Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-02-15-Speech-3-589-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120215.27.3-589-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the crisis has made us face hard facts: banks do go bankrupt. Deposit guarantees are a vital instrument in protecting the public from the consequences of a bank failure. They also provide a tool for prevention and prevention is always much less costly than a cure because depositors know that, if the worst comes to the worst, they will be entitled to compensation.
I note, ladies and gentlemen, that after the efforts of the Polish Presidency, the Danish Presidency has, to date, spared no effort and I would like to thank it for having advanced the positions of the Council, which, to be honest, are not always as ambitious as you or I would wish for.
Neither shall I go back over the work carried out by Parliament over the last few months. Nonetheless, I remain convinced, on the one hand, of the goodwill of the Council – and of the Danish Presidency in particular – and of your own, of which I am aware, and I am still convinced, ladies and gentlemen, that we are extremely close to an agreement.
Of course, such an agreement, if it is to come about, must take account of each party’s red lines and, in particular, the red lines to which you yourself referred and that you described in rigorous detail in relation to the Commission and to Parliament. If I understood the rapporteur correctly, there are certain essential points: significant pre-financing allocated to a guarantee fund, a credible timetable for reducing payment deadlines, and then the contribution which must be based on risk.
Mr Simon, ladies and gentlemen, I think that now, regardless of any decision you make about procedure, we should concentrate on these key issues if we are to reach an agreement as quickly as possible given the crisis we find ourselves in and faced with the concerns, the anxiety and sometimes even the anger of a number of our citizens. I believe that the Council – by drawing closer to your position – Parliament and the Commission would carry out their work effectively if they bring a rapid solution to this deposit guarantee scheme which I believe to be truly of general interest.
This proposal has been on the table for a year and a half. I have not forgotten that Parliament has supported us since the beginning, and I should personally like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Simon, and also the shadow rapporteurs, for all your hard work and your support on this proposal. I wholly support the level of ambition that you just referred to, Mr Simon, and many of the concrete proposals contained in the report. I understand why Parliament decided to include this matter on the agenda of the plenary.
Your report clearly shows that the Commission and Parliament are pursuing the same objectives.
First, an adequate level of pre-financing. It is one thing to promise high compensation – two years ago, we raised the level of cover to EUR 100 000 – however the money has to be there. Our scheme is based upon the idea that the guarantee must be borne by the companies themselves.
Secondly, a speedy reduction in payment deadlines. Since late 2010, depositors are guaranteed to receive compensation within 20 working days, namely one month. That is a step forward, but not far enough, as you yourself have said. How can you feed a family for a month without access to a current account? We propose seven days and we think that is the right length, even if it is to be achieved gradually. It is technically possible and, furthermore, some countries have already achieved it.
Thirdly, contributions linked to risks. It is quite right for a bank with higher risks to contribute more. This is a matter of justice, and also stands to reason.
Fourthly, it must work well with crisis management tools. There is more than one way to protect depositors from bank failure. Therefore, provision could be made, in managing the bank’s crisis, to maintain access to accounts, for example, by transferring the accounts to another bank, which could be advantageous for depositors.
This kind of operation has a cost, and that is why our proposal authorised the further use of a guarantee fund for the purposes of early intervention or orderly resolution. You understood that and you indeed supported and even extended this proposal. Deposit guarantee and orderly resolution of banks are supplementary tools to guarantee continuity of access by depositors to their funds, to prevent rushes on banks and to maintain the stability of the entire system.
Of course, each of us has our own views. I am sorry, for example, that guarantee schemes can no longer legally borrow from their opposite numbers in other countries. The proposal was undoubtedly ahead of its time; we even thought that we were being moderate whilst you had recommended a genuine ‘pan-European’ scheme. However, I am sure, Mr Simon, that this idea will gain ground."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples