Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-20-Speech-3-283"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021120.8.3-283"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to say something about my own and my group's views on the Lamfalussy procedure and on the van den Burg report. Firstly, we are very much in favour of a swifter, more flexible and more transparent procedure. That is why we are also in favour of the objectives of the Lamfalussy procedure. However, it needs to be said here and now that we would not have a problem either with the timing or with the content of the results if the Council were able to work as rapidly and in such a Community-oriented way as the European Parliament. By way of example, I would like to mention the pension fund directive on company pensions. Parliament presented its report in nine months, whereas the Council took twenty-six.
My second point is that all dossiers affected by the Lamfalussy procedure are covered by the codecision procedure for the European Parliament. It has to be said that rules concerning technical details are very often not without some political angle. Nevertheless, we welcome the objectives of the Lamfalussy procedure – there can be no doubt about that. Nor are we fundamentally opposed to extending it. But I hope you will understand if we say that we do not believe in giving blank cheques.
Furthermore, I admit to having some concerns that the Lamfalussy/von Wogau procedure was only ever regarded as an interim measure, a transitional solution, and never as the end product. The end product, the final result, must be parity between the European Parliament and the Council. And we have not yet achieved that final result. We therefore welcome the amendments presented by Mr von Wogau to the Bourlanges report in the Committee on Institutional Affairs. We support the motion for a resolution adopted by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. We expect the Commission to take this point on board in view of the statements made by President Prodi and Commissioner Bolkestein in the ‘shopping list’ presented to the convention. We also call upon the Heads of State and Government to make a declaration of intent at the summit in Copenhagen.
I would like to propose a joint hearing of the Commission and of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs with representatives of the CESR and of the market participants' committee on experience with the Lamfalussy procedure in relation to the market abuse and prospectus directives. Part of the purpose of this is to take account of this experience, which is not entirely positive, when preparing the next steps.
We also welcome the van den Burg report, and not only because some of my own amendments were adopted! A majority of us will be voting in favour of this report. However, I would like to point out that we do not think that the time has yet come for determining the optimum format for pan-European financial supervision. We are therefore also advocating that the Ministers for Economic and Financial Affairs and the national supervisory authorities should be called upon to arrange a comprehensive dialogue with all the relevant actors on an integrated European supervisory system, taking account of the role of national supervisory systems and the responsibilities of the ECB. I also support the enabling clause in connection with the convention, because we do not want to tie our hands in the event of a different political outcome occurring. This is not about setting the EU and the Member States against each other, but about an integrated supervisory system suitable for a new internal market in financial products."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples