Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-12-16-Speech-2-528"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081216.46.2-528"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, although it was necessary to restore confidence, we know that the political decision made by the Finance Ministers to increase the deposit guarantee level has resulted in a number of technical difficulties and consequences.
This increase in the guarantee to EUR 50 000, and at a later date to EUR 100 000, must lead to a re-examination of the operability and feasibility of the systems introduced in the Member States. That is why I must pay homage to the rapporteur, Mr Ehler, who approached his work with an open mind. For my part, I will support the compromise reached by the rapporteur during the trialogue with the Council. I should, however, like to make three points.
The first one concerns the payout delay. The period of 20 days before deposits are refunded may seem too long to some people, but I would ask them to think about everything that needs to be done before this refund can take place. Barring bad faith, they will understand that a period of just a few days to collect and verify the information and then make the payment is quite simply unrealistic. Twenty days is in fact already very tight.
Mr President, unfortunately I know what I am talking about because Luxembourg has the sad privilege of having to apply the deposit guarantee scheme in the case of Kaupthing Bank. We can draw some lessons from this, which must be heeded, particularly if we want to make progress in the interests of savers. It is vital to distinguish between bankruptcy and suspension of payments of a credit institution. With a suspension of payments, a takeover of the bank may be envisaged. However, refunding deposits very quickly would have the effect of making this scenario impossible. As a result, the directive must make this distinction.
The second lesson is that, in most Member States, the deposit guarantee schemes need to be reworked due to the new requirements. We must therefore allow them time to act. In my view, the proposed periods are reasonable. However, Commissioner, between our 20 days and the 7 weeks that you are talking about, there is quite a gap.
Lastly, Mr President, while it is vital to restore confidence among savers, it would be a fatal mistake to impose unviable solutions. That is why I have pleaded for moderation. Excessive requirements would simply aggravate the situation. I have finished, Mr President, but it was important to review the issues and not to talk at a speed that our interpreters could not follow."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples