Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-07-03-Speech-1-072"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060703.14.1-072"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The issues brought up by the debate we have before us are many, important and sensitive. For this reason, I choose to begin by immediately giving attention to the main emphasis of this report, on which a wide convergence has significantly been reached in the Committee for Economic and Monetary Affairs. We have four messages to put across.
First of all, we acknowledge the consolidation process in the field of financial services as one which has so far had positive economic effects. Secondly, it is the justly regulated, transparent market, free of unjustified obstacles, which decides what the level of consolidation should be. Thirdly, our role as legislators is to ensure that this process, particularly the acquisition and the merging of banks, leads to greater competition and not to the creation of new monopolies. Fourthly, competition should mean a true and wider choice among quality products and services, reaching the broadest possible spread of consumers.
In my opinion, consumers should be the ones who benefit from the possible advantages of this process. I do care that financial institutions gain from consolidation, but I am much more interested in the greatest benefits going to the consumer, in the form of wider choice, better products, more efficient services and more competitive prices. By consumers, we mainly understand individuals and families, especially those who are more vulnerable. However, to these we should add companies, above all small and medium-sized companies which are the core of our economy, and which should be given the service they deserve.
At this point, those who share my social ideal may find themselves confused. Yes, it is good that consumers have more benefits thanks to consolidation, but should it be the workers of financial organisations who pay the price? We cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend that this problem does not exist. News about the acquisition and merging of companies often does not excite workers with the new prospects that this may entail for them. On the contrary, we cause them to worry that the money-saving moves being mentioned, and those yet to be mentioned, take place at the expense of their working conditions, or even worse, at the expense of their job. Is there no solution at all? I have no doubt that serious institutions look to other methods of efficiency before considering turning towards the workers, but there are some who do not set the example of social responsibility towards the community.
The point we surely need to support is the one which workers' representatives from around Europe made with me: that is, the need for them to be informed and involved in the process as early as possible. There is another point related to this. Countries' economies, especially those in transition or in the process of developing, are not simply a cow which is there to be milked. Corporations have the duty to truly invest in these countries, with the creation of new and better work opportunities which provide access to a higher quality of service. The new environment being formed in the field of financial services will push vital questions onto us as legislators, among them the issue of supervision.
Many of the national authorities are doing an excellent job, but the issue is much bigger than this. Given the shape that the market is taking, is the field of supervision still good enough to protect delicate interests, such as those of the economy and of consumers? There are many different answers to this question, even among ourselves. Nevertheless, we need to begin discussing them, and not leave them on the shelf. If we do not begin to deal with these questions, the danger will be that in the not-so-distant future, when a crisis may arise, we will not have the tools to face it, whatever these tools may be. It is also for this reason that the main recommendation of the report is to ask for a committee of independent experts, so that in a period of six months from when the mandate begins, it provides us alternative proposals which we can consider before taking decisions in this field.
It would be remiss of me not to end my intervention by thanking all those who helped in the drafting of this report. Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude to my colleagues in the Socialist Group in the European Parliament and the representatives of the other groups for the proactive way in which we worked. I would also like to thank Commissioner Charlie McCreevy and his Cabinet for always being ready to discuss. I also thank those who took the time to put forward their opinions on the report, the secretariat of the Socialist Group, and the secretariat of the Committee for Economic and Monetary Affairs.
Mr President, Commissioner, fellow colleagues, I believe that we have a concrete, balanced and positive report, which can send a strong signal that the European Parliament has a clear vision for this sector, which is of such importance to our economies and to our citizens."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples