Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-24-Speech-4-011"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021024.2.4-011"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on market abuses is important for several reasons. It is the first directive to be adopted under what is known as the Lamfalussy procedure. This is a piece of framework legislation that will be supplemented by implementing regulations. The Commission will pass this secondary legislation on the basis of proposals by the Committee of European Securities Regulators, known as CESR in English. The CESR will draft its proposals on the basis of broad public consultation. The Commission will also adopt the implementing regulations in a transparent way. The Ecofin Council and the European Parliament will monitor the Commission. Parliament will have a deadline of three months in which to deliver an opinion. If, within that period, Parliament adopts a resolution, the Commission will have to re-examine its draft measures. This, therefore, provides a guarantee that secondary legislation will be democratically monitored.
The sole aim of the directive is to better regulate the financial markets. It is not seeking to regulate the profession of journalism. Unfortunately, some parts of the press, especially in the United Kingdom, have launched a sometimes incredible campaign against the Commission’s proposals, suggesting that the very freedom of the press was at stake. The freedom of the press has not been in any danger and nor will it be. The first article clearly states that no journalist can be held responsible for disseminating false or misleading information, unless that journalist is gaining any advantage or profit from divulging such information.
I am starting from the premise that all journalists attempt to do their job correctly and that they check their sources. If a journalist is wrong, they will not be held responsible, unless he has touched money in the manipulation that has occurred. Some recent scandals, from the
to the
show that no profession is entirely honest. Parliament wishes to encourage the establishment of codes of good conduct and self-regulation for journalists, not least with regard to potential conflicts of interest, but the best form of self-regulation in the world will never exempt legislators from having to remain vigilant and from intervening at regulatory level if, perchance, self-regulation should prove to be inadequate or unworkable. This is why I ask you to reject the two strangely identical amendments tabled on this matter. It is simply unacceptable that a profession, even one as respectable as journalism, should attempt to exempt itself definitively from a European regulation that concerns it. Once again, it is not the CESR that will establish the rules but the Commission, under the democratic control of the Council and Parliament.
I can assure you, Mr President, that I shall be the first, and not the only one, to oppose any attack on the freedom of the press or against any unworkable over-regulation. European law must, however, be the same for everyone. Every democrat and, consequently, every journalist worthy of the name should welcome this crucial principle.
For the future, in order to provide the possibility both of giving secondary legislation more regulations of a technical nature and of providing colegislators with final decision-making rights, a ‘call-back’ procedure, amending Article 202 of the Treaty, absolutely must be provided for.
The aim of the directive is to lay down the same rules for all financial products throughout the Union, in order to combat all forms of insider dealing and market abuse.
At first reading, Parliament adopted 77 amendments. The Council accepted 60 of these in full and 10 in part. This is clearly a success for Parliament.
I wish to pay tribute to the Belgian, Spanish and Danish presidencies and to the Commission staff, who have always proved willing to reach workable compromises. I also address my thanks to my colleagues in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, especially Mr Thomas Mann. Because the Commission and the Council have declared their agreement on the five amendments accepted by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs following second reading, the directive could be implemented quite rapidly. The new rules will certainly help to restore confidence in the integrity of the financial markets.
Since the bursting of the speculative bubble over the stock markets and the financial scandals that have hit both the United States and Europe, many investors are hesitant. Since the beginning of 2000, more than USD 7 trillion of virtual stock exchange profits have also been wiped off the market. In Europe, several thousand billion euros have also gone up in smoke. This situation destabilises economies, penalises savers, weakens investment funds and lowers the value of pension funds.
In order to restore the confidence of investors and small savers in the financial markets, we must combat all forms of criminal connivance, forcing companies to be as transparent as possible. In recent months, we have seen numerous revelations about the pally form of capitalism operating amongst company directors, accounting companies, investment banks and financial analysts. This entire group, which on the surface, appears to be quite respectable, operated in such a way that it could milk stock market exuberance for their own profit.
As a result of the market’s lack of transparency, there have been conflicts of interest within accounting firms. Many financial analysts have been both judge and accused. Auditors and analysts duped the market players that placed their trust in them. The reason for this was the practice of stock options and other personal bonuses to be received in line with the financial results of their employers.
The sums in question sometimes defy belief. One example is that the CEOs of the twenty-five largest American companies to have declared themselves bankrupt in the last 18 months had awarded themselves, in the three years preceding their company’s bankruptcy, packages totalling around USD 3.3 billion. Although we should not generalise, the golden years of the financial sector have nevertheless led to a sort of ‘financial mad cow disease
the ‘mad finance syndrome’. Just like the clean-up of the meat market, the need for and the establishment of a rigorous monitoring system and the clean-up of the financial markets will require precise rules to combat all insider dealing and all market manipulation."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Daily Mirror"1
"Magazine des actionnaires"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples