Mr President, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs showed its appreciation of the report of the Committee of Wise Men by adopting a unanimous resolution. It is in the interests of the European Union, in the interests of the three institutions, to do something about the fragmentation of the European financial markets and find solutions which take account of the interests of industry, investors and end-users and which, in this age of globalisation, help to stabilise the financial markets. We therefore feel that quicker, more efficient legislation needs to be passed in this area. All three institutions have a contribution to make here. The Wise Men’s report does not clarify how the players and institutions should interact at the various levels and therefore calls for dialogue between the European institutions, hence our questions to the Commission and the Council, because the European Parliament is not sure how the institutional balance can be guaranteed in the European Union within this sort of proposal. We have formulated our proposals on this basis and we expect replies from the Council and the Commission. Indeed, unlike in most Member States or the USA, the Treaty makes no provision for secondary legislation, not least because there is no executive body at Community level to which such powers can be delegated. And, unlike national parliaments, the European Parliament has no right of initiative. The comitology procedure proposed by the Council and in the report will certainly need to be supplemented, in order to establish a balance between the institutions, if there is to be a fast-track procedure. This means that, if a clear correlation between political and technical matters is created within framework legislation, technical implementing powers and powers to adapt to technological progress will need to be decided as quickly as possible and backed up by giving the European Parliament a clear callback right if anyone acts ultra vires or fails to abide by the transparency rule, for example, during the consultation process. Finally, the Lamfalussy report, like the European Parliament, attaches great importance to an absolutely transparent procedure in precisely this legislative area. I should like to say that, with good will on the part of the Council and the Commission, this callback right could be included by simply amending the 1999 comitology decision to include the eventuality that, if the European Parliament feels that the Securities Committee has acted ultra vires, this must be rectified either by the Commission’s submitting a new proposal or by applying the normal codecision procedure in this area. The European Parliament is calling quite unequivocally for an interinstitutional agreement here which clarifies the fact that the basic principles and the clear distinction between political and technical implementing measures are regulated in the laws on a case-by-case basis. We are prepared to go along with anything which speeds things up – we can also apply the fast track procedure to the parliamentary codecision procedure – and to guarantee that there is total transparency. But I call on the Council and the Commission to give us a clear answer here today as to what plans they have for a callback right for the European Parliament or equivalent procedure because this is crucial to our democratic responsibility in the European Union.

Political group: PSE