Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-20-Speech-3-295"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021120.8.3-295"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I gather from the various interventions made this afternoon on this subject that there is general acceptance of the extension of the Lamfalussy procedure into new areas such as banking, insurance companies and conglomerates. There are differences of opinion about how precisely that ought to be done, but the general principle seems to be accepted, which is a good thing. Many Members of this House have mentioned the matter of Article 202. This is only natural, and in my first speech this afternoon I indicated that the Commission agrees with Parliament on this point and that the Commission has been quite clear.
Mr Huhne also expressed his support for the extension of the Lamfalussy procedure. He mentioned its temporary nature and pointed to the 'sunset clause'. He thought Parliament should have the possibility of calling back implementing measures. That hangs together with the equality between the Council and Parliament, and I cannot but agree with him.
Mr Blokland asked me how I could be certain that there would the same independence of supervisors in the candidate countries as we have ourselves. He is right to say that independent supervision in all candidate countries is of great importance. Furthermore, we have been examining the systems and the organisations of the candidate countries with the supervisors of all Member States over the past four years with precisely that aim in mind.
May I also say that quite considerable progress has been made by the candidate countries. We must realise they have come a long way and made quite considerable progress, even though not everything is as it should be in certain areas. Therefore we must monitor the developments in the candidate countries because there is an essential need for an independent regulatory and supervisory agency there. We have organised a programme of cooperation so that we can help candidate countries improve the quality of their supervision.
Mrs Villiers devoted much of her time to opposing the decision to steer the developments in the direction of having a single European supervisor. I have already spoken about that issue and, as far as the Commission is concerned, it will defer to Parliament and it can take a decision. The Commission itself would leave this matter somewhat in abeyance.
Mr Radwan spoke about CESAR and asked how CESAR was working. To this I would like to say that CESAR is a new organisation which needs time to develop itself and to find a proper way of acting. As far as I know CESAR has already accomplished remarkable things in the short time it has been in existence. I have indeed heard some criticism and complaints about CESAR – I stress the word 'some' – which I have drawn attention to. The complaints basically refer to its lack of transparency and consultation. I have made those points and I remain convinced that CESAR will become a very useful committee which we can all make use of. This is also why we have the interinstitutional monitoring group. Mrs Randzio-Plath, myself and others have decided to establish this interinstitutional monitoring group so that complaints, such as those mentioned by Mr Radwan, can be dealt with in a proper manner.
Mr Medina Ortega has made reference to certain scandals in the country which he knows best. He has said that only democratically elected representatives should have the possibility of calling back implementing measures. This is the same argument which has been made by others and, as I have said, I can only agree with him.
Then I would like to congratulate Mrs Kauppi on her use of language – the expression 'mumbo jumbo' is not often used in Parliament but it is very colourful and it explains precisely what she means. That is always a good thing, after all, what would we do if there were no clarity in what we said? She wants the call-back rights for Parliament which we discussed earlier. She also says that there must be a political will in Council. Let us not be distracted by 'mumbo jumbo' is what she has said. I must refer Mrs Kauppi to the President of Council, Minister Pedersen, present here tonight.
She also says there should be a more active transatlantic dialogue and I can assure her that dialogue exists and is active. In particular, the Director General for Competition, Mr Alex Schaub, has just come back from Washington today where he has these discussions on Capitol Hill in Congress about the so-called Sarbanes-Oxley Act which indeed presents a lot of problems to European auditing companies and other companies quoted on US stock exchanges. I myself will be visiting Washington in a few weeks' time and I intend to discuss these matters with the chairman or acting chairman of the securities exchange commission. This would be a continuation of the discussion we had with Mr Harvey Pitt in Brussels about a month ago. That discussion was very fruitful. Unfortunately, as we all know, he has now resigned and we shall have to pick up the thread where we left it when he visited Brussels.
However, I can assure Mrs Kauppi that this dialogue is essential because we want to achieve this great big transatlantic integrated market for financial services. We cannot do without it, but those relations should be on the basis of reciprocity and mutual recognition. I can assure all Members of Parliament that it is a top priority in my view to join with the United States in a programme of convergence. That is what I would like to say to Members of Parliament who have spoken tonight.
Lastly, Mr Katiforis has enjoined the Commission to be cautious. I am certainly cautious in all I do. So I would like to reassure Mr Katiforis in this regard.
Having made these two points, perhaps I may go into further detail as to what the Members of Parliament have said. Firstly Mrs van den Burg said that she wants a practical approach – which is always a good thing – and I would certainly agree with her on that. She wants more cooperation and more supervision, but as part of a steady process and not all at once. Again I agree with her.
She supported the Commission, saying that it ought to be strong, and I would not disagree with that statement. Indeed, a strong Commission is necessary in order to preserve the institutional balance. She then mentioned the intriguing subject of the enabling clause, and whether there should not be an enabling clause in the Convention or IGC.
From the debate this afternoon I notice that there is a difference of opinion on that subject. Mrs Villiers is very much against. Mrs Kauppi is very much in favour and Mr Radwan, like Mrs Villiers, is also against, so the score is two against two – at least in this debate. We should follow Mrs van den Burg's careful approach because the present Treaty already contains points which may be used by the ECB to do a lot of important work in this area. These concern the interface between macroeconomic developments and microeconomic solutions and you will find the text in Article 105(6) of the EU Treaty. There is no obstacle, at least on the part of the ECB, to it doing this work. The whole subject will have to be thoroughly considered in the years to come and the Lamfalussy procedure is essential for that particular point.
In parallel to that discussion, the supervisors must cooperate more actively than at present.
As for myself, I remain somewhat sceptical about that enabling clause. It does not commit you to anything. However, let us wait and see how these things develop. I am very much aware of the various sensibilities of supervisors in this area, so let us remember the good old British saying: that fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
I then come to Mr Karas, who unfortunately has had to leave. He calls the Lamfalussy procedure the Lamfalussy-von Wogau process. I shall allow him to attach the name of a member of his party to this process, although I would rather call it the Lamfalussy-Randzio-Plath process. However, that is a detail and I do not wish to be controversial. He said that it is a temporary solution. Mr Huhne also mentioned this, referring to the 'sunset clause' and so on. I agree. It will come under discussion again in the 2004 IGC. However, let us use the time between now and then to clarify our thoughts and to agree as far as possible on the best way forward.
Mrs Randzio-Plath said that it is too early. That is an argument that she has used before. Let me repeat what I said earlier. It seems to me that we should start relatively soon to prepare for the decisions ahead. New committees and new structures will need to be set up. New legal acts will be required and all that takes time. As I have already said, it will also shape the type of directives which we aim to bring forward. We must also take into account the need to advance so that we have efficient decision-making structures before enlargement.
Mrs Randzio-Plath repeated the same arguments that other Members of Parliament have used, i.e. there must be equality between the Council and Parliament and the change to Article 202. I agree with her."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples