Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-25-Speech-4-032"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030925.4.4-032"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I should like to thank you for this new invitation to address the House and to provide you with the latest report on the progress of the Commission’s investigations into this complex and very sensitive file.
Clearly, after a final decision, the Commission will make documents available, subject to any remaining confidentiality constraints.
Assuming a decision is taken by the College of Commissioners to close the case, the Commission will, in response to a formal request from Parliament, provide file access in accordance with the Framework Agreement subject to the respect of any confidentiality requirements imposed by the UK on documents which it has prepared. Furthermore, general public access to the file will be granted in accordance with the terms of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
Lastly, I would like briefly to touch upon an issue which, in the light of the extensive contacts we have enjoyed with Parliament, I had hoped would not be necessary. There are those who imply that, in the conduct of its enquiries, the Commission has exposed itself to accusations of maladministration and unnecessary delay. Let me be clear. Despite the complexity and sensitivity of the case and the considerable volume of correspondence received, the Commission has always sought to carry out its investigations as rapidly as possible, consistent with due process and thorough investigation, while subject to real constraints on resources. Petition 318/2000 runs to seven lever-arch A4 files. The Commission has carefully examined complaints and entered into substantial and sustained communication with complainants. Two press releases were issued and sent to all complainants and petitioners.
Furthermore, as I have just said, in accordance with the procedural safeguards for complainants, the Commission services have written to all complainants informing them of the results of the Commission's preliminary analysis and seeking their comments. Finally, an allegation of Commission maladministration has recently been examined by Mr Diamandouros, the European Ombudsman, and rejected by him. In particular, may I respectfully remind Parliament that Mr. Diamandouros specifically considered allegations of Commission maladministration regarding access to files and examination of the current regulatory regime, as opposed to the past, pre-FSMA 2000 regime. In both cases Mr Diamandouros found no maladministration.
I have spoken somewhat longer than I would have preferred but, given the importance of the case and the tragic stories that surround it, I wanted to be crystal clear in my statement to this Parliament.
In closing, let me again assure you, President, of the willingness of the Commission to cooperate fully with Parliament. This cooperation is, however, always subject to the legal constraints imposed on the Commission. As on previous occasions, I would be very happy to try and answer any further questions you might have.
As many Members of Parliament will know, this is in fact the fourth time that I personally have had the opportunity to discuss the case with Members of Parliament, and in particular with Members of the Petitions Committee. In addition to my own appearances before Parliament, we have also kept Parliament fully informed of developments by regular, written updates supplemented by oral presentations made by my staff at meetings of the Petitions Committee. Furthermore, I have also responded to an extensive postbag from Members on the subject. In this way the Commission has sought to keep Parliament fully informed to the greatest extent procedurally possible.
Given these extensive antecedents, I do not propose to go over the general background to this case. Rather, I would propose to focus on developments since I last spoke to this Parliament, which was at the Petitions Committee hearing on 22 January 2003.
By letter dated 24 March 2003, the Commission received a comprehensive reply from the UK authorities to the supplementary letter of formal notice sent by the Commission on 23 January 2003 which expressed some residual concerns about the new regulatory regime for Lloyd's established under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. After analysis of this reply, and further written and oral clarifications provided by the UK authorities, the Commission services consider that the new arrangements are compatible with the requirements of Directive 73/239/EEC – that is to say the First Non-life Assurance Directive, as amended. These requirements related primarily to the verification of solvency, the auditing arrangements, the adequacy of the administrative and accounting procedures and the internal control mechanisms.
In order to respect the procedural rights of complainants, in the second half of July 2003 my services wrote to all complainants, as well as to petitioners who had not lodged a formal complaint, explaining the results of this preliminary analysis and indicating the intention of the services to propose that the Commission should close the case. My services are now completing their analysis of the responses received from complainants before preparing a proposal for a final decision on the case by the College of Commissioners. In accordance with Parliament's wish, we shall be seeking to take this decision as quickly as possible, before the end of October 2003.
Most of the comments received related to the past situation, before the introduction of the FSMA 2000. As I have already explained to this Parliament and to complainants, the objective of infringement proceedings under Community law is to ensure or restore the compatibility of national law with Community law, not to rule on the past compatibility or incompatibility of the prior regime. That is a task – I say this in particular to Mr Perry – for national courts to address. From the beginning of our investigations into this complex and sensitive file, we have repeatedly made it clear to complainants that any action for damages must be undertaken before national courts. Indeed, I understand that, currently, such an action has been instigated by a group of complainants before UK courts.
Therefore, in accordance with the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice, the task of the Commission is to examine the compatibility of the new regime with the requirements of the insurance directives.
During our investigations, access to the file has been a hotly-debated subject. From my opening comments I trust Members will recognise that, throughout the conduct of its enquiries, the Commission has always sought to keep Parliament fully informed to the greatest extent possible.
As the report by the Petitions Committee recognises, the Commission is bound by point 1.5 of Annex III to the Framework Agreement between Parliament and the Commission. This provides that information on infringement procedures remains confidential until a final Commission decision is made."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples