Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-21-Speech-4-011"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021121.1.4-011"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, let me first start with a word of welcome, also to Mr Maystadt. I should also like to thank the EIB for the fruitful cooperation which, in the tradition of the past three years, has developed as we have commented on your annual reports. I think that Parliament can be pleased with the way in which you have taken on board the suggestions from those previous reports, and I hope that this will also be the case with my report.
A final point concerns the recommendations tabled by the Committee on Budgetary Control and I shall leave Mr Sjöstedt to put the case for these. I have given almost all of them comprehensive coverage in my report.
In your introduction to your 2001 annual report, you described the EIB as a policy-driven public bank whose mission is to help achieve economic, social and, ultimately, political goals. I could not agree with you more. The EIB can play an important macro-economic role and underpin EU policy in key areas. The EIB is a public bank, accountable to the public for the policy it pursues. It is with these considerations in mind that I have written my report and I have emphasised a number of aspects in this respect. Today, I should like to single out five elements from my report.
They are: capital increase, pension funds, labour market policy and employment policy, EU enlargement and adequate supervision of EIB policy.
First of all, capital increase. In its annual meeting of 4 June, the Board of Governors decided to increase the capital by EUR 50 billion. Parliament welcomes this decision and believes that funding this capital increase from the bank itself is a wise decision. We condemn, however, the Board’s refusal to agree at this stage to a further increase in the next five years. Parliament also applauds the decision to increase the funding of some projects in the sectors hardest hit by the economic slow-down from 50% to 70% of the total project budget. I should also like to draw your attention to the facility which the EIB offered during the autumn floods in Central and Eastern Europe to bolster emergency programmes to as much as 100%. I think that this fits in well with the image of an active bank which supports the EU's goals. In that way, the EIB also becomes visible to the citizens.
I should next like to turn to the subject of pension funds. In my report, I enlarged upon the role of the bank as borrower on the capital markets. The EIB plays a major role in this area too, particularly on relatively new markets, such as in some accession countries. With its triple-A rating and long-term bonds in different currencies, the bank is a major protagonist and a very safe investment for pension funds, for example. A drawback is that EIB bonds are not always freely accessible. Government restrictions often apply precisely to investments made by pension funds and insurance companies. The EIB can play the role of icebreaker in order to promote long-term investments and, as a result, give investors more scope for riskier investments in their new economies. For example, the EIB could be an interesting partner for pension funds. This is why I tabled one more amendment before the plenary’s debate on my report, and I should like to invite the bank to play an active part. I should also like to hear Mr Maystadt's opinion on the matter.
My third point concerns labour market policy. The Amsterdam action programme has been more effective in drawing attention to projects in the social sectors. Since time immemorial, the majority of investments have been in the area of hard infrastructure. It is, however, also important to invest in social infrastructure. I would apply the two-pronged Lisbon objective, both economically and socially, to EIB policy. Like last year, Parliament calls on the EIB to assess the impact on employment of the projects and activities implemented and supported by the EIB and to enhance the internal and external expertise in this field within all the bank's different activities and directorates. I am interested what Mr Maystadt's intentions are in this area too.
With regard to enlargement, we discussed the first round of the EU's enlargement in Parliament on Tuesday. The EIB can also do its bit by giving a high priority to activities in the accession countries and by allowing those countries to take part as fully-fledged participants. I have a feeling that the new Member States take too little advantage of investment opportunities. It seems as if they are imposing restrictions on themselves because they do not want to run up excessive debts. A creditable ambition which can bring them closer to monetary union, but something against which I would put question marks at this stage. Parliament has advised the EIB at any rate not to overlook the social dimension and to set up a special programme for the candidate countries and other partner countries, which should address the objectives of social cohesion. Mr Maystadt may be able to enlarge on this point too in his response.
Finally, Parliament urges an intensified co-operation of the EIB and the EBRD on the basis of a well-considered and efficient division of tasks. In fact, this will be discussed in a separate report by Mr Markov in our committee and in this House in the foreseeable future.
My final point concerns monitoring. The importance of transparency and of the adequate supervision of the EIB group is something that has always enjoyed Parliament's undivided attention. As a public investment bank, the need for adequate monitoring is obvious, but there is still room for improvement in this respect. This is largely due to the EIB's dual position as, on the one hand, originally a tax-funded public institution and on the other hand, a normal bank which, in the case of the EIF, which also forms part of the group, is also a venture capital fund. As financial institutions, they are not subject to the normal prudential supervision that is set up for other institutions at national level. This monitoring at national level was the subject of a report which I supported here yesterday. I think that this can also play a part in the case of the EIB."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples