Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-15-Speech-1-053"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010115.5.1-053"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the main points of controversy in this report concern three different types of contractual agreement, namely repo agreements, netting agreements, and contracts conducted on a regulated market. As Mrs Peijs' report outlined, these types of contracts were discussed in committee pending this debate and, in essence, what we are seeking to do with the compromises proposed by Mrs Peijs is to ensure that parties can choose their own contract law in relation to these particular contracts, but not their own winding-up proceedings law.
There is a separation here between the law of the contract and the external insolvency law, because it is quite important to ensure that parties, though they may choose the law of contract, may not actually choose their own insolvency law.
Now a problem arises concerning the interaction between the law of contract and insolvency law. What we are trying to do is to ensure that the contract operates and whatever proceeds are left at the other end are then dealt with according to the insolvency law of the home State. There is still one slight uncertainty in the text about what happens with regimes, for example, in Spain which have insolvency proceedings which kick in before the contract law actually takes place. In essence, these are known as automatic stays and mean that in certain countries, such as Spain, I believe all contracts are suspended automatically by an insolvency proceeding. I applaud Mrs Peijs' work in reconciling what looked fairly irreconcilable and coming up with a solution that favours home State control which is preferable in terms of the internal market, but I have some anxiety that there will still have to be some fine-tuning.
I hope that we will not have to have a third reading, but we may have to just to make it absolutely clear that these automatic stays would not affect netting contracts, repo contracts and contracts in a regulated market. I would appeal to the House that in some ways it is more important to get a clear answer than to get one that suits everyone; one that is absolutely perfect in every respect. Because with a clear answer people can arrange their transactions around the framework that we have set up. It is vital to do that. I applaud the work that Mrs Peijs has done and I hope that we have finally sorted this issue out. I just have certain worries about the automatic stays and suspect that we might need some fine-tuning at a later stage.
The other controversial issue involves right in rem and the difference between the common position and the tidying up operation that Mrs Peijs has done, and this is something we have discussed at length. In essence, there is a lot of common ground between what the Council proposes in the common position and the alternative wording that Mrs Peijs has proposed. I am inclined to think, in view of the uncertainty, that it may well be worth sticking to the common position on that particular issue, because of the potential threat that it might pose to the mortgage bond market. This is not a strategic interest to me as a British MEP, because it does not affect the British market in any way – it is much more important for the Danish, the Austrian and the German mortgage market.
I would congratulate Mrs Peijs on her work. It is a very good report. There are still one or two small points of controversy in it, but she has done an excellent job. I apologise for the confusion we have had in committee over the voting and I am glad that it has all been resolved now."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples