Summary record of the meeting of the European Parliament Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON), held in Brussels on 23 and 24 January 2012 - Montesquieu Instituut

 

-

COUNCIL OFBrussels, 27 January 2012

THE EUROPEAN UNION

5796/12

-

PE 17 ECOFIN 70 FIN 47 FISC 13 JUR 32 -

NOTE

from:

General Secretariat of the Council

to: Delegations

Subject: Summary record of the meeting of the European Parliament Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON), held in Brussels on 23 and 24 January 2012

The meeting was chaired by Ms Bowles (ALDE, UK), Ms McCarthy (S&D, UK) and Mr Zalba

Bidegain (EPP, ES).

5. Election of the 4th Vice-Chair

Mr Scicluna (S&D, MT) was elected as 4th Vice-Chair by acclamation.

Ms Bowles, Ms McCarthy, Mr Stolojan and Mr Scicluna were re-elected while Mr Zalba Bidegain

was elected for the first time, replacing former committee member Mr García-Margallo y Marfil

(EPP, ES) who was recently appointed Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation.

Prior to the elections, Ms Goulard (ALDE, FR) and Mr Langen (EPP, DE) expressed the view that

the Chair of the Committee should be a national of one of the members of the euro area.

6. Contribution to the Annual Growth Survey 2012

-

ECON/7/08055 2011/2319 (INI)

Rapporteur: Mr Jean-Paul Gauzès(EPP)

Consideration of amendments

In his initial address Mr Gauzès (EPP, FR) underlined the existing broad agreement on the

compromise amendments. He explained that point 11 of his report regarding employment should be

dealt by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) since it was part of its remit. He

suggested focusing on a framework that would enhance the European Parliament's role in the

definition of future economic guidelines and policies in the European Union (EU).

In the subsequent exchange of views, Mr Bullmann (S&D, DE), on behalf of Ms Berès (S&D, FR),

reiterated Mr Gauzès' points regarding the European Parliament's (EP) involvement in economic

policy coordination. He advocated the use of the Community method in the Annual Growth Survey

Mr Lamberts (Greens/EFA, BE) supported the report despite its limited scope and called for all

those political groups in favour of a European architecture to adopt a common stance on the

European Semester and on economic governance aimed at balancing societal and economic

objectives and consolidating them in European legislation.

Vote in ECON: 24 January 2012. Vote in plenary: February 2012.

7. Exchange of views with Margrethe Vestager, President of the Council (ECOFIN)

(Danish Minister for Economic Affairs and the Interior)

-

ECON/7/08248

In her introductory speech, Ms Vestager outlined the four Danish Presidency key priorities: the

implementation of economic governance reforms, i.e. the `six pack' and the European Semester; the

strengthening of financial regulations; enhanced co-operation on tax matters; and ensuring a

coherent European Union position in G20 negotiations.

In the subsequent exchange of views, Ms Vestager told Mr Gauzès (EPP, FR) that the work ahead

would require efficiency and pragmatism in order to reconcile and ensure coherence between the

latest economic governance reforms and the envisaged new international treaty. She pointed out to

Mr Bullmann (S&D, DE) that fiscal consolidation had to be accompanied by growth and job

creation. She explained to Ms Goulard (ALDE, FR) that it was important to maintain political

dialogue between the different European institutions to ensure a common focus and language

regarding the goals ahead.

She agreed with Ms Swinburne (ECR, UK) on the need to swiftly conclude negotiations on the

Ms Vestager acknowledged to Ms Lulling (EPP, LU) and Mr Ludvigsson (S&D, SE) the need to

find compromises at a technical level on energy taxation in order to meet climate targets and change

patterns in energy consumption.

She answered Mr Schmidt (ALDE, SE) that the Danish Presidency was committed to making

progress on the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) discussions despite the

variety of systems within the European Union. With regard to the Investor Compensation Scheme

Directive she acknowledged that there was not likely to be an agreement in the immediate future.

She told Mr Gualtieri (S&D, IT) that it would have been preferable to have embarked on

discussions on the fiscal compact and the golden rule with all 27 Member States, instead of an

intergovernmental process, and that Denmark's involvement in the fiscal compact would depend on

the rules in the new international treaty. She stressed that Denmark's constitution and euro opt out

had to be fully respected. She underlined the latest developments in negotiations to reduce the

inconsistencies between the draft treaty and European secondary legislation.

She also agreed with Mr Saryusz-Wolski (EPP, PL) and Mr Feio (EPP, PT) that all Member States

should have the right to participate in Euro Summit meetings.

She pointed out to Mr Klinz (ALDE, DE) that some differences between EU and US financial

systems could be reduced through the G20 dialogue to ensure a minimum level playing field, and

that the deepening of the internal market to stimulate growth was also high on the agenda of the

Danish Presidency.

She answered Mr Feio that the Commission proposal on Credit Rating Agencies (CRAs) needed to

ensure more accountability and less dependency and that the European Central Bank (ECB) should

only pursue the goals set out in the Treaties. She looked forward to a discussion on Eurobonds,

8. Access to the activity of credit institutions and prudential supervision of credit

institutions and investment firms (amending Directive 2002/87/EC) and

Prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms - Part I

-

ECON/7/06631 2011/0203(COD) and ECON/7/07784 2011/0202(COD)

Rapporteur: Mr Othmar Karas (EPP)

Consideration of draft reports

In his opening remarks, Mr Karas (EPP, DE) highlighted the convergence between the Commission

proposal and the European Parliament views and drew attention to the support expressed by the

Danish Presidency.

He mentioned two significant developments since the publication of the own initiative report: the

recapitalisation plan targeting 9% core tier 1 equity; and the decision by some Member States

(Austria and Sweden) to implement BASEL III by January 2013. He contrasted the European

approach with that of the US and called on the Commission to draw the attention of the Economic

and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON) to existing competitive distortions.

He favoured maximum harmonisation combined with some flexibility to avoid internal distortions

in the European Union. He added that it was essential to encourage growth in the real economy and

looked forward to the Council's position, expected in March, to initiate discussions. He noted that

the increase in capital requirement to consolidate banks should be swift. He backed the

Commission's proposal on liquidity requirements, whilst recommending that the definition of liquid

instruments be improved. He suggested having binding liquidity ratios, but no early publication of

the leverage ratio, since that could pre-empt implementation, noting that the Commission text had

Finally as regards BASEL III and the European Banking Authority (EBA), Mr Bullmann called for

more consistency, reliability and clarity in the definition of core tier 1 capital requirements adding

that managers should base their decisions on long term perspectives in the interest of investors and

consumers.

Ms Bowles (ALDE, UK) suggested widening the role of supervisors and establishing a

differentiated set of rules for Member States with independent central banks. She expressed doubts

about a "one size fits all" approach. She rejected the idea that European legislation should depend

on developments in theUS. She recommended extending the EBA's binding mediation powers and

the ESRB's intervention scope to target asset bubbles. She proposed alignment with the European

Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR).

Ms Ford (ECR, UK) agreed with measures to foster the real economy and SMEs. She thought it was

important to look at minority interests though recommended, unlike Mr Karas, less flexibility. She

was against the Commission's extended use of delegated acts. She favoured a single rule book but

not total harmonisation.

Mr Lamberts (Greens/EFA, BE) expressed strong support for a binding leverage ratio to cap risk.

He advocated the separation of banking activities, the coverage of systemically important

institutions and enhanced supervisory control. He supported a certain degree of harmonisation in

conjunction with some flexibility. He explained that more strict and binding rules could have short-

term adverse consequences such as reducing returns, but in the long run it would increase trust,

security, certainty and predictability.

Ms Wortmann-Kool (EPP, NL) thought it was important to give more certainty to the markets and

consequently advocated the implementation of the Capital Requirement Directive 4 (CRD4) as soon

*** Voting time ***

9. Contribution to the Annual Growth Survey 2012

-

ECON/7/08055 2011/2319 (INI)

Rapporteur: Mr Jean-Paul Gauzès (EPP)

Adoption of draft report

The draft report was approved, with 35 votes in favour, 3 against and 4 abstentions.

*** End of vote ***

10. Administrative cooperation in the field of excise duties

ECON/7/07779 2011/0330(CNS)

Rapporteur: Mr David Casa (EPP)

Consideration of draft report

In his initial remarks, Mr Mitchell (EPP, IE), on behalf of Mr Casa (EPP, MT), supported the

Commission proposal but suggested simplifying the text. He referred to the need to improve the

exchange of information in order to reduce fraud, bureaucracy and business administration related

costs. He suggested reducing the review period from 5 to 3 years.

Mr Bullmann (S&D, DE), Mr Schmidt (ALDE, SE), Mr Lamberts (Greens/EFA, BE) and Mr Fox

(ECR, UK) backed the Commission proposal and Mr Casa's report, in particular the attempts to

foster modernisation and fight tax evasion. Mr Schmidt thought it was essential to move make

progress and promote European cooperation, questioning whether it was feasible to conceive a

common VAT authority. Mr Lamberts agreed and proposed a recital. He also suggested clarifying

what was meant by 'fiscal union', removing language which would undermine cooperation and

called for a Commission report in the field of tax fraud.

• 11. 

  Amendment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 as regards certain provisions

relating to risk sharing instruments for Member States experiencing or threatened with

serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability

-

ECON/7/07560 2011/0283(COD)

Rapporteur for the opinion: Mr Rolandas Paksas (EFD)

Consideration of draft opinion

In his initial address, Mr Paksas (EFD, LT) supported the Commission proposal. He recommended

extending the proposal to all Member States and broadening its scope to finance major European

infrastructure projects.

In the ensuing debate, Mr Gauzès (EPP, FR), on behalf of Mr Karis (EPP, LT) promised to send

his group's remarks in writing.

Ms Fereira (S&D, PT) asked the Commission to clarify the current state of play and to explain the

consequences of extending the risk sharing facility to all Member States and broadening its scope.

Mr Kamal (ECR, UK) questioned the nature of the proposal asking if it was about 'risk sharing' or

'risk shifting'.

Mr Skylakakis (ALDE, EL) called for the proposal's quick implementation in order to encourage

private investment and to send a positive signal to markets. He also recommended extending the

duration of the risk sharing facility and its flexibility.

Mr Lamberts (Greens/EFA, BE) advocated greater transparency and conditionality in the use of

structural funds. He also suggested verifying the consistency of the risk sharing facility with

European law.

The Commission representative pointed out that the proposal was intended to link public