Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-16-Speech-4-210"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001116.12.4-210"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first let me make an observation regarding my group. At the actual vote in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, we did not have a very large majority. At least, the majority of my group voted against; and after all we did ensure that the report was not adopted during the last plenary part-session, but postponed until today. But let me say quite emphatically, that has nothing to do with the actual content of the report, but only with the fact which Mr von Wogau has just touched on, namely that we were worried that if we tied our hands in regard to the further procedure, Parliament would be renouncing its rights. Obviously we cannot accept that.
In the committee itself, there was consensus on the issue as such. And the rapporteur really tried, made a real effort to bring about a consensus. We want a consensus on this question. And we would be well advised to reach a very broad consensus on it here in Parliament.
The forthcoming changes to own funds rules for credit institutions and investment firms will have a far-reaching impact on the banking sector and beyond. These provisions very much influence the practices of credit institutions in granting loans. When we see how very heavily our European economy, and especially our small and medium-sized businesses, depend on loan financing, we soon realise that this is a very large-scale economic project. The very intensive debate on external rating made that abundantly clear.
At international level, the proposal from the Basel committee to classify risks mainly on the basis of the results of ratings by external institutions would lead to considerable distortions of competition. It would create especially serious competitive disadvantages for medium-sized businesses. To prevent such distortions, it is therefore most important for the institutions to have a simple, alternative means at their disposal for identifying their own funds requirements, in fact one based on the use of internal ratings.
It should be regarded as a success that the European position, as proposed from the outset by the Commission in its consultation paper, prevailed in Basel, so that the inclusion of internal rating procedures is now at the centre of the debate.
Since as things stand at present, it seems that both the Basel Committee and we ourselves have accepted internal ratings in principle, our primary task now is to formulate these procedures in such a way that on principle all credit institutions within the European Union can introduce internal ratings across the board. That is the only way to create equal conditions of competition. However, that also means that these institutions must be given enough time to prepare for the new rules. The most recent information seems to suggest that the new regulation, first planned to enter into force on 1 January 2003, will be postponed until 2004. That would give the institutions more time to implement the provisions.
So we simply have to ensure – and here I entirely agree with Mr von Wogau – that we work as closely in tandem as possible. In particular, we must ensure that there are no major differences between Basel and ourselves in relation to timescales. Otherwise the institutions concerned would just face unreasonable burdens, additional costs or competitive disadvantages. But one thing must also be made clear. Parliament cannot and will not give up its rights of codecision. So that means that if we manage to reach a decision at first reading, jointly with the Council and the moderation of the Commission, we will be happy to do so, but we will not give up our right to the codecision procedure from the outset. It is up to the Council. It is the Council that has always delayed legislative procedures in the past. It must get its act together and ensure that we can proceed rapidly. Parliament has never been responsible for the failure of such procedures. Nor would it be responsible for failure in this case. So, ladies and gentlemen of the Council, do get on with it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples