπικά. Όταν ανέλαβα αυτή την έκθεση από την κ. Villiers, η οποία αξίζει πολλές ευχαριστίες για τη λεπτομερή προσέγγιση και τη σκληρή δουλειά, είχα σαφή εικόνα για το αποτέλεσμα. Τώρα είναι ακόμα σαφέστερη. Όπως γνωρίζουμε, η Επιτροπή δημοσίευσε πρόσφατα μια Πράσινη Βίβλο για τις χρηματοπιστωτικές υπηρεσίες. Δήλωνε ρητώς ότι κάθε νέα ευρωπαϊκή πρόταση νομοθεσίας και κανόνων εφαρμογής για τις χρηματοπιστωτικές υπηρεσίες πρέπει να περνά από διάφορες οικονομικές δοκιμασίες. Σε αυτές περιλαμβάνεται μια προσεκτική μελέτη των προβλεπόμενων οικονομικών οφελών, καθώς και «ο βαθμός στον οποίο τα μέτρα θα διευκολύνουν τις διασυνοριακές συναλλαγές και θα ενισχύσουν την ανταγωνιστικότητα των χρηματοπιστωτικών αγορών της Ευρώπης, προστατεύοντας παράλληλα την εσωτερική σταθερότητα». Το έγγραφο της Επιτροπής αναφέρει επίσης ότι υπάρχουν σαφή στοιχεία της αγοράς που αποδεικνύουν τη δρομολόγηση της πραγματικής χρηματοπιστωτικής ολοκλήρωσης σε πολλούς βασικούς τομείς, όπως στην εκκαθάριση και τον διακανονισμό. Αυτό το αίσθημα αντανακλάται έντονα στις καθημερινές συναλλαγές μας με τον τομέα των χρηματοπιστωτικών υπηρεσιών. Η ανά χείρας έκθεση δίνει ένα σαφές μήνυμα στις αγορές ότι τα επιτεύγματα δεν θα παρεμποδιστούν με περιττή ρύθμιση. Αυτό το μήνυμα είναι αποτέλεσμα ενός ευρύτερου διακομματικού συμβιβασμού και απολαμβάνει την ισχυρή υποστήριξη των φορέων της αγοράς. Ορισμένες από τις τροπολογίες που κατατέθηκαν ξεφεύγουν από αυτή τη λειτουργική προσέγγιση και έχουν σκοπό να προδικάσουν την ανάγκη για ρύθμιση. Κατανοώ και σέβομαι τις πολιτιστικές διαφορές της ρυθμιστικής φιλοσοφίας που οδήγησαν κάποιους σε αυτά τα συμπεράσματα. Εντούτοις, θα ήταν σοβαρό λάθος να εφαρμόσουμε αυτή την ex ante φιλοσοφία στην περίπτωση της εκκαθάρισης και του διακανονισμού. Συμφωνήσαμε να περιμένουμε τα αποτελέσματα της εκτίμησης των επιπτώσεων των ρυθμίσεων και των διαφόρων ομάδων εργασίας που σύστησε η Επιτροπή, στις οποίες αναφερθήκατε, Επίτροπε, προκειμένου να διαπιστώσουμε αν υπάρχει αδυναμία της αγοράς και αν μια οδηγία αποτελεί τελικά την ορθή λύση. Κυρίως, το σαφές μήνυμά μας υπέρ των εξελίξεων που λαμβάνουν χώρα στις αγορές εκκαθάρισης και διακανονισμού δεν πρέπει να εξασθενίσει με συγκεχυμένες ανησυχίες σχετικά με τις ενδεχόμενες εξελίξεις στο μέλλον, για τις οποίες δεν υπάρχουν στοιχεία. Αναφέρομαι εδώ στην επιθυμία ορισμένων βουλευτών να εφαρμοστούν εκ των προτέρων κανόνες ανταγωνισμού για τους παρόχους υπηρεσιών εκκαθάρισης και διακανονισμού. Δεν υπάρχει ανάγκη για κάτι τέτοιο σε αυτή τη φάση, καθώς τα στοιχεία υποδεικνύουν ότι οι αγορές, στην πραγματικότητα, εξελίσσονται γενικά προς την κατεύθυνση ενός πιο ανοιχτού και διάφανου ανταγωνισμού. Η έκκληση για νέα νομοθεσία ανταγωνισμού αποτελεί αποπροσανατολισμένη έκκληση για μια βραχυπρόθεσμη οδηγία, με τον κίνδυνο ότι θα εξελιχθεί σε νομοθεσία ευρέως φάσματος σχετικά με την εκκαθάριση και τον διακανονισμό πριν πάρουμε τα αποτελέσματα των διαφόρων μελετών επιπτώσεων της Επιτροπής. Αντ’ αυτού, η ολομέλεια αύριο πρέπει να υποστηρίξει πλήρως τη γραμμή της επιτροπής, ότι πρέπει να επικεντρώσουμε τις προσπάθειές μας στην άρση των «φραγμών Giovannini». Εδώ υποστηρίζω πλήρως τις πρωτοβουλίες της Επιτροπής. Η άρση αυτών των φραγμών προάγει την ειλικρίνεια, την ίση πρόσβαση και τη διαφάνεια στον τομέα. Δεν πρέπει να προσπαθήσουμε να εφαρμόσουμε ένα αυθαίρετα καθορισμένο πρότυπο κοινής ωφέλειας ή υπηρεσιών σε όλη την ΕΕ, καθώς αυτό θα εμπόδιζε τη συνεχή διασυνοριακή ολοκλήρωση και εδραίωση, μαζί με τα απτά οφέλη που συσσωρεύονται για τους πελάτες των υπηρεσιών εκκαθάρισης και διακανονισμού. Όπως δήλωσε ο Επίτροπος, εδώ δεν πρόκειται για ένα τεχνικό, ασήμαντο θέμα. Πρόκειται για έναν πολύ σημαντικό τομέα της ενιαίας αγοράς. Εκτιμώ πλήρως τις προσπάθειες της Επιτροπής σε αυτό το πλαίσιο. Θα ήθελα να ευχαριστήσω όλο το προσωπικό σας που εργάστηκε σκληρά με το Κοινοβούλιο για την επίτευξη αυτού του συμβιβασμού. Ελπίζω να συνεχίσουμε αυτή την πολύ αποδοτική συνεργασία στο μέλλον."@el¹⁰ ". Señor Presidente, es una pena que el señor McCreevy no pueda estar aquí. Me habría gustado hablar con él personalmente. Cuando me hice cargo de este informe de la señora Villiers, que merece un gran agradecimiento por su exhaustivo enfoque y gran trabajo, tenía claro el resultado que debía obtenerse. Ahora se ve todavía más claro. Como sabemos, la Comisión elaboró recientemente un Libro Verde sobre servicios financieros. Afirmaba explícitamente que cualquier nueva propuesta europea de legislación en materia de servicios financieros y reglas de aplicación deberían pasar una serie de pruebas económicas. Implican un estudio detallado de los beneficios económicos previstos, al igual que «el grado en que las medidas favorecen los negocios transfronterizos y fomentan la competitividad de los mercados financieros de Europa, mientras que al mismo tiempo protegen la estabilidad interna». El libro de la Comisión también afirma que hay pruebas claras de mercado que sugieren que la verdadera integración financiera está en camino en muchos sectores clave, como en las compensaciones y en las liquidaciones. Se hace gran eco de ese sentimiento en nuestro trato diario con la industria de los servicios financieros. El informe que tienen ante ustedes envía una clara señal a los mercados de que los éxitos no se verán obstaculizados por regulaciones innecesarias. Ese mensaje es el resultado de un amplio compromiso de distintos partidos, y tiene el sólido apoyo de los participantes del mercado. Algunas de las enmiendas que se han presentado parten de este enfoque funcional y pretenden prejuzgar la necesidad de la regulación. Aprecio y respeto las diferencias culturales en la filosofía reguladora, que ha llevado a estas conclusiones. No obstante, sería un grave error aplicar esta filosofía en el caso de las compensaciones y las liquidaciones. Hemos acordado esperar los resultados de la evaluación de impacto reglamentaria y de los distintos grupos de trabajo establecidos por la Comisión, a los que se ha referido, señor Comisario, para determinar si existe algún fallo de mercado o si, después de todo, la solución adecuada es una directiva. Lo que es más importante, nuestra clara señal de apoyo hacia los acontecimientos que están teniendo lugar en los mercados de compensación y liquidación no debería diluirse con preocupaciones confusas respecto a la evolución potencial en el futuro, de la que no existen pruebas actuales. Me estoy refiriendo al deseo de algunas de sus Señorías de aplicar normas de competencia para los proveedores de servicios de compensación y liquidación. De momento no es necesario, puesto que las pruebas sugieren que los mercados están evolucionando, en general, hacia una competencia más abierta y transparente. La solicitud de nueva legislación en materia de competencia es una petición errónea de una directiva a corto plazo, con el riesgo de que se convierta en legislación amplia sobre compensación y liquidación antes de que dispongamos de los resultados de los distintos estudios de impacto de la Comisión. En cambio, la sesión plenaria de mañana debería apoyar plenamente la línea de la comisión, de que deberíamos centrar nuestros esfuerzos en eliminar las «Barreras Giovannini». A este respecto, apoyo plenamente las iniciativas de la Comisión. La eliminación de dichas barreras promueve la apertura, la igualdad de acceso y la transparencia en la industria. No deberíamos intentar aplicar un servicio único o modelo de servicio definido arbitrariamente en toda la UE, puesto que eso perjudicaría la continua integración y consolidación transfronteriza guiada por el mercado, junto con los beneficios tangibles de los clientes, derivados de los servicios de compensación y liquidación. Como ha afirmado el señor Comisario, no se trata de una cuestión técnica sin importancia. Es un ámbito muy importante del mercado único. Agradezco totalmente los esfuerzos de la Comisión a este respecto. Quisiera dar las gracias a todo el personal que ha trabajado duro con el Parlamento para lograr este compromiso. Espero que podamos mantener esta fructífera cooperación en el futuro."@es²⁰ "Mr President, it is a pity that Mr McCreevy cannot be here. It would have been nice to talk to him personally. When I took over this report from Mrs Villiers, who deserves considerable thanks for her thorough approach and hard work, it was quite clear to me what the outcome should be. It is even clearer now. As we know, the Commission recently produced a Green Paper on financial services. It explicitly stated that any new European proposal for financial services legislation and implementing rules should pass a number of economic tests. They involve a careful study of the expected economic benefits as well as ‘the extent to which measures facilitate cross-border business and enhance the competitiveness of Europe’s financial markets, while, at the same time, protecting internal stability’. The Commission paper also states that there is clear market evidence suggesting that genuine financial integration is under way in many key sectors, such as in clearing and settlement. That sentiment is strongly echoed in our daily dealings with the financial services industry. The report before you sends a clear signal to the markets that the achievements will not be hampered by unnecessary regulation. That message is a result of a broad cross-party compromise and it has the strong backing of market participants. Some of the amendments that have been tabled depart from this functional approach and seek to prejudge the need for regulation. I appreciate and respect the cultural differences in regulatory philosophy, which lead some to these conclusions. However, it would be a serious mistake to apply this philosophy in the case of clearing and settlement. We have agreed to wait for the results of the regulatory impact assessment and of the different working groups set up by the Commission, to which you referred, Commissioner, in order to determine whether there is any market failure and whether a directive is the right solution after all. More importantly, our clear signal in support of the developments that are taking place in the clearing and settlement markets should not be diluted with confused concerns regarding potential developments sometime in the future, for which no evidence currently exists. I refer here to some Members’ wish to implement competition rules for clearing and settlement service providers. There is no need for that at this stage, as evidence suggests that markets are, in fact, generally developing towards more open and transparent competition. The call for new competition legislation is a misguided call for a short-term directive, with the risk that it will develop into wide-ranging legislation on clearing and settlement before we have the results of the different Commission impact studies. Instead, the plenary tomorrow should fully endorse the committee line, that we should focus our efforts on the removal of the ‘Giovannini Barriers’. Here I fully support the initiatives of the Commission. The removal of such barriers promotes openness, equal access and transparency in the industry. We should not seek to implement some arbitrarily defined single utility or service model across the EU, as that would hamper ongoing market-led cross-border integration and consolidation, along with the tangible benefits accruing to customers of clearing and settlement services. As the Commissioner has stated, this is not a technical, minor issue. It is a very important field of the single market. I fully appreciate Commission efforts in this respect. I would like to thank all your staff who have worked hard with Parliament in reaching this compromise. I hope we can continue this very fruitful cooperation in the future."@et⁵ ". Arvoisa puhemies, on sääli, ettei komission jäsen McCreevy voi olla läsnä parlamentissa. Olisin mielelläni osoittanut sanani hänelle henkilökohtaisesti. Kun otin tämän mietinnön laadintatehtävän hoitaakseni jäsen Villiersiltä, joka ansaitsee vilpittömät kiitokset perusteellisesta lähestymistavastaan ja kovasta työstään, minulle oli melko selvää, mikä tämän työn lopputuloksen pitäisi olla. Näkemykseni on tehtävän kuluessa entisestään selkiytynyt. Kuten tiedämme, komissio julkaisi hiljattain Vihreän kirjan rahoituspalveluista. Siinä todettiin nimenomaisesti, että minkä tahansa uuden rahoituspalvelulainsäädäntöä ja täytäntöönpanosääntöjä koskevan eurooppalaisen ehdotuksen olisi läpäistävä useita talouteen liittyviä testejä. Tässä yhteydessä tutkitaan muun muassa huolellisesti sitä, mitä taloudellista hyötyä säädöksellä odotetaan saavutettavan, sekä sitä, missä määrin ehdotetut toimet helpottavat rajatylittävää liiketoimintaa ja lisäävät eurooppalaisten rahoitusmarkkinoiden kilpailukykyä sekä suojaavat samalla näiden markkinoiden sisäistä vakautta. Komission vihreässä kirjassa todetaan myös, että markkinoilta on saatu selkeää näyttöä siitä, että todellista rahoitusmarkkinoiden yhdentymistä tapahtuu monilla keskeisillä aloilla, esimerkiksi selvitystoiminnassa. Tämä käsitys toistuu voimakkaasti päivittäisissä kontakteissamme rahoituspalvelualan edustajiin. Käsiteltävänänne olevalla mietinnöllä viestitetään markkinoille selkeästi, ettei tähänastisia saavutuksia vaikeuteta tarpeettomalla sääntelyllä. Tämä sanoma on laajan eri puolueiden välisen kompromissin tulos, ja sillä on markkinatoimijoiden voimakas tuki takanaan. Muutamissa esitetyissä tarkistuksissa poiketaan tästä toiminnallisesta lähestymistavasta ja pyritään ratkaisemaan ennakolta sääntelyn tarve. Arvostan ja kunnioitan kulttuurisia eroavaisuuksia sääntelyn filosofiassa, jotka johtavat näihin johtopäätöksiin. Olisi kuitenkin vakava virhe soveltaa tällaista hätiköityä linjaa selvitystoiminnan tapauksessa. Olemme sopineet, että odotamme sääntelyn vaikutusarvioinnin ja komission asettamien eri työryhmien, joihin arvoisa komission jäsen viittasikin, tuloksia päätelläksemme, onko markkinoiden toiminnassa virheitä ja onko direktiivi kuitenkaan oikea ratkaisu ongelmaan. Vieläkin tärkeämpää on, ettei selkeää signaaliamme siitä, että tuemme selvitysmarkkinoilla tällä hetkellä tapahtuvaa kehitystä, pidä laimentaa epämääräisillä huolilla mahdollisesta tulevasta kehityksestä, josta ei tällä hetkellä ole minkäänlaista todellista näyttöä. Viittaan tällä joidenkin jäsenten toiveeseen ottaa ennakolta käyttöön selvitys- ja toimituspalvelujen tarjoajia koskevia kilpailusääntöjä. Tällaisille säännöille ei ole tässä vaiheessa tarvetta, koska on näyttöä siitä, että markkinat ovat itse asiassa yleisesti kehittymässä kohti avoimempaa kilpailua. Uutta kilpailulainsäädäntöä koskeva vaatimus on perusteeton vaatimus lyhyen aikavälin direktiivistä, jossa on vaarana se, että direktiivi kehittyy laaja-alaiseksi selvitystoimintaa koskevaksi lainsäädännöksi ennen kuin saamme komission eri vaikutusarviointien tulokset. Täysistunnon pitäisi sen sijaan antaa huomenna täysi tukensa valiokunnan näkemykselle, jonka mukaan meidän olisi keskityttävä "Giovanninin esteiden" poistamiseen. Tältä osin tuen täysin komission aloitteita. Kyseisten esteiden poistaminen edistää avoimuutta, tasavertaista pääsyä ja avoimuutta selvitystoimialalla. Meidän ei pitäisi pyrkiä toteuttamaan mielivaltaisesti määriteltyä yhtä ainoaa yleisten etujen mukaisten palvelujen mallia koko EU:ssa, koska se vaikeuttaisi meneillään olevaa markkinavetoista rajatylittävää yhdentymistä ja konsolidoitumista sekä heikentäisi selvitys- ja toimituspalvelujen asiakkaille koituvaa konkreettista hyötyä. Kuten komission jäsen on todennut, kyse ei ole teknisestä eikä vähäpätöisestä kysymyksestä. Kyse on erittäin tärkeästä sisämarkkinoiden alasta. Annan täyden tunnustuksen komission toimille tässä suhteessa. Haluan kiittää koko henkilökuntaanne, joka on tehnyt lujasti töitä parlamentin kanssa tämän kompromissin aikaansaamiseksi. Toivon, että voimme tulevaisuudessa jatkaa tätä erittäin hedelmällistä yhteistyötä."@fi⁷ "Monsieur le Président, il est regrettable que M. McCreevy ne puisse être présent. J’aurais voulu lui parler personnellement. Lorsque j’ai pris à ma charge ce rapport de Mme Villiers, qui mérite de vifs remerciements pour son approche approfondie et son dur labeur, j’avais une vision assez précise du résultat à atteindre. J’en ai à présent une vision encore plus précise. Comme nous le savons, la Commission a produit récemment un livre vert sur les services financiers. Il dispose explicitement que la nouvelle proposition de législation européenne relative aux services financiers et les règles de mise en œuvre doivent passer une batterie de tests économiques. Il s’agit notamment d’une étude minutieuse des avantages économiques attendus, ainsi que de «la mesure dans laquelle la mesure proposée facilite les opérations transfrontalières et renforce la compétitivité des marchés financiers européens tout en protégeant la stabilité intérieure». Le document de la Commission souligne également que des indices clairs du marché suggèrent que de nombreux secteurs clés, tels que la compensation et le règlement-livraison, connaissent à l’heure actuelle une véritable intégration financière, ce qui se reflète nettement dans nos transactions quotidiennes avec le secteur des services financiers. Le rapport à l’examen indique clairement aux marchés que les avancées en la matière ne seront pas entravées par une réglementation inutile. Ce message est le fruit d’un vaste compromis entre partis et bénéficie du soutien total des acteurs du marché. Plusieurs amendements déposés partent de cette approche fonctionnelle et tentent de préjuger du besoin de réglementation. J’apprécie et respecte les différences culturelles en matière de politique de réglementation, qui ont mené certains à de telles conclusions. Toutefois, ce serait une grave erreur d’appliquer cette politique dans le cas de la compensation et du règlement-livraison. Nous avons convenu d’attendre les résultats de l’évaluation d’impact de la réglementation et des différents groupes de travail créés par la Commission, auxquels vous avez fait référence, Monsieur le Commissaire, afin d’identifier toute anomalie sur les marchés et de déterminer si l’adoption d’une directive est la bonne solution après tout. Plus important encore, il ne faut pas que notre signal clair en faveur des avancées des marchés de la compensation et du règlement-livraison soit entravé par de vagues préoccupations concernant l’évolution potentielle de la question à l’avenir, lesquelles ne sont aucunement fondées à l’heure actuelle. Je songe en l’occurrence au désir de plusieurs députés d’appliquer des règles de concurrence aux prestataires de services de compensation et de règlement-livraison. Ce n’est pas nécessaire à ce stade, vu qu’il y a lieu de penser que les marchés évoluent en réalité vers une concurrence plus ouverte et transparente. L’appel en faveur d’une nouvelle législation en matière de concurrence est un appel peu judicieux en faveur d’une directive à court terme, qui présente le risque de se transformer en une législation étendue appliquée à la compensation et au règlement-livraison avant de disposer des résultats des différentes études d’impact menées par la Commission. Dès lors, demain, la plénière devrait pleinement soutenir l’approche de la commission parlementaire, qui est de concentrer nos efforts sur la suppression des «obstacles Giovannini». À cet égard, je suis entièrement favorable aux initiatives de la Commission. La suppression de ces obstacles encouragera l’ouverture, l’égalité d’accès et la transparence dans le secteur. Nous ne devons pas chercher à mettre en œuvre le moindre service ou modèle de services défini arbitrairement au niveau de l’UE, étant donné qu’il entraverait l’intégration et la consolidation transfrontalières régies par le marché, ainsi que les avantages tangibles pour les clients des services de compensation et de règlement-livraison. Comme l’a dit le commissaire, il ne s’agit pas d’une question technique secondaire. C’est un domaine très important du marché unique. J’apprécie grandement les efforts de la Commission à cet égard. Je voudrais remercier l’ensemble de votre personnel, qui a travaillé dur avec le Parlement pour parvenir à ce compromis. J’espère que nous pourrons poursuivre cette coopération très fructueuse à l’avenir."@fr⁸ "Mr President, it is a pity that Mr McCreevy cannot be here. It would have been nice to talk to him personally. When I took over this report from Mrs Villiers, who deserves considerable thanks for her thorough approach and hard work, it was quite clear to me what the outcome should be. It is even clearer now. As we know, the Commission recently produced a Green Paper on financial services. It explicitly stated that any new European proposal for financial services legislation and implementing rules should pass a number of economic tests. They involve a careful study of the expected economic benefits as well as ‘the extent to which measures facilitate cross-border business and enhance the competitiveness of Europe’s financial markets, while, at the same time, protecting internal stability’. The Commission paper also states that there is clear market evidence suggesting that genuine financial integration is under way in many key sectors, such as in clearing and settlement. That sentiment is strongly echoed in our daily dealings with the financial services industry. The report before you sends a clear signal to the markets that the achievements will not be hampered by unnecessary regulation. That message is a result of a broad cross-party compromise and it has the strong backing of market participants. Some of the amendments that have been tabled depart from this functional approach and seek to prejudge the need for regulation. I appreciate and respect the cultural differences in regulatory philosophy, which lead some to these conclusions. However, it would be a serious mistake to apply this philosophy in the case of clearing and settlement. We have agreed to wait for the results of the regulatory impact assessment and of the different working groups set up by the Commission, to which you referred, Commissioner, in order to determine whether there is any market failure and whether a directive is the right solution after all. More importantly, our clear signal in support of the developments that are taking place in the clearing and settlement markets should not be diluted with confused concerns regarding potential developments sometime in the future, for which no evidence currently exists. I refer here to some Members’ wish to implement competition rules for clearing and settlement service providers. There is no need for that at this stage, as evidence suggests that markets are, in fact, generally developing towards more open and transparent competition. The call for new competition legislation is a misguided call for a short-term directive, with the risk that it will develop into wide-ranging legislation on clearing and settlement before we have the results of the different Commission impact studies. Instead, the plenary tomorrow should fully endorse the committee line, that we should focus our efforts on the removal of the ‘Giovannini Barriers’. Here I fully support the initiatives of the Commission. The removal of such barriers promotes openness, equal access and transparency in the industry. We should not seek to implement some arbitrarily defined single utility or service model across the EU, as that would hamper ongoing market-led cross-border integration and consolidation, along with the tangible benefits accruing to customers of clearing and settlement services. As the Commissioner has stated, this is not a technical, minor issue. It is a very important field of the single market. I fully appreciate Commission efforts in this respect. I would like to thank all your staff who have worked hard with Parliament in reaching this compromise. I hope we can continue this very fruitful cooperation in the future."@hu¹¹ "Signor Presidente, è un peccato che il Commissario McCreevy non possa essere presente. Sarebbe stato bello parlare con lui personalmente. Quando ho rilevato questa relazione dall’onorevole Villiers, che merita notevoli ringraziamenti per il suo accurato approccio e per l’intenso lavoro svolto, mi è parso molto chiaro a cosa avremmo dovuto mirare. Adesso mi è ancora più chiaro. Come è noto, la Commissione ha di recente elaborato un Libro verde sui servizi finanziari in cui si afferma esplicitamente che qualsiasi nuova proposta europea sulla legislazione e sulle norme attuative in materia di servizi finanziari dovrà superare una serie di economici che comprendono un attento studio dei benefici economici previsti, nonché dell’efficacia delle misure nell’agevolare le transazioni transfrontaliere e nel rafforzare la competitività dei mercati finanziari europei, tutelando nel contempo la stabilità interna. Il Libro della Commissione afferma inoltre che il mercato presenta chiari segni del fatto che è in corso una vera e propria integrazione finanziaria in numerosi settori chiave, come la compensazione e il regolamento. Questa percezione è ribadita con forza nei nostri quotidiani contatti con il settore dei servizi finanziari. La presente relazione invia un chiaro messaggio ai mercati sul fatto che i risultati non verranno ostacolati da normative superflue. Tale messaggio è la conseguenza di un ampio compromesso trasversale ai partiti e ha il forte sostegno dei partecipanti al mercato. Alcuni degli emendamenti presentati si distaccano da questo approccio funzionale e cercano di smentire la necessità di un regolamento. Stimo e rispetto le differenze culturali nella filosofia legislativa, che hanno portato alcuni a queste conclusioni; sarebbe tuttavia un grave errore applicare tale filosofia nel caso della compensazione e del regolamento. Abbiamo acconsentito ad aspettare i risultati della valutazione di impatto del regolamento e dei diversi gruppi di lavoro istituiti dalla Commissione, di cui lei ha parlato, signor Commissario, al fine di decidere se il mercato non funziona e se, in definitiva, una direttiva è la soluzione giusta. Cosa ancora più importante, il nostro chiaro segnale a sostegno degli sviluppi che si stanno verificando nei mercati della compensazione e del regolamento non dovrebbe essere smorzato da confuse preoccupazioni per potenziali sviluppi futuri di cui attualmente non esiste alcuna prova. Mi riferisco ad alcuni deputati che vorrebbero applicare regole di concorrenza ai fornitori di servizi di compensazione e di regolamento. Simili misure in questa fase non sono necessarie, in quanto è evidente che i mercati di fatto si evolvono generalmente verso una concorrenza più aperta e trasparente. La richiesta di una nuova legislazione sulla concorrenza è un’inopportuna richiesta di una direttiva in tempi brevi, con il rischio che tale documento si trasformi in una normativa di ampio respiro sulla compensazione e il regolamento prima che siano disponibili i risultati dei diversi studi di impatto della Commissione. La plenaria di domani dovrebbe invece sostenere pienamente la linea della commissione, secondo la quale dovremmo concentrare gli sforzi sulla rimozione degli “ostacoli Giovannini”. In proposito sostengo pienamente le iniziative delle Commissione. La rimozione di tali barriere promuove l’apertura, la parità di accesso e la trasparenza nel settore. Non dovremmo cercare di applicare un’unica infrastruttura arbitrariamente definita o un particolare modello di funzionamento in tutta l’UE, in quanto impedirebbe l’integrazione e il consolidamento dei mercati transfrontalieri in corso, nonché l’accumulo di vantaggi tangibili per i clienti dei servizi di compensazione e regolamento. Come ha affermato il Commissario, non si tratta di una questione tecnica di secondaria importanza. Si tratta di un settore molto importante del mercato unico. Apprezzo pienamente gli sforzi della Commissione al riguardo. Vorrei ringraziare tutto il personale della Commissione che ha lavorato intensamente con il Parlamento per raggiungere questo compromesso. Mi auguro che in futuro potremo continuare questa cooperazione davvero fruttuosa."@it¹² "Mr President, it is a pity that Mr McCreevy cannot be here. It would have been nice to talk to him personally. When I took over this report from Mrs Villiers, who deserves considerable thanks for her thorough approach and hard work, it was quite clear to me what the outcome should be. It is even clearer now. As we know, the Commission recently produced a Green Paper on financial services. It explicitly stated that any new European proposal for financial services legislation and implementing rules should pass a number of economic tests. They involve a careful study of the expected economic benefits as well as ‘the extent to which measures facilitate cross-border business and enhance the competitiveness of Europe’s financial markets, while, at the same time, protecting internal stability’. The Commission paper also states that there is clear market evidence suggesting that genuine financial integration is under way in many key sectors, such as in clearing and settlement. That sentiment is strongly echoed in our daily dealings with the financial services industry. The report before you sends a clear signal to the markets that the achievements will not be hampered by unnecessary regulation. That message is a result of a broad cross-party compromise and it has the strong backing of market participants. Some of the amendments that have been tabled depart from this functional approach and seek to prejudge the need for regulation. I appreciate and respect the cultural differences in regulatory philosophy, which lead some to these conclusions. However, it would be a serious mistake to apply this philosophy in the case of clearing and settlement. We have agreed to wait for the results of the regulatory impact assessment and of the different working groups set up by the Commission, to which you referred, Commissioner, in order to determine whether there is any market failure and whether a directive is the right solution after all. More importantly, our clear signal in support of the developments that are taking place in the clearing and settlement markets should not be diluted with confused concerns regarding potential developments sometime in the future, for which no evidence currently exists. I refer here to some Members’ wish to implement competition rules for clearing and settlement service providers. There is no need for that at this stage, as evidence suggests that markets are, in fact, generally developing towards more open and transparent competition. The call for new competition legislation is a misguided call for a short-term directive, with the risk that it will develop into wide-ranging legislation on clearing and settlement before we have the results of the different Commission impact studies. Instead, the plenary tomorrow should fully endorse the committee line, that we should focus our efforts on the removal of the ‘Giovannini Barriers’. Here I fully support the initiatives of the Commission. The removal of such barriers promotes openness, equal access and transparency in the industry. We should not seek to implement some arbitrarily defined single utility or service model across the EU, as that would hamper ongoing market-led cross-border integration and consolidation, along with the tangible benefits accruing to customers of clearing and settlement services. As the Commissioner has stated, this is not a technical, minor issue. It is a very important field of the single market. I fully appreciate Commission efforts in this respect. I would like to thank all your staff who have worked hard with Parliament in reaching this compromise. I hope we can continue this very fruitful cooperation in the future."@lt¹⁴ "Mr President, it is a pity that Mr McCreevy cannot be here. It would have been nice to talk to him personally. When I took over this report from Mrs Villiers, who deserves considerable thanks for her thorough approach and hard work, it was quite clear to me what the outcome should be. It is even clearer now. As we know, the Commission recently produced a Green Paper on financial services. It explicitly stated that any new European proposal for financial services legislation and implementing rules should pass a number of economic tests. They involve a careful study of the expected economic benefits as well as ‘the extent to which measures facilitate cross-border business and enhance the competitiveness of Europe’s financial markets, while, at the same time, protecting internal stability’. The Commission paper also states that there is clear market evidence suggesting that genuine financial integration is under way in many key sectors, such as in clearing and settlement. That sentiment is strongly echoed in our daily dealings with the financial services industry. The report before you sends a clear signal to the markets that the achievements will not be hampered by unnecessary regulation. That message is a result of a broad cross-party compromise and it has the strong backing of market participants. Some of the amendments that have been tabled depart from this functional approach and seek to prejudge the need for regulation. I appreciate and respect the cultural differences in regulatory philosophy, which lead some to these conclusions. However, it would be a serious mistake to apply this philosophy in the case of clearing and settlement. We have agreed to wait for the results of the regulatory impact assessment and of the different working groups set up by the Commission, to which you referred, Commissioner, in order to determine whether there is any market failure and whether a directive is the right solution after all. More importantly, our clear signal in support of the developments that are taking place in the clearing and settlement markets should not be diluted with confused concerns regarding potential developments sometime in the future, for which no evidence currently exists. I refer here to some Members’ wish to implement competition rules for clearing and settlement service providers. There is no need for that at this stage, as evidence suggests that markets are, in fact, generally developing towards more open and transparent competition. The call for new competition legislation is a misguided call for a short-term directive, with the risk that it will develop into wide-ranging legislation on clearing and settlement before we have the results of the different Commission impact studies. Instead, the plenary tomorrow should fully endorse the committee line, that we should focus our efforts on the removal of the ‘Giovannini Barriers’. Here I fully support the initiatives of the Commission. The removal of such barriers promotes openness, equal access and transparency in the industry. We should not seek to implement some arbitrarily defined single utility or service model across the EU, as that would hamper ongoing market-led cross-border integration and consolidation, along with the tangible benefits accruing to customers of clearing and settlement services. As the Commissioner has stated, this is not a technical, minor issue. It is a very important field of the single market. I fully appreciate Commission efforts in this respect. I would like to thank all your staff who have worked hard with Parliament in reaching this compromise. I hope we can continue this very fruitful cooperation in the future."@lv¹³ "Mr President, it is a pity that Mr McCreevy cannot be here. It would have been nice to talk to him personally. When I took over this report from Mrs Villiers, who deserves considerable thanks for her thorough approach and hard work, it was quite clear to me what the outcome should be. It is even clearer now. As we know, the Commission recently produced a Green Paper on financial services. It explicitly stated that any new European proposal for financial services legislation and implementing rules should pass a number of economic tests. They involve a careful study of the expected economic benefits as well as ‘the extent to which measures facilitate cross-border business and enhance the competitiveness of Europe’s financial markets, while, at the same time, protecting internal stability’. The Commission paper also states that there is clear market evidence suggesting that genuine financial integration is under way in many key sectors, such as in clearing and settlement. That sentiment is strongly echoed in our daily dealings with the financial services industry. The report before you sends a clear signal to the markets that the achievements will not be hampered by unnecessary regulation. That message is a result of a broad cross-party compromise and it has the strong backing of market participants. Some of the amendments that have been tabled depart from this functional approach and seek to prejudge the need for regulation. I appreciate and respect the cultural differences in regulatory philosophy, which lead some to these conclusions. However, it would be a serious mistake to apply this philosophy in the case of clearing and settlement. We have agreed to wait for the results of the regulatory impact assessment and of the different working groups set up by the Commission, to which you referred, Commissioner, in order to determine whether there is any market failure and whether a directive is the right solution after all. More importantly, our clear signal in support of the developments that are taking place in the clearing and settlement markets should not be diluted with confused concerns regarding potential developments sometime in the future, for which no evidence currently exists. I refer here to some Members’ wish to implement competition rules for clearing and settlement service providers. There is no need for that at this stage, as evidence suggests that markets are, in fact, generally developing towards more open and transparent competition. The call for new competition legislation is a misguided call for a short-term directive, with the risk that it will develop into wide-ranging legislation on clearing and settlement before we have the results of the different Commission impact studies. Instead, the plenary tomorrow should fully endorse the committee line, that we should focus our efforts on the removal of the ‘Giovannini Barriers’. Here I fully support the initiatives of the Commission. The removal of such barriers promotes openness, equal access and transparency in the industry. We should not seek to implement some arbitrarily defined single utility or service model across the EU, as that would hamper ongoing market-led cross-border integration and consolidation, along with the tangible benefits accruing to customers of clearing and settlement services. As the Commissioner has stated, this is not a technical, minor issue. It is a very important field of the single market. I fully appreciate Commission efforts in this respect. I would like to thank all your staff who have worked hard with Parliament in reaching this compromise. I hope we can continue this very fruitful cooperation in the future."@mt¹⁵ "Mijnheer de Voorzitter, het is jammer dat de heer McCreevy er niet bij kan zijn. Ik had graag met hem persoonlijk willen praten. Toen ik dit verslag overnam van mevrouw Villiers, die ik veel dank verschuldigd ben voor haar grondige aanpak en harde werk, was het me volkomen duidelijk wat de uitkomst zou worden. En nu is dat zo mogelijk nog duidelijker. Zoals we weten, heeft de Commissie onlangs een groenboek over financiële diensten samengesteld. Daarin staat expliciet dat elk nieuw Europees voorstel voor wetgeving op het gebied van financiële diensten en het ten uitvoer leggen van regels aan een aantal economische tests moet worden onderworpen. Hieronder valt een nauwgezet onderzoek naar de verwachte economische voordelen en naar de mate waarin maatregelen grensoverschrijdende handel mogelijk maken en het concurrentievermogen van de Europese financiële markten versterken, terwijl tegelijkertijd de interne stabiliteit wordt beschermd. In het groenboek van de Commissie staat ook dat er duidelijke aanwijzingen in de markt zijn dat er in veel belangrijke sectoren, waaronder clearing en afwikkeling, daadwerkelijk financiële integratie plaatsvindt. Dat komt ook sterk naar voren in onze dagelijkse relaties met de financiële dienstensector. Het verslag dat voor u ligt, geeft een duidelijk signaal aan de markten dat de resultaten niet door onnodige regelgeving zullen worden beperkt. Deze boodschap is het resultaat van een breed partijoverschrijdend compromis en krijgt veel steun van marktdeelnemers. In een aantal van de ingediende amendementen wordt afgeweken van deze functionele benadering en wordt een voortijdig oordeel geveld over de noodzaak van wetgeving. Ik heb begrip voor de culturele verschillen ten aanzien van de filosofie van de regelgeving, die ten grondslag liggen aan een aantal van deze conclusies, maar het zou een grote vergissing zijn om deze filosofie toe te passen op clearing en afwikkeling. We hebben afgesproken dat we de resultaten afwachten van de effectbeoordeling van de regelgeving en van de verschillende werkgroepen die de Commissie heeft opgezet, waarnaar u verwees, commissaris, om te kunnen bepalen of er sprake is van falende marktwerking en of een richtlijn wel de juiste oplossing is. Belangrijker is dat ons duidelijke signaal ter ondersteuning van de ontwikkelingen die op de markt voor clearing en afwikkeling plaatsvinden, niet wordt verzwakt door verwarrende signalen over mogelijke ontwikkelingen ergens in de toekomst, waarvoor momenteel geen enkele aanwijzing bestaat. Ik verwijs hier naar de wens van enkele Parlementsleden om mededingingsregels voor dienstverleners op het gebied van clearing en afwikkeling ten uitvoer te leggen. Daar is in dit stadium geen aanleiding voor, aangezien er aanwijzingen zijn dat de markten zich over het geheel in de richting van meer open en transparante concurrentie bewegen. De roep om nieuwe mededingingswetgeving is een ondoordachte roep om een richtlijn voor de korte termijn, waarbij het gevaar bestaat dat deze uitmondt in breed opgezette wetgeving inzake clearing en afwikkeling voordat we de resultaten van de verschillende effectbeoordelingen van de Commissie hebben. In plaats daarvan zou de plenaire vergadering morgen het standpunt van de Commissie economische en monetaire zaken moeten steunen, namelijk dat we ons moeten richten op de opheffing van de ‘Giovannini-belemmeringen’. Op dat terrein steun ik de initiatieven van de Commissie van harte. De opheffing van deze belemmeringen stimuleert openheid, gelijke toegang en transparantie in de sector. We moeten niet proberen een willekeurig omschreven nutsvoorzieningen- of dienstenmodel in de hele EU ten uitvoer te leggen, aangezien dat de lopende, door de markt aangestuurde, grensoverschrijdende integratie en consolidering en ook de tastbare voordelen voor klanten van clearing- en afwikkelingsdiensten in de weg zou staan. Zoals de commissaris zei: dit is geen technische, onbeduidende kwestie. Het is een zeer belangrijk aspect van de interne markt. Ik heb alle begrip voor de inspanningen van de Commissie in dit verband. Ik dank al uw personeel dat intensief met het Parlement heeft samengewerkt om tot dit compromis te komen. Ik hoop dat we deze zeer vruchtbare samenwerking in de toekomst kunnen voortzetten."@nl³ "Mr President, it is a pity that Mr McCreevy cannot be here. It would have been nice to talk to him personally. When I took over this report from Mrs Villiers, who deserves considerable thanks for her thorough approach and hard work, it was quite clear to me what the outcome should be. It is even clearer now. As we know, the Commission recently produced a Green Paper on financial services. It explicitly stated that any new European proposal for financial services legislation and implementing rules should pass a number of economic tests. They involve a careful study of the expected economic benefits as well as ‘the extent to which measures facilitate cross-border business and enhance the competitiveness of Europe’s financial markets, while, at the same time, protecting internal stability’. The Commission paper also states that there is clear market evidence suggesting that genuine financial integration is under way in many key sectors, such as in clearing and settlement. That sentiment is strongly echoed in our daily dealings with the financial services industry. The report before you sends a clear signal to the markets that the achievements will not be hampered by unnecessary regulation. That message is a result of a broad cross-party compromise and it has the strong backing of market participants. Some of the amendments that have been tabled depart from this functional approach and seek to prejudge the need for regulation. I appreciate and respect the cultural differences in regulatory philosophy, which lead some to these conclusions. However, it would be a serious mistake to apply this philosophy in the case of clearing and settlement. We have agreed to wait for the results of the regulatory impact assessment and of the different working groups set up by the Commission, to which you referred, Commissioner, in order to determine whether there is any market failure and whether a directive is the right solution after all. More importantly, our clear signal in support of the developments that are taking place in the clearing and settlement markets should not be diluted with confused concerns regarding potential developments sometime in the future, for which no evidence currently exists. I refer here to some Members’ wish to implement competition rules for clearing and settlement service providers. There is no need for that at this stage, as evidence suggests that markets are, in fact, generally developing towards more open and transparent competition. The call for new competition legislation is a misguided call for a short-term directive, with the risk that it will develop into wide-ranging legislation on clearing and settlement before we have the results of the different Commission impact studies. Instead, the plenary tomorrow should fully endorse the committee line, that we should focus our efforts on the removal of the ‘Giovannini Barriers’. Here I fully support the initiatives of the Commission. The removal of such barriers promotes openness, equal access and transparency in the industry. We should not seek to implement some arbitrarily defined single utility or service model across the EU, as that would hamper ongoing market-led cross-border integration and consolidation, along with the tangible benefits accruing to customers of clearing and settlement services. As the Commissioner has stated, this is not a technical, minor issue. It is a very important field of the single market. I fully appreciate Commission efforts in this respect. I would like to thank all your staff who have worked hard with Parliament in reaching this compromise. I hope we can continue this very fruitful cooperation in the future."@pl¹⁶ "Senhor Presidente, é pena que o senhor deputado McCreevy não possa estar aqui presente. Teria sido agradável falar com ele pessoalmente. Quando substituí a senhora deputada Villiers, que merece os maiores agradecimentos pela sua abordagem minuciosa e pelo difícil trabalho que realizou, tornou-se-me bem evidente qual devia ser o resultado, coisa que neste momento, me é ainda mais evidente. Como é do nosso conhecimento, a Comissão apresentou recentemente um Livro Verde sobre serviços financeiros, no qual declarava explicitamente que qualquer nova proposta europeia no domínio da legislação relativa a serviços financeiros e normas para a respectiva implementação devia ser submetida a alguns testes de carácter económico. Esses testes envolvem um estudo cuidadoso dos benefícios económicos esperados, bem como “da medida em que essas iniciativas facilitam as trocas comerciais transfronteiriças e reforçam a competitividade nos mercados financeiros da Europa, ao mesmo tempo que protegem a estabilidade interna”. O documento da Comissão afirma também existirem provas evidentes no mercado, que sugerem que em muitos sectores-chave, como, por exemplo, no sector da liquidação e compensação, se encontra em curso um verdadeiro processo de integração financeira, sentimento, cujo eco se faz sentir na nossa relação quotidiana com a indústria dos serviços financeiros. O relatório que têm em mãos emite um sinal claro para os mercados de que os progressos não irão ser dificultados por regulamentações desnecessárias. Essa mensagem é resultado de um amplo compromisso entre partes contrárias, com o forte apoio dos participantes no mercado. Algumas das alterações apresentadas afastam-se desta abordagem funcional para procurar formar um juízo prévio sobre a necessidade de regulamentação. Aprecio e respeito as diferenças culturais presentes na filosofia regulamentar que levam algumas pessoas a tirar estas conclusões. Constituiria, porém, um erro grave aplicar esta filosofia no caso das liquidações e compensações. Concordámos em aguardar os resultados da avaliação do impacto regulamentar e dos diferentes grupos de trabalho organizados pela Comissão, a que o senhor Comissário se referiu, a fim de determinar se existe qualquer deficiência do mercado e se, no fim de contas, uma directiva não será a solução adequada. Mais importante, não devia diluir-se o nosso sinal evidente de apoio à evolução em curso nos mercados de compensação e liquidação devido a preocupações confusas relativas a potenciais acontecimentos, um dia, no futuro, de que, actualmente, não existe qualquer evidência. Refiro-me, neste caso, ao desejo de alguns dos senhores deputados de implementarem regras de concorrência para prestadores de serviços de compensação e liquidação. Nesta fase, não existe qualquer necessidade disso, uma vez que as provas sugerem que os mercados estão, de facto, a evoluir para uma concorrência mais aberta e transparente. A exigência de nova legislação é uma exigência despropositada de uma directiva a curto prazo, que corre o risco de evoluir para uma legislação de grande alcance em matéria de compensação e liquidação antes de dispormos dos resultados dos diferentes estudos de impacto levados a cabo pela Comissão. Em vez disso, amanhã, em plenária, deverá aprovar-se totalmente a linha advogada pela comissão competente quanto à matéria de fundo, a saber, que devíamos concentrar os nossos esforços na eliminação dos “obstáculos Giovannini”. Neste caso, dou o meu pleno apoio às iniciativas da Comissão. A eliminação desses obstáculos promove a abertura, igualdade de acesso e transparência na indústria. Não devíamos procurar implementar em toda a UE uma única infra-estrutura ou serviço modelo arbitrariamente definidos, uma vez que isso iria dificultar a continua integração e consolidação transfronteiras do mercado, bem como os benefícios palpáveis respeitantes aos clientes dos serviços de compensação e liquidação. Como afirmou o Senhor Comissário, esta não é uma questão de ordem técnica de somenos importância, mas sim um sector muito importante do mercado único. Tenho todo o apreço pelos esforços desenvolvidos pela Comissão a este respeito. Gostaria de agradecer a todo o pessoal dos seus serviços que colaborou intensamente com o Parlamento para se chegar a este compromisso. Espero que no futuro possamos continuar essa fecunda colaboração."@pt¹⁷ "Mr President, it is a pity that Mr McCreevy cannot be here. It would have been nice to talk to him personally. When I took over this report from Mrs Villiers, who deserves considerable thanks for her thorough approach and hard work, it was quite clear to me what the outcome should be. It is even clearer now. As we know, the Commission recently produced a Green Paper on financial services. It explicitly stated that any new European proposal for financial services legislation and implementing rules should pass a number of economic tests. They involve a careful study of the expected economic benefits as well as ‘the extent to which measures facilitate cross-border business and enhance the competitiveness of Europe’s financial markets, while, at the same time, protecting internal stability’. The Commission paper also states that there is clear market evidence suggesting that genuine financial integration is under way in many key sectors, such as in clearing and settlement. That sentiment is strongly echoed in our daily dealings with the financial services industry. The report before you sends a clear signal to the markets that the achievements will not be hampered by unnecessary regulation. That message is a result of a broad cross-party compromise and it has the strong backing of market participants. Some of the amendments that have been tabled depart from this functional approach and seek to prejudge the need for regulation. I appreciate and respect the cultural differences in regulatory philosophy, which lead some to these conclusions. However, it would be a serious mistake to apply this philosophy in the case of clearing and settlement. We have agreed to wait for the results of the regulatory impact assessment and of the different working groups set up by the Commission, to which you referred, Commissioner, in order to determine whether there is any market failure and whether a directive is the right solution after all. More importantly, our clear signal in support of the developments that are taking place in the clearing and settlement markets should not be diluted with confused concerns regarding potential developments sometime in the future, for which no evidence currently exists. I refer here to some Members’ wish to implement competition rules for clearing and settlement service providers. There is no need for that at this stage, as evidence suggests that markets are, in fact, generally developing towards more open and transparent competition. The call for new competition legislation is a misguided call for a short-term directive, with the risk that it will develop into wide-ranging legislation on clearing and settlement before we have the results of the different Commission impact studies. Instead, the plenary tomorrow should fully endorse the committee line, that we should focus our efforts on the removal of the ‘Giovannini Barriers’. Here I fully support the initiatives of the Commission. The removal of such barriers promotes openness, equal access and transparency in the industry. We should not seek to implement some arbitrarily defined single utility or service model across the EU, as that would hamper ongoing market-led cross-border integration and consolidation, along with the tangible benefits accruing to customers of clearing and settlement services. As the Commissioner has stated, this is not a technical, minor issue. It is a very important field of the single market. I fully appreciate Commission efforts in this respect. I would like to thank all your staff who have worked hard with Parliament in reaching this compromise. I hope we can continue this very fruitful cooperation in the future."@sk¹⁸ "Mr President, it is a pity that Mr McCreevy cannot be here. It would have been nice to talk to him personally. When I took over this report from Mrs Villiers, who deserves considerable thanks for her thorough approach and hard work, it was quite clear to me what the outcome should be. It is even clearer now. As we know, the Commission recently produced a Green Paper on financial services. It explicitly stated that any new European proposal for financial services legislation and implementing rules should pass a number of economic tests. They involve a careful study of the expected economic benefits as well as ‘the extent to which measures facilitate cross-border business and enhance the competitiveness of Europe’s financial markets, while, at the same time, protecting internal stability’. The Commission paper also states that there is clear market evidence suggesting that genuine financial integration is under way in many key sectors, such as in clearing and settlement. That sentiment is strongly echoed in our daily dealings with the financial services industry. The report before you sends a clear signal to the markets that the achievements will not be hampered by unnecessary regulation. That message is a result of a broad cross-party compromise and it has the strong backing of market participants. Some of the amendments that have been tabled depart from this functional approach and seek to prejudge the need for regulation. I appreciate and respect the cultural differences in regulatory philosophy, which lead some to these conclusions. However, it would be a serious mistake to apply this philosophy in the case of clearing and settlement. We have agreed to wait for the results of the regulatory impact assessment and of the different working groups set up by the Commission, to which you referred, Commissioner, in order to determine whether there is any market failure and whether a directive is the right solution after all. More importantly, our clear signal in support of the developments that are taking place in the clearing and settlement markets should not be diluted with confused concerns regarding potential developments sometime in the future, for which no evidence currently exists. I refer here to some Members’ wish to implement competition rules for clearing and settlement service providers. There is no need for that at this stage, as evidence suggests that markets are, in fact, generally developing towards more open and transparent competition. The call for new competition legislation is a misguided call for a short-term directive, with the risk that it will develop into wide-ranging legislation on clearing and settlement before we have the results of the different Commission impact studies. Instead, the plenary tomorrow should fully endorse the committee line, that we should focus our efforts on the removal of the ‘Giovannini Barriers’. Here I fully support the initiatives of the Commission. The removal of such barriers promotes openness, equal access and transparency in the industry. We should not seek to implement some arbitrarily defined single utility or service model across the EU, as that would hamper ongoing market-led cross-border integration and consolidation, along with the tangible benefits accruing to customers of clearing and settlement services. As the Commissioner has stated, this is not a technical, minor issue. It is a very important field of the single market. I fully appreciate Commission efforts in this respect. I would like to thank all your staff who have worked hard with Parliament in reaching this compromise. I hope we can continue this very fruitful cooperation in the future."@sl¹⁹ ". Herr talman! Det är synd att Charlie McCreevy inte kunde vara här. Det hade varit trevligt att tala med honom personligen. När jag tog över det här betänkandet efter Theresa Villiers, som förtjänar ett stort tack för sin grundlighet och sitt hårda arbete, stod det ganska klart för mig vad resultatet skulle bli. Nu är det ännu klarare. Som vi vet lade kommissionen nyligen fram en grönbok om finansiella tjänster. I den sades det uttryckligen att alla nya förslag till lagstiftning om finansiella tjänster och genomförandebestämmelser på EU-nivå skulle genomgå ett antal ekonomiska tester. Dessa är till exempel en ingående granskning av de förväntade ekonomiska fördelarna liksom ”den utsträckning i vilken åtgärderna underlättar gränsöverskridande affärer och ökar Europas finansiella marknaders konkurrenskraft, samtidigt som de skyddar den interna stabiliteten”. I kommissionens grönbok står det också att det finns tydliga bevis från marknaderna som tyder på att en verklig finansiell integration håller på att genomföras inom många centrala sektorer, såsom clearing och avveckling. Denna känsla återkommer också starkt i våra dagliga mellanhavanden med finansbranschen. Det betänkande som ni har framför er sänder ut ett tydligt budskap till marknaderna om att landvinningarna inte kommer att hållas tillbaka av onödiga regelverk. Detta budskap är resultatet av en bred kompromiss över partigränserna och har starkt stöd av aktörerna på marknaderna. I en del av de ändringsförslag som har lagts fram gör man avsteg från denna funktionella linje och försöker bedöma behovet av regleringar i förväg. Jag förstår och respekterar att det finns kulturella skillnader i inställningen till regleringar, som har lett till några av dessa slutsatser. Det skulle dock vara ett allvarligt misstag att tillämpa denna förhandsfilosofi på clearing och avveckling. Vi har kommit överens om att vänta på resultaten av konsekvensbedömningen av regleringarna och från de olika arbetsgrupper som kommissionen har tillsatt – och som ni nämnde, herr kommissionsledamot – för att kunna fastställa om det finns missförhållanden på marknaderna och om ett direktiv trots allt skulle vara den bästa lösningen. Det är ännu viktigare att vårt tydliga budskap till stöd för den utveckling som pågår på marknaderna för clearing och avveckling inte vattnas ur med ängsliga farhågor för en eventuell utveckling någon gång i framtiden, som det inte finns några tecken på ännu. Jag syftar på vissa ledamöters önskan att införa konkurrensregler för dem som tillhandahåller clearing- och avvecklingstjänster på förhand. Det finns inget behov av det i det här skedet, eftersom det finns tecken som tyder på att marknaderna faktiskt i allmänhet utvecklas mer mot en öppen och genomblickbar konkurrens. Kravet på ny konkurrenslagstiftning är ett missriktat krav på ett kortsiktigt direktiv, som riskerar att utvecklas till en mycket omfattande lagstiftning om clearing och avveckling innan vi har fått resultaten från kommissionens olika konsekvensbedömningar. I stället bör kammaren i morgon ställa sig helt bakom utskottets linje att vi bör inrikta våra ansträngningar på att avlägsna ”Giovannini-hindren”. Här stöder jag kommissionens initiativ till fullo. Genom att ta bort sådana hinder främjar vi öppenhet, lika tillgång och insyn i branschen. Vi bör inte försöka genomföra någon godtyckligt definierad modell för en nyttighet eller tjänst i hela EU, eftersom det skulle vara till hinder för den pågående marknadsledda integrationen och konsolideringen över gränserna, samt begränsa de påtagliga fördelar som kunderna har av clearing- och avvecklingstjänster. Som kommissionsledamoten har sagt är detta inte någon teknisk detaljfråga. Det är ett mycket viktigt område på den inre marknaden. Jag uppskattar verkligen kommissionens ansträngningar i fråga om detta. Jag vill tacka all er personal som har arbetat hårt tillsammans med parlamentet för att komma fram till den här kompromissen. Jag hoppas att vi kan fortsätta detta mycket givande samarbete i framtiden."@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE ),"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4} "ante"¹⁷ "ex"¹⁷ "ex ante"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,11,16,2,3,13,4,20,17,12,8} "rapporteur"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,11,16,13,4} "test"¹²