El Presidente. De conformidad con el orden del da, se procede
al debate del informe (A5-0203/2003) del Sr. Perry , en nombre de la Comisin
de Peticiones, sobre la peticin admitida a trmite sobre las peticiones
relativas a Lloyd's (peticiones 1273/1997, 71/1999, 207/2000, 318/2000,
709/2000 y 127/2002)
Perry, Roy (PPE-DE), rapporteur . Mr President, in 1997, an English lady, who is
so fearful that she still has to remain known as Madame X, submitted a petition
to this Parliament. She simply questioned whether the British Government was
properly regulating Lloyds of London in accordance with EU Insurance Directive
73/239. The same question or allegation has subsequently been made in other
petitions, some signed by hundreds of Names and several on behalf of thousands.
Since being appointed rapporteur I have
come to know Madame X and she has told me her story. She recognised that by
investing with Lloyds and becoming a 'Name' - I should explain, for the
non-English listeners, it means a passive external investor whose affairs were
managed by Lloyd's as approved agents - she recognised that she was exposing
herself to unlimited liability.
But she told me that she only took on that risk because she believed Lloyds
was regulated in accordance with British and European rules.
Earlier this year Sir Nigel Sheinwald,
the United Kingdom Permanent Representative to the EU, sent a strongly-worded
letter to Mr Gemelli, Chairman of the Committee on Petitions, effectively
seeking to block this Parliaments right to get to the facts. I am pleased that
our own legal services - who say Parliament must be very wary of attempts from
representatives of other institutions to limit our powers - have confirmed that
there is nothing in the rules to stop us having a parliamentary inquiry, so
long as the terms of reference differ from any question before the courts in a
Member State.
Commissioner Bolkestein will speak for
himself, but what he has said to the Petitions Committee, and his actions,
clearly indicate that he has concerns about the regulation of Lloyd's. He sent
long questionnaires and received responses. Unfortunately, those letters and
responses have never been made public or made available to the Petitions
Committee or Parliament.
The key question that the petitioners
pose is: do Lloyds have the reserves to cover their liabilities, as Directive
73/239 requires? To answer that requires an audited statement of the reserves
and an authoritative estimate of the liabilities. Perhaps the Commissioner can
give us the figures - in particular with reference to the old liabilities at
Lloyd's that they sought to separate in the scheme known as Equitas.
The petitioners are not questioning
this Parliament about the present regime, which the Commissioner now thinks may
be satisfactory. They have asked us about the period from 1978, when the
Directive should have taken effect, to 2000, when they submitted their
petitions or, in Madame X's case, 1997. Was the Directive being applied then?
The Commission so far is seeking to remain silent about that period, a period
when the assets of the petitioners were being seized and some were being made
bankrupt, when policy-holders were at risk if the reserves were not there and
when other insurance undertakings across Europe were having to comply with the
Directive, a period when the English courts in various rulings said that
Lloyds did not have a system in place for making proper reserves. In 2000 Mr
Justice Cresswell said: 'The catalogue of failings and incompetence in the
1980s by underwriters, managing agents, members' agents, and others is
staggering (and brought disgrace on one of the Citys great markets)'.
I do not ask the Commissioner to take
action against the British Government for any failings in that period. He has
to bring a Member State into compliance. I simply ask for an authoritative
answer - yes or no. Between 1978 and 2000 was the British
Government correctly applying EU Insurance Directive 73/239? I respect the
Commissioner, I know him to be an honest man. I hope that we will be able to
get a straight answer.
There has been great pressure applied
by the British Government, but this must not be a case where a big country is
let off the hook. If the Commission can assure us and explain how the
regulation respected the Directive, that is an answer we can give to the petitioners.
However, if the Commission believes that, prior to the adoption of the
Financial Services Act, the British Government was not in compliance, it must
say so. We need to get to the truth of what happened and why thousands were
ruined.
I hope the Commission will give formal
answers. There should be no need to have a committee of inquiry. That is why I
have tabled an amendment giving the Commission six weeks to give a full,
authoritative and written answer to this House. However, failing that,
Parliament must reserve its right to have the fullest inquiry into this
lamentable case.
Bolkestein, Commission. President, I should like to thank Parliament for this new
invitation to address it and to provide you with the latest report on the
progress of the Commissions investigations into this complex and very
sensitive file.
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 personal
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 FSMA (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 (that is to say the
First Non-life Assurance Directive, as amended) under investigation. 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 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.
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
always and 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.
Clearly, after a final decision, the
Commission will make documents available, subject to any remaining
confidentiality constraints.
Assuming a Commission decision (by the
College of Commissioners) is taken 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 1049/2001.
Lastly, I would like briefly to touch
upon an issue which, in the light of the extensive contacts which we have
enjoyed with Parliament, I would have hoped would not have been 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
histories 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, but 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.
Gemelli (PPE-DE). Signor Presidente, desidero anch'io ringraziare il
Commissario, al quale non ho nulla da chiedere.
Vorrei soltanto riportare il discorso
un attimo indietro a quando, parlando delle petizioni e del gigantismo a cui ci
porta la globalizzazione, ho fatto riferimento a un caso emblematico: il
cittadino rispetto al gigante. Vi una sproporzione enorme tra il cittadino e
il gigante. A questo punto il Parlamento deve chiedersi che cosa pu fare per
tutelare i diritti dei cittadini.
Questo un caso - che il collega Perry
ha ben puntualizzato richiamando una fattispecie specifica - che riguarda
tantissimi cittadini che sono andati in fallimento. Ci sono tantissimi processi
in corso negli Stati Uniti, qualcuno anche in Europa, molti in Gran Bretagna.
Come si pu non chiedersi quale possa essere lo sviluppo e la soluzione di
questo caso? Come si pu non chiedere a questo Parlamento, come possiamo noi
stessi non chiederci che cosa dobbiamo fare perch questo caso possa essere
risolto?
I Lloyds sono una grande istituzione,
hanno una credibilit mondiale inalterata, ma evidentemente in un momento
particolare successo qualcosa, c' stato un qualche errore, perch altrimenti
non ci sarebbe stato questo proliferare di casi segnalati dai cittadini. Allora
si chiede l'istituzione di una commissione di indagine o ci si oppone ad essa,
ma questo non un problema che si deve risolvere nel chiuso delle aule di
tribunale, anche perch noi non vogliamo fare nessun processo, anche perch noi
non siamo abilitati a fare processi, anche perch noi non vogliamo che ci siano
controparti. Vogliamo soltanto rispondere ad una domanda dei cittadini, perch
questo il nostro mandato: un mandato di rappresentanza, che dobbiamo svolgere
interamente rappresentando sia i cittadini sia le istituzioni come i Lloyds,
per cui io non intendo criminalizzare nessuno.
Voglio capire perch, invece, esiste il
caso. E questo, se la risposta della Commissione, quando arriver, non sar
esauriente, me lo potr consentire soltanto un'indagine che potremo svolgere
con grande serenit, per capire qual stato il nodo, il buco, la maglia entro
cui passato questo grande errore che ha creato tanti danni.
Cashman (PSE). Mr President, it is very easy to react on emotion but this
House should not react on emotion, it should react on facts. That is why I
cannot support this report. I believe it to be highly selective and deeply
flawed. It fails to give a balanced assessment. The quotes used in the report
are highly selective and outside of the context, and therefore fail to give a
fair summary of the legal situation.
There are errors of fact, for example
relating to the Lloyd's accounting system. Closed accounts do not, as is
suggested, come back to life. Rather, as with all insurance, claims are made
against a policy after it has ended - again errors of fact. The report states
that directives have not been implemented. This is an opinion. It has not been
proven. Also, the report does not detail the substantial efforts made by
Lloyd's to alleviate the Names' losses. But there were also problems within the
committee. I repeatedly pointed out that the way Mr Perry was trying to set up
a committee of inquiry was not the correct way, was against the Rules of
Procedure and, indeed, the Treaties.
Sir Nigel Sheinwald did not seek to
block an inquiry, but pointed out quite rightly, that any inquiry should be
within the Rules of Procedure and indeed our Treaties. Let me quote the
relevant section of his letter. He believes that 'they do not permit a committee
of inquiry to be established where the alleged facts are being examined before
a court and while the case is still subject to legal proceedings'. As we have
heard from the Commissioner, there is now a case before the Appeal Court of the
United Kingdom, and it is right that we should be very careful and considered
before we set up a committee of inquiry. Again, Mr Perry has used comments and
quotes from the Jaffrey case in the Court of Appeal selectively.
I could go on and on, but let me
reassure Mr Perry. The PSE Group will vote in favour of his amendments. I
believe his amendments actually tie up some of the problems that we have been
dealing with. Indeed I am pleased that at my suggestion the Sessional Services
have called for other changes and, in particular, the deletion of Mr Perry's
insistence in paragraph 5 that his explanatory statement should be incorporated
into the resolution.
These are just some concrete examples
of changes that had to be made to a deeply flawed report. I will finish on
this. If, in this Parliament, we raise expectations for citizens and
petitioners that we cannot meet, we do so at our peril. Mr Perry's process
throughout has been genuine and sincere, but I believe he is raising
expectations that cannot be met. He is demanding documents that he knows cannot
be given. I am the author of Regulation 1049/2001. He is making demands of the
Commission for an inquiry which he knows the Commission cannot make.
Finally, the PSE Group will support
this but, in all honesty I have to say to the House, with my hand on my heart,
I cannot support this report and therefore I will not.
Wallis (ELDR). Mr President, along with many British Members of this
House, I have received a large number of personal letters from constituents
like the petitioners in this case. I welcome Mr Perry's dogged work on behalf
of those petitioners, and confirm that my Group will support the report.
However, there is a wider issue at play
here, which affects the good functioning of Community law. I was a rapporteur for
the last two years on the reports on the implementation and monitoring of
Community law. As a Parliament we then called on the Commission to improve its
infringement procedures and its dealings with complainants, calling in
particular for correspondence passing between the Commission and the Member
States to be made available.
This is the area that any committee of
inquiry should, and can, examine: the Commission's carrying out of its
supervisory duty in implementing Community law. This need have nothing whatever
to do with the current English High Court proceedings. It is about getting an
answer for our citizens.
Any committee of inquiry must get to
grips with this central question about the efficiency of infringement
proceedings. It must be said that this history goes back a long way to 1997.
With the greatest respect to the Commissioner - and I have the utmost respect
for his work - to say that everything is in order now is not entirely
satisfactory. If the Commission cannot carry out its role as Guardian of the
Treaties, this is really very
serious and the whole legal framework of the Union can accordingly be brought
into disrepute and called into question. We have to provide answers for our
citizens.
Dhaene (Verts/ALE). Voorzitter, mijnheer de Commissaris, mijn fractie steunt
het verslag van Roy Perry. In de EU-verdragen wordt erkend dat het nodig kan
zijn een parlementair onderzoek uit te voeren naar de eigen Europese zaken. Het
is daarbij niet de bedoeling het werk van de Commissie in verband met de
controle op een correcte toepassingen van het EU-recht door de lidstaten in
twijfel te trekken. Soms echter wil de Commissie de regeringen van sommige
lidstaten niet op de tenen trappen.
Wat mij echter verontrust, is dat ik
soms hetzelfde gevoel heb over ons eigen Parlement, bijvoorbeeld in verband met
de Prestige. Waarom zouden wij afzien van ons recht om een niet correcte
toepassing van het EU-recht door autoriteiten en regering van lidstaten aan de
kaak te stellen?
Na lezing van het verslag over de
Lloyd's-verzoekschriften heb ik de indruk dat er in de eerste plaats nog zaken
instaan die om extra verduidelijking vragen. In de tweede komt het mij voor dat
noch de regering van het Verenigd Koninkrijk, noch de Europese Commissie hier
verder op wil ingaan, alhoewel u een opening hebt gemaakt. We zijn benieuwd. In
de derde plaats voelen sommige collega's er blijkbaar meer voor hun eigen
regeringen te beschermen dan zich verantwoordelijk op te stellen ten opzichte
van de burgers en te tonen dat de wet voor iedereen gelijk is.
Collins (UEN). Mr President, I would like to thank most sincerely our
rapporteur Mr Perry for his report on the Lloyd's Petitions which date back to
1997. The issues, arising from multi-billion-euro losses in the '80s and the
'90s, many related to asbestos, can only be dealt with satisfactorily through
the establishment of a committee of inquiry. This matter is not going to go
away. A resolution is clearly overdue and the question of compensation cannot be
side-stepped. At the heart of the issue is the failure to implement properly
the 1973 First Non-life Assurance Directive and subsequent relevant directives.
Many investors were bankrupted, some
committed suicide and we need to know why, who was at fault and why there was a
delay in the implementation of European Union law. The petitioners and
complainants invested in what they thought was a properly regulated market
according to UK and EU law. Would they have invested if they had been aware of
the undisclosed liabilities? We have to take seriously the claims that a proper
audit into the firms was not carried out. If it had been carried out, then the
extent of the potential losses might have been discovered. The huge losses and
the needless human suffering might have been avoided.
The Lloyds petitioners are not only
from the UK: they come from my country, Ireland, as well, and indeed also from
Denmark and Germany, not to mention investors who brought cases before the
courts in the United States. Still there is no resolution of the problem at
European Union level, still the Commission sits on the fence and speaks about
the complexity of the issue. Complex or not, the petitioners have a right to
know why European Union rules for the regulation of Lloyds were not properly
implemented. An in-depth inquiry is needed to answer all these questions; after
all we are dealing with investors who, if catastrophe strikes, have to pay and
pay to the point where they can lose their businesses and their homes.
Stockton (PPE-DE). Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for
his careful, accurate and detailed analysis of this case. While I am now
reasonably content with the outcome of Mr Perry's report, I must, in the
interests of balance, make some comments.
Mr Perry's explanatory statement does
not give a fair and balanced account of the circumstances surrounding the
underwriting losses of Lloyd's members in the 1980s. I would cite in particular
its highly selective use of material and its failure to reflect the full
findings of the UK Court of Appeal in the Jaffrey case, including its view that
it was only with the benefit of hindsight that reserves established by
syndicates for asbestos liabilities in the 1980s proved to be inadequate, given
the unanticipated way in which those liabilities developed.
Of course I have tremendous sympathy
for the Names who suffered these underwriting losses, among whom are a number
of my friends, including the godparents of one of my own children. Yet, since I
became involved in this case, I have been subjected to a torrent of abuse and
vituperation, including anonymous abusive telephone calls to my home accusing
me of being a paid agent of Lloyd's. Since 97% of the Lloyd's Names have
accepted the renewal plan of 1996 and they have been able to reduce their
liabilities by significant amounts, this issue has by and large been covered
fully.
As stated in all the advertisements:
you cannot guarantee that past profit is an indication of future gain.
The focus of Mr Perry's report and the
real allegation of the petitioners is, as I understand it, that the UK
Government failed to implement the terms of EU insurance law correctly in its
supervision of Lloyd's. The UK Government denies this allegation. The real
place to adjudicate, therefore, is in a court of law. That is exactly what is
happening, as there is now such a case before the English High Court.
These are complex legal issues.
Parliament should let the legal process run its course and allow the Court to
reach a proper decision.
Meanwhile, I encourage the Commission
to respond to those issues raised in this report and to reply as fully as
possible. While we need answers as soon as is reasonable, I would caution
against a rush to judgement.
In conclusion, I urge this House to
support Mr Perry's amended report and, until the due process has been
exhausted, go no further.
Κουκιάδης
(PSE). Κύριε
Πρόεδρε, ο κ. Perry
έκανε μια
εισήγηση και
μας αρουσίασε
ορισμένα
στοιχεία για
την υόθεση Lloyds. Ο
κ. Είτροος μας
έδωσε σήμερα
μια σειρά αό
διαφωτιστικές
εξηγήσεις ου,
ράγματι, είναι ολύτιμες.
Και ο κ. Cashman
αμφισβητεί τα
στοιχεία του κ.
Perry. Τι ροκύτει α
αυτό; Ότι το
θέμα μας αυτή
τη στιγμή δεν
είναι η ουσία
της υόθεσης,
ούτε είμαστε
δικαστήριο. Το
θέμα μας αυτή
τη στιγμή είναι
ένα μόνο: μετά
αό έντε χρόνια
αναφορών,
θέλουμε να
διατηρήσουμε
την αξιοιστία
της ειτροής μας
και συνεώς το
ρόβλημά μας
είναι εάν θα
έχουμε μια
οριστική
αάντηση κατά
όσον
εφαρμόστηκε η
οδηγία ή όχι.
Μόνο αυτό
είναι το θέμα
μας.
Και
δράττομαι
αυτής της
ευκαιρίας για
να γενικεύσω
το θέμα, γιατί
σήμερα είχαμε
τις εκθέσεις
του
Διαμεσολαβητή και
της Ειτροής
Αναφορών. Το
θέμα Lloyds ήρθε
στην Ειτροή
Αναφορών με
αναφορές
ολιτών.
Ενελάκη και ο
Διαμεσολαβητής,
όως είε και ο
Είτροος, στο
θέμα κατά όσον
η Ειτροή έκανε
καλά το έργο
της. Και, φυσικά,
είναι και θέμα
εφαρμογής
κοινοτικού
δικαίου.
Τι
ροκύτει αό
αυτό; Ότι τα δύο
δίδυμα
δικαιώματα, της
καταγγελίας
και της
αναφοράς είναι
αλληλένδετα.
Δεν ρέει λοιόν
η συζήτηση να
γίνει χωριστά.
Δεύτερο, με
αυτές τις δύο
εκθέσεις,
εμλέκεται και
το όλο θέμα της
σωστής
εφαρμογής του
κοινοτικού
δικαίου,
δηλαδή κατά
όσο και αυτή η
έκθεση θα ρέει
να συζητείται
αό κοινού
σήμερα.
Προτείνω
λοιόν στο
Κοινοβούλιο,
την Ειτροή και
τους
συναδέλφους να
δούμε το
ενδεχόμενο να
εξετάζονται
αυτές οι εκθέσεις
αό κοινού,
διότι
ουσιαστικά
είναι οι μόνες
εκθέσεις ου
αφορούν άμεσα
τον ευρωαίο
ολίτη. Εφόσον
λοιόν όλοι
ενδιαφερόμεθα
να
ενδυναμώσουμε τη
συμμετοχή του
ευρωαίου
ολίτη, θα έλεγα
να δώσουμε μια
έμφαση σ αυτή
τη συζήτηση
και θα έλεγα
μάλιστα να κηρυχθεί
η ημέρα της
συζήτησης στο
Κοινοβούλιο ως
ημέρα του
ευρωαίου
ολίτη. Έτσι, θα
είμαστε αξιόιστοι
και θα ούμε ότι
ράγματι
ενδιαφερόμαστε
για τα
δικαιώματά
του.
Τώρα,
αυτό ου ζητάμε
εμείς είναι μετά
αό έντε χρόνια,
να έχουμε
τουλάχιστον
μια σαφή
εικόνα για το
τι συμβαίνει.
Αυτό ου ζητάμε
λοιόν είναι σε
σύντομο
χρονικό
διάστημα να
αοκτήσουμε
αυτή τη σαφή
εικόνα διότι,
ράγματι, μορεί
να έχει δίκιο ο
κ. Cashman. Δεν ξέρουμε
όμως αυτή τη
στιγμή οιος
έχει δίκιο. Και
η ολιγωρία της
Ειτροής είναι
υαρκτή. Και
έτσι, θα θέσω το
γενικότερο
θέμα. Η Ειτροή
Αναφορών
καθυστερεί
ολλές φορές τα
τελικά της
ορίσματα
διότι έχουμε
μια χρονοβόρα
διαδικασία αό
την λευρά της
Ειτροής στα
θέματα των
αναφορών. Δεν
μορεί να
συντομευτεί
αυτό το
χρονικό διάστημα
ούτως ώστε και
εμείς να
είμαστε ιο
αξιόιστοι
αέναντι στους
ευρωαίους
ολίτες ου
έρχονται και
μας λένε ένα,
ενάμισι χρόνο
και δεν ήραμε
αάντηση; Να
λοιόν οια
είναι τα
γενικότερα
θέματα ου τίθενται
στη σημερινή
μας συζήτηση
και νομίζω
είναι μια
χρυσή ευκαιρία
να τα
αξιοοιήσουμε
για το συμφέρον,
βεβαίως, της
Ευρωαϊκής
Ένωσης, αλλά
και κυρίως να
δώσουμε στους
ευρωαίους
ολίτες να
κατανοήσουν
ότι είμαστε
κοντά τους.
Μαρίνος
(PPE-DE). Κύριε Πρόεδρε,
θα ήθελα να
υοστηρίξω τα
όσα ροτείνει η
έκθεση Perry, αφού
ροηγουμένως
σημειώσω ότι
ράγματι έδωσε
ολλές
νεότερες
ληροφορίες
και
διευκρινίσεις
ο Είτροος Bolkestein
για το θέμα
αυτό. Όμως,
αραμένει ρόβλημα,
το υογράμμισε
με ολύ σωστό
και εοικοδομητικό
τρόο ο
συνάδελφος κ.
Κουκιάδης, ότι
δεν έχουμε
σαφείς
ααντήσεις εί
του εξής: η
βρετανική
κυβέρνηση
ροφανώς
μετέφερε ολύ
καθυστερημένα
στο εθνικό
δίκαιο την
οδηγία ου θα
έρεε να ισχύει
και στη Μεγάλη
Βρετανία για
το θέμα της
ιδιωτικής
ασφάλισης ου
θα κάλυτε και
την ερίτωση
των Lloyd's. Είσης
αμφισβητείται
αν τη μετέφερε
σωστά.
Ειρόσθετα,
ανακύτουν
ερωτήματα και
αν την
εφαρμόζει σωστά
και αν
διασφαλίζει με
συνέεια την
τήρησή της.
Ένας
μεγάλος
αριθμός των N ames ,
ου είναι ας ούμε
οι μέτοχοι είναι
ολύ ιδιότυο το
καθεστώς αό
έλλειψη ή
αοφυγή
ενημέρωσής
τους, αλλά και
εξ αιτίας
αραλείψεων
της βρετανικής
κυβέρνησης τις
οοίες
ροανέφερα,
υοχρεώθηκαν
σε καταβολή
αοζημιώσεων
με το σύνολο
της εριουσίας
τους για ασφαλιστικούς
κινδύνους ου
ισχυρίζονται
ότι αγνοούσαν.
Έτσι, ολλοί εξ
αυτών
καταστράφηκαν
ολοκληρωτικά,
μιλάμε για
τεράστιες
εριουσίες, και
κάοιοι εξ αυτών
οδηγήθηκαν αό
αελισία στην
αυτοκτονία.
Ανάμεσα στα
θύματα
εριλαμβάνονται
και
συματριώτες
μου, Έλληνες, οι
δραματικές
διαμαρτυρίες
των οοίων
συσσωρεύονται
εδώ και 23
χρόνια στο
γραφείο μου
και στην
Ειτροή
Αναφορών της
οοίας έχω
είσης την τιμή
να είμαι μέλος.
Η
ροσάθεια της
Ειτροής
Αναφορών να
διαφωτιστεί με
ληρότητα αό
την Ειτροή για
την τραγική
αυτή υόθεση,
αλλά και αό τη
βρετανική
κυβέρνηση έχουμε
κάνει και
συνεδρίαση
κεκλεισμένων
των θυρών δεν
αοδίδει,
τουλάχιστον
για τη δική μας
ενημέρωση. Δεν
δίδονται
εαρκείς
ααντήσεις στα
ερωτήματα ου
έχουμε κατ'
εανάληψη
διατυώσει, και
σ' αυτή τη σιωή
της η
βρετανική
κυβέρνηση, η
οοία αρνείται
να
γνωστοοιήσει
στην Ειτροή
Αναφορών τις ααντήσεις
της, έχει
συμαραστάτη
και την Ειτροή.
Έτσι δεν
μορούμε να
σχηματίσουμε
σαφή και λήρη
γνώση του ώς
ακριβώς έχει η
ερίλοκη αυτή
υόθεση και σε
όση έκταση
υάρχει ευθύνη
εξ αμελείας ή
και εκ δόλου
της βρετανικής
κυβέρνησης εξ
αιτίας καθυστερημένης,
ατελούς
μεταφοράς και
εσφαλμένης εφαρμογής
των κοινοτικών
οδηγιών ερί
ιδιωτικής ασφάλισης.
Οι
ροαναφερθείσες
εισημάνσεις,
ου ενδέχεται
να αδικούν τη
βρετανική
κυβέρνηση και
την Ευρωαϊκή
Ειτροή, δεν
φαίνεται να
συγκινούν
μέχρι σήμερα
ούτε τη μία
ούτε την άλλη.
Οι ευρωαίοι
ολίτες, κύριε
Πρόεδρε,
ιστεύουν ότι
θα έρεε να
ακούγεται η
φωνή τους και
είναι ευκαιρία
να ανακτηθεί η
αξιοιστία και
η εγκυρότητα
της Ευρωαϊκής
Ένωσης και του
θεσμού μας
έναντι των
ολιτών. Εάν
κινούμεθα μέσα
σε αδιαφάνεια
και χωρίς να
λαμβάνεται
υόψη η λευρά
των ολιτών,
τότε
αοτυγχάνουμε
ως ευρωαϊκός
θεσμός και σε
μια κρίσιμη
καμή της όλης
εξελίξεως.
Keler (PSE) . Herr Prsident, Herr Kommissar, verehrte Kolleginnen und
Kollegen! Ich danke allen drei Berichterstattern fr ihre gute Arbeit, aber
besonders Frau Laura Gonzlez lvarez, die uns im Ausschuss doch sehr fehlt.
Die Rolle des Petitionsausschusses ist es
herauszufinden, ob die nationalen und lokalen Behrden EU-Richtlinien richtig
umsetzen und anwenden. Wir mssen uns also dauernd mit nationalen Regierungen
oder Ministerien auseinandersetzen, und manchmal leitet auch die Europische
Kommission ein Vertragsverletzungsverfahren ein. Natrlich ist das nicht
vorteilhaft fr die betreffende Regierung, aber dafr sind wir da - und so
verstehe ich meine Arbeit im Ausschuss -, nmlich um unsere Brger zu schtzen.
Diese Lloyd's-Petitionen sind unangenehm, sowohl fr die ehemalige britische
Regierung als auch fr die heutige, aber auch fr die Europische Kommission,
die schon 1978 zgerte, Schritte gegen Grobritannien zu unternehmen. Der
Austausch zwischen der EU-Kommission und der britischen Regierung zum Thema
Lloyd's war von vielen Merkwrdigkeiten umgeben.
Aber was ist nun der so genannte
Lloyd's-Skandal? Lloyd's hatte Names rekrutiert, ohne diese Menschen darauf aufmerksam zu
machen, dass sie fr gigantische Versicherungsverluste aufkommen mussten,
vornehmlich durch Urteile aus den USA zu Asbestfllen. Das Lloyd's-Management
hat dann diese Verluste auf die Names abgewlzt. Viele haben damit ihr Vermgen verloren und
manche ihre einzige Altersversorgung. Nicht nur Briten, auch Belgier und
Deutsche. Einige haben sich sogar das Leben genommen. Nun knnte man kalt
sagen: "Nun, ihr habt Pech gehabt!" Aber nein, diese Leute haben
darauf vertraut, dass der Versicherungsmarkt reguliert ist und britisches und
EU-Recht respektiert wrde.
Nun stand ich zwischen zwei hochgeschtzten
britischen Kollegen, zwischen Roy Perry und Michael Cashman. Ich freue mich
sehr, dass nun ein Kompromiss gefunden wurde, aber ich bedauere es auch sehr,
dass dieser Bericht so viele politische Wogen geschlagen hat. Ich begre also
den Kompromiss und hoffe, dass wir damit den Petenten gerecht werden knnen und
hoffentlich dazu beitragen, dass sich solche Tragdien nicht wiederholen.
Bolkestein, Commission .
President, I shall try to be brief in my reply to Members of Parliament and
their questions.
Mrs Wallis has asked whether the
Commission is really the Guardian of the Treaties in this case. I would like to
reply to her and other Members that yes, we are, and that is the reason the
Commission has sent two letters of formal notice. It has not sent those letters
of formal notice for nothing, there were reasons for doing so. The UK
Government has reacted and now, as I have said earlier, the legislation is
brought into line with European law. It is the duty of the Commission to ensure
that this happens.
At the centre of this debate is the
question as to the role of the Commission. The role of the Commission, as I
have said time and again, is to see that present legislation is in line with
present European law. Let me give another example that also concerns the United
Kingdom. The United Kingdom has instructed its customs authorities to impound
quantities of alcohol and cigarettes in excess of what it thinks is reasonable
for personal consumption. The Commission has judged that these actions are disproportionate
to the purpose sought. Therefore the Commission has sent two letters of formal
notice, the process of negotiation and discussion with the UK authorities has
started, the UK authorities have brought their instructions into line with what
the Commission thinks ought to be done. However, the people who have had their
cars impounded have still not received any redress for the loss that they have
suffered.
Mr Perry and Mrs Wallis might well say
that the Commission should do something about it, see to it that those who have
had their cars impounded get compensation for their loss. My reply to them
would be the same as my reply in this case - that is not the job of the
Commission. Therefore the matter of compensation for previous losses must be left
to the national judicial authorities and, as has been remarked this morning,
there is now a lawsuit which has been brought before the High Court in London.
Therefore, with all the sympathy I must
have for people who have undergone these tragic occurrences, some of whom have
taken their own lives, I cannot go further than the law allows me to do.
Therefore it would not be true, as Mr Collins has said, that the Commission is
sitting on the fence. The Commission is not sitting on the fence, but it cannot
go beyond the bounds of what it is allowed to do.
That is what I would like to say. It is
not a question of David versus Goliath, as Mr Gemelli said, it is a matter of
what are the legal bounds of the Commission. The Ombudsman has dealt with the
matter of transparency and I have nothing more to add, except to say that the
matter of the inquiry is something I must leave up to Parliament. It is not for
me to judge whether the circumstances are present for such a committee, nor
whether the process hitherto has been correct. That I must leave in the hands
of Parliament: I will respect its outcome.
Perry, Roy (PPE-DE). Mr President, in his speech Mr Cashman made various quite
serious allegations. I concede that he has been consistent throughout in
seeking to block this report by every means and at every turn. I would simply
ask you to confirm that the action of the House in receiving this report is
fully in accord with the Rules of Procedure and that it is acceptable.
As regards paragraph 5 concerning the
accompanying explanatory statement, I am more than ready to make an oral
amendment to my report that the explanatory statement, in accord with our usual
practice, should not be included with the report. It is the report that is
important, but I would welcome your confirmation on that point.