Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-24-Speech-4-022"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021024.2.4-022"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking those Members, from all the groups, but especially those belonging to my own, who worked on this report in our committee, and who demonstrated commitment, expertise and passion – which have also been apparent in this debate – in tackling this important topic. This is an important and necessary directive, it is one that we want; we want an agreement with the Council, and we want the directive to enter into force at the beginning of 2003.
This directive is the first under the new comitology procedure. I see it as being founded on seven points. The first is that the insider-trading directive, which has provided the framework, is thirteen years old. A lot has happened in the meantime. It is based on the results of the Lisbon Council and on the conclusions of the Stockholm Summit. It forms part of the action plan on financial services. It is a response to 11 September, because the directive is what the Member States want in order to be better able to take counter-terrorist action. It is a response to Enron, Microsoft, and the EM.TV trial; today's information society makes it easier to engage in insider trading by exploiting the many sources of information available.
We have to build up confidence in the financial services sector, in the financial markets and in the economy. This directive helps to do that by safeguarding the integrity of the European financial markets, establishing rules for combating market abuse in Europe, and strengthening investors' confidence in the European financial market.
I would like to say, though, that we have not made it easier for ourselves, as this debate itself shows. Between the Goebbels Report as it was at first reading, and what we have before us today, there are two more extreme standpoints. Let me point out, though, that this is not a directive on journalists, but one on insider dealing and market manipulation. This directive is not to exclude anyone, but it does have to deal with the differences in quality. We should not expect this House to come to a decision that promotes censorship and infringes fundamental rights and freedoms.
That is the basis of our political work. Because we want to get both sides together, combining the arguments of Mr Huhne, Mrs Villiers, Mrs Kauppi and those of the parties affected, the committee came up with a compromise motion, and I believe that it, and perceptiveness, have enabled us to find a very good and broad compromise on the basis of the special role of journalists and of the possibility of self-regulation."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples