Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-12-Speech-3-300"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011212.11.3-300"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I should like to begin by thanking very much your rapporteur, Mr Pérez Royo, and the members of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for the excellent work and very constructive approach on the collateral proposal. This proposal, as was emphasised by Mr Karas just now, is a priority dossier in the Financial Services Action Plan and it is a crucial element for the timely delivery of the FSAP by 2003 for an integrated European Union securities market, and the year 2005 for the FSAP overall.
Given that the value of outstanding contracts on the European REPO market alone exceeds EUR 1.8 billion, the expected benefits are extremely large. These contracts will, when the directive is implemented in the Member States, be governed by one legal regime, instead of 15 different ones. Such a uniform pan-EU legal framework for the use of collateral will contribute to the greater integration and cost-efficiency of European financial markets, by encouraging cross-border business and creating a more competitive European financial market.
Now I come to the tabled amendments. The Commission generally supports all the amendments except for Amendment Nos 16 and 21 which deal with extended protection of top-up collateral and the restriction of the scope respectively. We fully support Amendments Nos 1, 2, 18 and19 as they stand. In addition, and subject to some rewording, which we do not expect will cause any difficulties for Parliament, we can also accept in principle Amendment Nos 3 to 15, 17 and 20. But we may need some flexibility in finding a final agreement.
By supporting Amendment No 1, we are not abolishing protection of credit-related top-up collateral. But the Commission cannot accept Amendment No 16 which protects credit risk top-up collateral under the directive, and nor, we believe, can the Council. Nonetheless, as provided by Amendment No 1, it would be possible under national law to protect that kind of collateral.
To be more precise, Amendment No 16 is not acceptable to the Commission because it could strongly conflict with insolvency law policy which generally discourages improvement of a creditor’s position as a result of an insolvency-related event or at least in a context of deteriorating credit-worthiness.
Amendment No 21 is not acceptable to the Commission because the Commission would like to see as many non-financial companies as possible benefiting from this directive. Those companies are already using these techniques in the market.
In conclusion, I should like once again to thank Members of Parliament for their sterling cooperation. I have also been apprised of what has occurred today in Coreper, as the rapporteur, Mr Pérez Royo, mentioned. Tomorrow, as he said, there will be an Ecofin meeting at which I myself will be present. I do not know what the discussion will lead to tomorrow. I regret the need for a second reading for obvious reasons, but I cannot help that. The Commission is in the hands of Council on the one hand and Parliament on the other.
Lastly, I should like to say to Mr Lehne that I quite agree with him on the timing of this debate. It is an extremely important debate and yet it takes place at almost 11 p.m. and the public interest is very small. I assure you, Mr President, that if this debate could have taken place earlier today I would have been very happy. I am sure Members present would also have been very happy."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples