Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-14-Speech-2-255"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030114.7.2-255"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Andria, ladies and gentlemen, I knew why I had been moved down the list of speakers when I realised that I would have something to say in response to Mrs Lulling. Both in my personal capacity and as our group's co-ordinator, I repudiate any and every personal attack upon the rapporteur. It is a matter of political good form that opposing views are to be accepted as such and that one engages with them without simply dismissing them as nonsense.
The report presented by Mr Andria has been passed, by a clear majority, by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. It is not his report alone, but a report to plenary by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, and Members who have failed to win their case in committee are entitled to use the tabling of amendments as a means of keeping discussion going and making differences of opinion clear. This is all the more the case – and, in my view, right and proper – when we are engaged in an intermediate consultation, that is to say in the midst of the opinion-forming process. Many interventions, as well as what has been said here today, show us that opinions have not yet taken their final form – it is not that the report is not good enough, but that the subject-matter is too important. The creation of an integrated financial market is not alone in still facing too many obstacles, hindrances and barriers, and the costs involved are still excessive. Historically speaking, we know that the settlement systems within the European Union have developed along different lines. This means that integration is something to be advocated if we really want an integrated financial market, but I would not venture to say today whether vertical or horizontal integration is to be preferred, in other words, whether the amalgamation of different settlement systems is in itself something to be favoured or repudiated, or, indeed, whether it is inimical to competition.
Yes, we have excessive costs. Reference has been made to reports that make it clear that barriers are among the causes of this. A study carried out jointly by the German stock exchange and
has clearly shown that overall transaction costs resulting from barriers amount to some EUR 4.3 billion. We all want a level playing field. We all want improved access, and many of us believe that the structures of power mean that regulatory intervention is contrary to functional approaches to regulation.
Criticism of the report has focussed on two aspects; one being the idea of a government body for ‘core’ settlement services, and hence of restricting the services of international central securities depositories to ‘core’ settlement services, and the other the idea of non-profit status, many being of the opinion that this would preclude competition. There is, moreover, the desire that all these services should be able to be performed by both banks and central securities depositories. Hence the amendments, and we hope that the debate has also demonstrated to the Commission the need for the various standpoints to be reconsidered. We await a proposal for a directive, which will make it possible to move this debate on to a more concrete phase."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Clearstream"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples