Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-02-15-Speech-3-588-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120215.27.3-588-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow we are to vote on the new regulation on the deposit guarantee scheme at first reading. This is remarkable on several counts. Firstly, on a procedural level, because, as part of the new regulation of the financial markets, we have thus far managed to reach an agreement between the Council and Parliament at first reading, where both sides at least had a solution that they agreed they could live with. That is not the case here. Agreement between the Council and Parliament has proved impossible.
The other remarkable thing is that this proved impossible at a point where the new financial market regulations are most tangible to the people of Europe, because it is their fate at stake, their savings books and their current accounts – in other words, their money.
The European Commission made a proposal that initially seemed a little too inflexible in Parliament’s view when it came to the way in which guarantee schemes were to be organised. As rapporteur, I am very pleased that, thanks to the excellent support, cooperation and constant dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs, I have finally succeeded in producing a draft that takes account of this. This means that in future, the principles promised by politicians in all Member States to their people will be embraced in Europe and that, in the event of future bank crises and bank failures, the taxpayer will not be required to pick up the tab, but rather the banks will have saved the necessary resources in a fund during the good times, or at least the less bad times, to enable them to pay depositors, current account holders and savers in the event of a crisis involving the collapse of a bank.
In addition to suggesting such a stable fund, we also came up with a solution for the periods within which ordinary citizens should get their money back. I think that the period of one week that we suggest is within a timeframe where people will still manage to get by and will be able to go about their daily business without needing additional cash. We did not think that longer periods without access to finances would be reasonable.
We continue to believe that we need to ensure that the different risk profiles of the banks in Europe should be taken into account when payments are made into a guarantee fund. Riskier banks should be required to pay in more than banks that have a lower risk because of their business models.
All of these principles were brought together into an overall draft here in Parliament, finding broad majority support in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, in a broad coalition of parties, from the Left, through the Socialists, the Greens and the Liberals to the Conservatives. When we came to negotiate with the Member States, this made it all the more difficult for us to understand why they were unwilling to provide the necessary resources for a guarantee fund, to be provided by the banks in order to establish sufficient stability, why it proved impossible to achieve a faster payout for depositors, and why a consumer-friendly solution could not be found, even after eight months of negotiations. We therefore agreed, by means of a first reading, to give a clear signal in favour of consumer protection in Europe. We are prepared to go to a swift second reading with the Council. We wish to thank the Commission for its efforts in brokering a deal. However, we believe that tomorrow, we will have to show the European public what we think is appropriate in relation to depositor protection in Europe."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples