Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-13-Speech-3-332"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020313.12.3-332"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, regarding conglomerates I would like to support a number of the amendments adopted in committee. The Commission proposal needs significant revision. In particular, the provisions on material holdings are unduly harsh and would unduly restrict banks and insurance companies in investing in a range of equities. That is particularly important in the context of insurance companies investing their pension funds money. This House has made it very clear that it wishes that investors be given access to a wide range of different equities. These provisions, as drafted, would make it almost impossible for an insurance company or bank to invest pension funds money in other financial institutions because of the harshness of the deductions. I hope, therefore, that the compromises proposed in Amendments Nos 44, 46 and 48 will be adopted. I am not sure we have exactly the right answer yet, but it is clear that the material holdings provisions need to be altered.
As regards Article 14 I hope that the Council and Commission will progress the discussions. I know they are having to streamline the administrative process related to conglomerates with third-country parents.
As regards prospectuses Parliament should follow the example set by the committee. The Commission's proposal applies a "one size fits all" framework designed for large equity issues to the diverse range of European financial markets. Parliament should amend the proposal in order to reflect the diversity of those markets. Shelf registration should be optional and not compulsory. Just because they use it in the American regulatory system, that does not mean we should adopt it here. As recent events have shown only too clearly, the American regulatory system is not always a good one.
We should exempt smaller businesses from part of the proposals, as proposed by the committee, and it is especially important that we recognise that there are particular concerns related to smaller businesses, particularly those which are only raising capital and doing business in one part of the European Union. We should retain the current regulatory framework for the professional bond markets. Where there are very sophisticated markets – indeed one of the most successfully integrated markets in the European Union – it makes no sense to apply protections designed for retail investors in equities. We need issuer choice, otherwise we will have the same problems we have had with the existing prospectus directive. That is essential if we are truly going to integrate the market for capital raising.
On market abuse the Commission's proposal has severe problems. I congratulate Mr Goebbels for tackling a number of them. I still have a number of concerns about the directive. There are significant problems with a directive that penalises wholly unintentional conduct, and I hope the Commission and Council will accept the safe harbours put forward by Mr Goebbels in the compromises, which are based on a safe harbour for acceptable market practice. This is particularly important in the context of derivatives, where the scope of the definition of inside information would make it very difficult to hedge ordinary liabilities, relating for example to an interruption to supply or new research revealing details of potential new supplies. If such information is instantly disclosable as "inside information" it would make hedging impossible and the derivatives markets would grind to a halt. I would also urge the Commission, Council and Parliament to look seriously at the amendments we have proposed on that.
It is vital to recognise Chinese Walls where the proposal is being switched from a law which can be applied only to individuals to a law which can be applied to companies. It is very important that we encourage firms to take care to restrict the flow of inside information if at all possible, and I am very grateful to the rapporteur for responding to the concerns that I have expressed on this. Chinese Walls can be useful if they are enforced properly. We should encourage firms to use them and enforce them properly.
Finally, it is vital that we have proper protection for freedom of speech and for journalists. Hence there need to be some radical changes to the proposals where they relate to the reporting of financial information by journalists."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples