Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-24-Speech-2-371"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090324.30.2-371"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, allow me first of all to thank you for once again giving us the opportunity to pursue the constructive dialogue that has been established between the European Investment Bank and Parliament for some years now.
Might we go further? I would remind you that the Court of Auditors already monitors all the EIB’s activities whenever these involve the use of funds from the European budget. Should we go further towards a formal system of banking supervision? That is what Mrs Stauner was hoping for. Mr Bullmann pointed out that things were perhaps not that simple. In any event, it is worth discussing. All I can do today is confirm that the EIB is fully open to being subjected to formal banking supervision, if it is considered worthwhile.
For the moment, we have organised, alongside the Financial Sector Supervisory Commission in Luxembourg, a form of informal supervision.
In answer to Mr Audy, I would say that the action that he requested last year from the Committee of European Banking Supervisors (CEBS) has indeed been carried out. We have therefore questioned the CEBS, but it informed us that it itself did not have any authority in the area and that it could not even act in an advisory role. We are therefore still in the hands of those who would like to take an initiative in this regard. I say again that we are open to such initiatives.
A word in conclusion on cooperation between our two institutions. Mr Mirow has already indicated that it was developing well, particularly in the Western Balkans, and with our neighbours in the East, most recently in Turkey. All I want to say, in order to keep to my speaking time, is that we are in full agreement with the recommendations featured in Mr Mitchell’s report. We think that it would be in the common interest of both our institutions, and of our borrowers too, for us to move towards a more rational and functional division of labour.
A word in conclusion on Mr Seppänen’s report. I would like to say how much we have appreciated Mr Seppänen’s constructive approach. He proposes a temporary solution, which allows the EIB to continue with its activities, but which fixes a date for an in-depth discussion of the role that the EIB should play outside the European Union. I am in no doubt that this is a debate on which we will spend some time and that, I believe, has come at just the right moment.
I am particularly happy to have the opportunity to discuss the two reports being presented to us today, because they are two reports – that of Mr Mitchell and that of Mr Seppänen – that are interesting and that raise entirely relevant issues. I hope that we will have the opportunity to return to these issues later.
Today, of course, we are facing a crisis on an exceptional scale – probably the most serious crisis since the end of the Second World War – and it is therefore quite normal in this context for Member States to call on our two institutions to try to make a contribution to the European Union’s response to this crisis. You know that in this context the Member States, which are our shareholders, have asked the EIB to substantially increase the volume of its lending in 2009, an increase of some 30% compared to the initial forecasts, and to channel this additional effort essentially into three areas: firstly, loans to banks for small and medium-sized enterprises; secondly, energy, and in particular the fight against climate change; and finally, a special effort for those countries that are hardest hit by the crisis.
What point have we reached today? I will give you the statistics covering the last three months of 2008 – in other words, starting from the time at which the first appeals were made to the EIB – and the first two months of 2009. During those five months we lent more than EUR 31 billion, which represents a 38% increase compared with the same period of late-2007/early-2008. In the first area, as regards loans for small and medium-sized enterprises, EUR 5.6 billion in loans were issued in this short period. Several of you have stressed the importance of aiding small and medium-sized enterprises in the current climate. In fact, we are making a very special effort in this area, and I can already tell you that the objective that we were set of releasing EUR 15 billion of these loans during the years 2008 and 2009 will be exceeded.
As regards the second objective, energy and the fight against climate change, here too we have made a particular effort, and it is in this context that financing for the automotive industry must be placed. We must be clear: in this sector our funding is going towards projects involving research, development and production of eco-friendly cars, that is, cars that will meet the Union’s new standards regarding the reduction of CO
emissions.
Finally, regarding the third area: aid for countries that have been hardest hit by the crisis: during this same five-month period we issued EUR 910 million in loans in Hungary, EUR 600 million in Latvia, EUR 1 billion in Romania and EUR 1.1 billion in Lithuania.
I therefore think that I can say that we have been doing our best to respond to the Member States’ appeal and to implement the agreed measures without delay. Mr Mirow himself has already alluded to the joint International Finance Corporation-European Bank for Reconstruction and Development action plan regarding aid for the banking sector in Central and Eastern Europe.
Naturally, this increase in the volume of our loans is only possible thanks to the increase in capital on which our shareholders have decided – it will not cost the Member States anything. However, it was decided that we needed our shareholders’ authorisation to turn our reserves into capital.
Several of you have asked questions about monitoring and supervision of the EIB, and I personally think that the question is totally legitimate. When a financial institution grows in such a way, it is normal for there to be concerns about how it is monitored. There is what is already in place, which is not insignificant: there is a certain amount of internal monitoring and, above all, there is external monitoring by an independent audit committee that reports directly to our governors. Moreover, the Treaty of Lisbon makes provision for strengthening this audit committee with the addition of people who have proven experience of banking supervision."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples