Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-23-Speech-2-206"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011023.8.2-206"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the European Union has an easy way of helping other countries: the European Investment Bank receives guarantees for loans it grants to other countries. The recipients of loans benefit from the EU guarantees in the form of interest rates that are lower than market rates. This is also the case here as we are debating a loan guarantee in respect of loans granted by the EIB to Russia for environmental investments. The maximum amount of credit is envisaged as 100 million euros. The bank is imposing the criteria according to which the loans are to be granted. If Russia fails to propose projects that fulfil the bank’s criteria the loans will not have to be granted. This is a new, positive initiative that will put new life into the notion of the EU’s northern dimension, which has become rather anaemic. The loans will be used to try to improve the state of the environment throughout the Baltic region and, eventually, therefore, the Member States of the EU also.
Parliament has not called into question the matter of loans to Russia. The proposal has the broadest possible political support. Problems have nonetheless been caused by the way in which the Council and the Commission are taking the matter further. In the summer, the Commission submitted a proposal to Parliament that the loan guarantees should be issued in the same way as other EIB loans guaranteed by the EU, and that the guarantee in question should be 65%. That is still the only proposal that the Commission has submitted to Parliament. The Council, however, decided later to take exceptional action and insisted on adopting a full 100% guarantee in respect of the loan to Russia, rather than one of 65%. Russia has therefore been treated differently from other recipients of EU loan guarantees.
The Commission endorsed the Council’s proposal, but it has not submitted a new proposal on the matter to Parliament. Consequently, we, in Parliament, are debating the Commission’s original proposal for a 65% loan guarantee. Parliament demanded a new round of consultations as a result of the revised proposal. After all manner of talks with representatives of the Council and the Commission we have received a letter from the Council that may, with a little goodwill on our part, be interpreted as a rehearing of the Parliament. The Commission also has indicated in writing that it has approved the 100% guarantee. As this is a deviation from the general rule, the Committee on Budgets would have liked to have an entirely new proposal from the Commission. The Commission said it could not submit one in time. In this case ‘in time’ means it would be most beneficial to all parties if a decision could be taken on the issue this year.
There is a ceiling for EU loan guarantees, which is formed by a special Guarantee Fund. Funds are gradually transferred to it from the Guarantee Reserves as guarantee commitments are made. This year the ceiling is 208 million euros. The guarantees in respect of the loans to Russia fit into this year’s envelope even though the 100% guarantee takes a larger part of it than a 65% guarantee would. A decision is needed this year, as there are so many commitments for next year that there will be no room then at all in the Guarantee Fund for new guarantees – not for loans for environmental investments in Russia either, which is the case here. It would take consensus on the part of all the EU institutions to raise the ceiling for guarantees and it is not always a simple matter to achieve that.
If, therefore, we want to ensure that the EIB loans will be used for Russia’s Baltic Sea basin environment, it is best to take the decision this year. The Committee on Budgets has been ready for it, even though the action of the Council and the Commission cannot be deemed to be completely appropriate. Thus, the committee is working on the principle that there should be no precedent set here and that similar matters should not be dealt with in this way in the future. Parliament insists that account also be taken of the priorities it has set.
As the permanent rapporteur on loans and guarantees in the Committee on Budgets, I would like once more to draw attention to the fact that next year there will be no margin whatsoever in the Guarantee Funds for new and unexpected aid actions. The Commission must take action accordingly."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples