Index 
 Zurück 
 Vor 
 Vollständiger Text 
Verfahren : 2017/2071(INI)
Werdegang im Plenum
Entwicklungsstadium in Bezug auf das Dokument : A8-0013/2018

Eingereichte Texte :

A8-0013/2018

Aussprachen :

PV 07/02/2018 - 17
CRE 07/02/2018 - 17

Abstimmungen :

Erklärungen zur Abstimmung

Angenommene Texte :

P8_TA(2018)0039

Plenardebatten
Mittwoch, 7. Februar 2018 - Straßburg Überprüfte Ausgabe

17. Jahresbericht über die Finanztätigkeit der Europäischen Investitionsbank (Aussprache)
Video der Beiträge
PV
MPphoto
 

  Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la relazione di Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, a nome della commissione per i bilanci, sulla relazione annuale sulle attività finanziarie della Banca europea per gli investimenti (A8-0013/2018).

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, ponente. – Señor presidente, de nuevo acabamos de tener un debate sobre las inversiones en el exterior del Banco Europeo de Inversiones, en el que ha quedado de manifiesto la importancia que tienen sus actividades para acompañar las prioridades políticas de la Unión Europea.

El informe que debatimos ahora va mucho más allá de un programa concreto y lo que pretendemos es dar una visión general sobre las actividades del BEI tanto dentro de la Unión como fuera y, sobre todo, marcar el camino que desde el Parlamento creemos que tiene que seguir en los próximos años para que sus actuaciones se acompasen con las decisiones de la Unión.

El BEI ha demostrado ser un actor clave en la movilización de la inversión pública y privada al servicio de las políticas europeas, reforzando la competitividad de los Estados miembros, apoyando la economía real, la creación de empleo, o también, por ejemplo, financiando la innovación en las pequeñas y medianas empresas. En este sentido, por ejemplo, este Parlamento apoyó y trabajó para la ampliación del plan de inversiones europeo como un instrumento para reforzar la inversión dentro de la Unión Europea, haciendo una serie de modificaciones para resolver los problemas que detectamos en su primera versión.

Porque desde luego si queremos lograr con éxito los objetivos que como Unión nos hemos propuesto, debemos mirar además de la sostenibilidad económica otro tipo de criterios a la hora de valorar los proyectos, como pueden ser los criterios sociales, los medioambientales o los de cohesión territorial. De hecho, este año el BEI tiene previsto acometer una revisión de sus criterios de préstamo energético. Y creemos que es una magnífica oportunidad para adaptarlos a los nuevos compromisos que como Unión Europea hemos adquirido a través del Acuerdo de París. Así que, desde este Parlamento les animamos a enfocar su política energética hacia proyectos de eficiencia energética y de energías renovables.

Dentro de estos criterios que deben valorar consideramos que se encuentran también la igualdad de género y el empoderamiento de las mujeres, que tienen que tener mayor relevancia a la hora de evaluar los proyectos. Y, en este sentido, también valoramos positivamente no solo la existencia de una estrategia sobre igualdad de género en el Grupo BEI, sino el recién aprobado plan de acción en materia de igualdad. Espero que este plan de acción empiece a dar sus frutos rápidamente y que esto se vea reflejado en la actividad del Banco.

Siguiendo con los criterios que tienen que guiar las actuaciones del BEI, me parece fundamental destacar la vertiente social de las inversiones. No podemos olvidar que las tres instituciones acaban de firmar el acuerdo sobre el pilar social y que, por lo tanto, el BEI debe poner todo su empeño para conseguir que ese acuerdo pase del papel a la realidad.

En los últimos años, en este Parlamento ―y lo hemos visto en el debate anterior también— hemos hecho de la lucha contra el fraude fiscal, la evasión y el blanqueamiento de capitales una de nuestras máximas prioridades. En este sentido, hemos pedido una política ambiciosa sobre jurisdicciones no cooperadoras. Reconocemos los avances en esta materia del BEI y consideramos que está en una posición privilegiada para liderar una política estricta y ejemplar en temas de fiscalidad.

Otro de los temas a los que este Parlamento siempre da especial importancia es todo lo que tiene que ver con la transparencia, la rendición de cuentas y el acceso a la información. Teniendo en cuenta el volumen de negocios que tiene el BEI y su cada vez mayor presencia en el desarrollo de las políticas de la Unión Europea y, sobre todo, que el presupuesto comunitario avala gran parte de esas operaciones, es fundamental que se garantice un auténtico control público de sus actividades, de la selección de proyectos y de las prioridades de financiación.

La transparencia en la aplicación de las políticas públicas es fundamental, ya que, por un lado, favorece la credibilidad del banco y de las instituciones y, por otro, facilita también el control de la inversión movilizada, de los intermediarios financieros, de los beneficiarios finales y sobre todo de la eficacia y de la sostenibilidad de los proyectos financiados.

Presidente Hoyer, usted es perfectamente consciente de los retos a los que nos enfrentamos en la Unión Europea y estoy convencida de que de nuestra cooperación dependerá que alcancemos nuestros éxitos y que los resultados sean los que los ciudadanos están esperando.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Luděk Niedermayer, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. – Mr President, let me start by saying that the European Investment Bank (EIB) is the institution that helped us overcome post—crisis problems and it has for sure a firm place in our future. In doing so, there are two issues that I want to highlight from the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON).

First of all, all public support – even from the development bank – is not free of risk. Here, especially, I am talking about the risk of crowding—out private financing. We, as well as the EIB, must be fully aware of this risk and try to minimise it.

Secondly, the EIB is a bank. Banking is about money and risks; about finding the right balance. Too low a risk means limited impact. Too high a risk can lead to losses in capital. Too narrow a focus means that we will be missing some targets. Too many mandates at the same time can lead to fragmentation and to high costs. We should keep finding the right balance and finding the trade—offs, to be focused and efficient in the work and the EIB. This is the way to ensure that the EIB will serve good purposes for the future.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Werner Hoyer, President of the European Investment Bank. – Mr President, it is a great pleasure to be back today for the second time and to thank again the rapporteur and the co-rapporteur for their excellent work and cooperation.

I notably appreciate the explicit support you give to the European Investment Bank in its role as a catalyst for investments to support growth and jobs, both within and outside the European Union. In 1958, the European Union was already in full swing – or the European Economic Community was in full swing – when the bank was founded and began its work on the basis of the Treaty of Rome, and I can tell you that we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the bank with pride and with thanks and appreciation for the support received from this House.

In the past 60 years we’ve operated in 160 countries, we have engaged in close to 12 000 operations globally and dispersed over EUR 1.1 trillion. And this has mobilised up to EUR 3 trillion of investment, a very efficient use of EU resources. A good deal by the way! After all, only around EUR 14 billion was ever paid in, in cash, by the Member States, a little more than 1% of the total investment this bank has contributed to generating. So it has been a good 60 years – and I believe that if we are the ‘good news’ institution of the European Union we should tell the good stories.

The largest share of EIB group financing, close of EUR 30 billion, last year went to small and medium-sized and mid-cap enterprises, the backbone of the European economy and jobs. We estimate that this financing sustained 3.9 million jobs in more than 285 000 firms.

One area where Europe is lagging behind in terms of investment is the innovation sector, so I am particularly proud of the fact that in 2017 we managed to increase lending for innovation to close to EUR 14 billion –that is at the heart of competitiveness and ultimately of sustained and sustainable growth. Moreover, in 2017 we financed close to EUR 7 billion in environmental projects and EUR 18 billion in infrastructure.

The EIB once again met its target for climate action, with approximately EUR 19 billion of financing, representing over 27% of total EIB financing in 2017.

But what I really want to draw your attention to is this. In 2017 we approved more projects than ever – 901, roughly a 15% increase from the previous year – but the average size of the projects we financed is considerable smaller than previously. This means that we are enabling more and more firms and public entities to invest, and we are also getting better at assessing our impact on GDP and jobs. As the report from the Commission’s institute in Seville points out, EIB-Group-supported investments in 2015 and 2016 alone are expected to create 2.25 million extra jobs and to generate a 2.3% increase in the EU GDP by 2020.

A big part of why we are able to do this is the investment plan for Europe, the Juncker plan, which, as you know very well, is backed by a guarantee from the EU budget and the EIB’s own resources to finance riskier investments. I have already talked about this plan and we are very grateful that, with Parliament’s decision in December, it has been extended to the end of 2020 with an increased goal of mobilising EUR 500 billion.

By the end of 2017 we had approved 717 European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) transactions, mobilising EUR 257 billion, or 82% of the original EUR 315 billion target. That means we are well on track to reach the goal in the coming months. The EFSI is working, and it’s working well. Additionality is key. Three out of four EFSI clients are new to the bank and this clearly demonstrates how much the EFSI has changed the EIB Group. It has changed our DNA!

Most EFSI operations are higher risk, so-called special activities. The EFSI is a great example of what the EIB, the EU bank, can do to help scarce human resources achieve more. It is a spectacular endorsement of the fact that the paradigm shift from grants and subsidies to loans and guarantees is a very strong tool in Europe’s public policy toolkit, and we should now think about the lessons to be learned from the EFSI plan, inside the European Union, in relation to our activities outside the European Union. And we already discussed the Sustainable Development Goals and the climate goals in the previous debate.

For this reason, we are engaged in extensive dialogue with the Member States, the Commission and this House to make financial instruments more effective in the Union’s Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) post 2020.

The report also stresses how important it is that EIB continues to be a financial institution of good practice, leading by example. I can assure you that we are continually in contact with other international financial institutions, international organisations and relevant authorities to ensure that we apply best banking and accountability principles.

In preparation for this plenary debate we provided you with the state of play on the recommendations tabled through the previous report. I am open to discussing how future arrangements could work even better, and we will, of course, continue to inform you regularly on our activities and their impact on the ground. Thank you very much for your attention. I’m looking forward to the debate. And again, thank you for your support.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jyrki Katainen, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, first of all let me highlight our excellent partnership with the European Investment Bank (EIB) – the EU bank, as President Hoyer rightly likes to call it – on the financial implementation of our political priorities. The EIB is an indispensable partner in financing infrastructure, supporting SMEs, boosting employment and delivering on climate action, sustainable transport and external policies. The Commission welcomes the report and I would like to congratulate the rapporteur again on a good job.

Allow me to restrict myself to three issues of particular relevance to the Commission. First, on compliance, which features prominently in your report: the Commission has taken action to prevent the use of EU funds in support of projects that contribute to tax avoidance or tax evasion. Let me stress that there was already, in the Financial Regulation, a prohibition on support for projects leading to tax evasion but the Commission has proposed to extend it to include tax avoidance in its scope. Rules have already been adopted to this effect in respect of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) and European Fund for Sustainable Development regulations and the External Lending Mandate decision. A similar approach is expected to be included in a new Financial Regulation still under discussion by the legislators. Therefore, the Commission welcomes the calls to enhance compliance on tax matters.

We are currently preparing guidelines that will provide clarity on the new legal provisions linked to non-cooperative tax jurisdictions. In that regard the Commission expects that the EIB will improve its internal policies to reflect the new legal environment.

The second point is on geographical balance and cohesion. The size of the national economies, by definition, influences the volume of EIB activities. In relative terms, however, smaller Member States benefit more than it appears at first glance. With the EFSI, for instance, the top five beneficiaries in terms of GDP are Estonia, Greece, Bulgaria, Portugal and Spain. But the Commission takes concerns about coverage and geographical balance very seriously. Efforts are ongoing to place more emphasis on using local knowledge and cooperating with local and regional actors. The Commission and the EIB are working very closely with national and regional promotional banks, which have local expertise and understand the local financing needs. The revision to the Financial Regulation will make it easier to combine financial instruments and EFSI financing with other sources of EU funding such as the structural funds. This should lead to more projects in the regions less covered so far.

Furthermore, under the EFSI, the European Investment Advisory Hub provides more targeted technical assistance at local level and the Commission encourages the EIB to extend its local outreach.

Finally, in relation to the number and types of financial instruments under the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF): as you know, the Commission is currently working intensively on the next MFF. We share Parliament’s concern about the multiplication of financial instruments and especially the complexity of the rules that apply them. We want to continue providing support to all sectors that are in need of EU support, but we need to do so more efficiently under a single rule. The partnership with the EIB will remain a central pillar in delivering these financial instruments. It will be shaped by our successful common history and also by constructive criticism from Parliament and other stakeholders.

Today’s report forms an essential part of that input.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ivana Maletić, izvjestiteljica za mišljenje odbora REGI. – Gospodine predsjedniče, ono što je važno naglasiti je da je zaista uloga EIB-a jako važna u razvoju čitavog europskog gospodarstva. EIB treba osigurati jačanje jedinstvenog tržišta, isto tako financiranje projekata za modernizaciju i razvoj novih djelatnosti, ali i ono što je još dodatno posebno podcrtano u Ugovoru o Europskoj uniji, a to je podupiranje razvoja slabije razvijenih krajeva.

To je jako važna uloga EIB-a u provedbi same kohezijske politike. Dakle, EIB svojim instrumentima financira savjetodavne usluge u pripremi i provedbi projekata kohezijske politike. Isto tako osigurava sredstva za nacionalno sufinanciranje, za izgradnju kapaciteta. Međutim, ne možemo znati koliko je u tome uspješan jer nema dovoljno jasnih podataka koji se vezuju uz te aktivnosti. Zato pozivamo na transparentnost.

I važno je još naglasiti da se kad smo analizirali u kojim državama se troši najviše sredstava, odnosno, za koje države se daje najviše zajmova, to su Francuska, Njemačka, Italija, Španjolska i Velika Britanija. Dakle, zaista je teško povezati to s najnerazvijenijim krajevima.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Siegfried Mureşan, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, it is good to see you. I would say to EIB President Hoyer and Commission Vice-President Katainen that good investments are, of course, crucial for Europe in this ever-changing global economic landscape, and 2016, the year that the report refers to, was a very good year for the European Investment Bank. EIB investment amounted to EUR 83 billion and helped to mobilise investment of EUR 280 billion. This is emphasised in our report, in which we place particular emphasis on three aspects.

Firstly, delivering on the Juncker plan: through the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), we entrusted the EIB to put money to work in Europe by making loans and ‘crowding in’ private capital. However, the investment gap is still an issue for many European countries. It is important, President Hoyer, that the EIB should continue to provide much-needed technical assistance and advisory support to reduce the existing regional discrepancies, especially in regions with low investment capacity. This can be achieved, of course, by cooperating with national promotional banks.

Secondly, on addressing the migration challenge: we have been, with Parliament’s Committee on Budgets, in Tunisia last year, and two years ago in Jordan and Lebanon, countries which are seeing hundreds of thousands of refugees coming from various countries in the region. We have seen that we have to do more for infrastructure in those countries – healthcare, education, electricity and waste infrastructure – and in terms of helping the host communities, making sure that SMEs, not only in capitals but also in regions, have access to credit. This is also something on which Parliament’s rapporteurs, led here by Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, have focused.

Thirdly, on the External Lending Mandate, which we had a chance to debate an hour ago: the important message is that, with the changes we have made, the EIB will be capable of fulfilling the needs on the ground. Lastly, of course, I would mention SMEs, which are so important for the European economy.

I would like to conclude by thanking all the colleagues involved and the rapporteur, who has worked tirelessly on this report. We adopted it with a large majority in the Budgets Committee. I am confident that we will be able to adopt it with a large majority here in plenary as well.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Molly Scott Cato (Verts/ALE), blue-card question. – There is considerable concern about EIB investments that may lead to increased carbon dioxide emissions. A recent example is yesterday’s announcement of a EUR 1.5 billion loan for the Trans Adriatic Pipeline, which will lock us into a fossil fuel future. Since we are all now agreed that the EIB has to work within the framework of our Paris commitments, would Mr Mureşan agree that we should have no further fossil investments by the EIB?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Siegfried Mureşan (PPE), blue-card answer. – I think we have found a good compromise in the framework of this report, in which we said that tackling climate change is an important objective. It is a political objective of the Union; the EIB is the bank of the European Union; we are working together with them to achieve climate change. In parallel, of course, we should work on developing infrastructure within the Member States of the Union and in our immediate neighbourhood – that meaning energy, digital, road, railways – but, of course, always with this overarching objective in mind that, together, we need to tackle climate change.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Pervenche Berès, au nom du groupe S&D. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Président Hoyer, vous avez ce rendez-vous devant le Parlement européen. C’est un moment important pour que vous rendiez des comptes et je voudrais vous interpeller sur trois sujets.

Le premier, l’orateur précédent vient de l’évoquer, c’est la façon dont vous évaluez votre soutien à des projets du point de vue des engagements de la conférence de Paris. Or, trop souvent, on voit encore un engagement, un financement de la BEI qui, finalement, finance l’énergie fossile plutôt que les renouvelables. Je me demande si vous ne devriez pas prendre l’engagement, vis-à-vis de cette Assemblée, d’avoir une stratégie de reporting plus explicite en fonction des critères de financement durable, dans l’esprit du rapport que les experts de haut niveau viennent de rendre, et de vérifier avec vous comment vous entendez les mettre en œuvre dans votre institution.

Deuxièmement, s’agissant de la fiscalité, vous avez dit votre disponibilité. Mais, là encore, je crois que nous avons besoin d’avoir des engagements plus précis, car la simple coopération avec les organisations internationales, et notamment l’OCDE, qui est une institution largement bloquée par les autorités américaines, n’est pas, me semble-t-il, un fil conducteur suffisant pour les autorités chargées d’une institution européenne.

Enfin, troisièmement, je voudrais vous interroger sur les raisons d’un investissement en Grèce, qui a conduit la BEI à soutenir, à hauteur de 280 millions d’euros, un aéroport réalisé par l’entreprise Fraport dont certaines activités ont été identifiées dans les Panama Papers.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Stanisław Ożóg, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Sprawozdawca nazwał Europejski Bank Inwestycyjny finansowym ramieniem Unii Europejskiej i faktycznie trudno nie zgodzić się z wyjątkową rolą EBI w procesie pobudzania inwestycji, zwłaszcza w sektorze małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw. Szczególnie doceniamy znaczenie Europejskiego Funduszu Inwestycji Strategicznych. To właśnie ten instrument, a nie – moim zdaniem lekkomyślny – dodruk pieniądza przez EBC, już przynosi wymierne efekty. Zgadzamy się również z podstawową diagnozą sprawozdawcy, który wskazuje na wciąż istniejące zróżnicowanie regionalne w dostępie do instrumentów finansowych EBI. Dlatego też kolejny raz z tego miejsca apeluję o zwiększenie pomocy technicznej i wsparcie doradcze dla małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw z krajów tak zwanej „nowej Unii Europejskiej”. Grupa ECR w głosowaniu poprze projekt sprawozdania.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nedzhmi Ali, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, this report presents the perspective of the European Parliament on the financial activities of the European Investment Bank (EIB) in support of the EU policy goals. It has a broad scope, describing the Bank’s activities in the areas of the main policies: accountability, financial operations and communication. The macroeconomic impact of the Bank’s activities is visible when assessed at its cumulative investments; in 2015 in 2016 we were up to 2.3% EU GDP growth and 2.25 million jobs by 2020. In order to speed up the economic recovery in the Union and to help certain economic sectors and geographical areas to catch up, the report welcomed the development of extended European Fund for Strategic Investment and calls for further efforts to avoid geographical imbalances. The results at the end of 2017 show that the total investment related to EFSI approvals have reached the level of EUR 257 billion. While the implementation of the investment plan for the time being is intact, we expect better results from EFSI too, with its EUR 500 billion.

At the same time, we are concerned that the five biggest economies in the EU received 54% of the total loans granted in 2016. While the information in the form of investment per unit of GDP could be misleading, we insist on further territorial distribution of funds, including as regards the EFSI.

The EIB’s impact in the implementation of key public policy areas can be monitored through the results of investment in the key areas, for which purpose the EIB should continue to define its monitoring indicators. The EIB needs to further develop its risk culture in order to improve the effectiveness of its interventions with regard to the contribution to EU policies.

While the potential beneficiaries of financing are generally not sufficiently aware of the bank’s products, there is a need for better information and a policy of inclusiveness.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Liadh Ní Riada, thar ceann an Ghrúpa GUE/NGL. – A Uachtaráin, is baolach nach féidir liom tacú leis an tuairisc seo mar a sheasann sé, mar go dtugann sé moladh do EIB agus an méid atá ar bun aige agus cé go bhfuil ról EIB thar a bheith tábhachtach i dtaobh infheistíochta poiblí san Aontas Eorpach, ní dóigh liom go bhfuil sé ag feidhmiú maith go leor. Táimíd tar éis neart airgid ó bhuiséad AE a fheiceáil ag dul go dtí EIB, agus leis seo tagann freagracht agus tá díomá ormsa go bhfeicim go bhfuil mórchuid den chumhacht a bhí ag buiséad an Aontais Eorpaigh anois ag dul go dtí EIB.

Feicimid go bhfuil cuir i bhfeidhm polasaithe agus cláracha bainteach leis an AE anois ar bun ag EIB, abair an Plean Juncker, fiú tograí bonneagair, taighde agus a leithéid.

Cá bhfuil an gné thrédhearcach? Cá bhfuil an dianscrúdú? Cá bhfuil an próiseas daonlathach? Agus cá bhfuil an chuntasaíocht dár saoránaigh? Saoránaigh atá ag brath orainn san teach seo chun a chinntiú go bhfuil infheistíocht á cur i bhfeidhm dóibh siúd go bhfuil géarghá acu leis. Iad siúd gan bhaile agus gan an deis acu teach a cheannach, iad siúd atá ag iarraidh billí a íoc, agus iad siúd atá ag iarraidh a bpaistí a chur ar scoil. Tá deiseanna iontacha ann má dhéantar infheistíocht mar is cuí chun an geilleagar a bhorradh agus tá an deis ann do EIB na cinntí cearta a dhéanamh ar son ár saoránaigh. Ach bliain i ndiaidh bliana, bímíd istigh sa teach seo ag trácht ar an saghas seo raiméis chéanna agus gan aon toradh fónta ag teacht air agus dáiríre, tá géarchéim amuigh ansin ann agus tá an t-am tagtha go n-athróimid an port agus aghaidh a thabhairt ar na géarchéimeanna seo.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Molly Scott Cato, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, with the Commission focusing its attention on sustainable finance in 2018, it’s important to recall that the EIB is a key actor in the successful implementation of the Commission’s upcoming action plan. However, the EIB has not done as well as we would expect on climate action, even though it has just met its 25% target. For instance, in 16 EU Member States, EIB support for climate action did not reach even the level of 20%. Climate action investment in 2016 was predominantly located in the EU’s stronger economies, and this seems to be the rule rather than the exception. Seventy per cent of EFSI support for renewable energy was concentrated in just one country, Belgium, while 80% of energy efficiency within the EFSI was allocated to France, Finland and Germany. These aren’t the countries that need the sort of support from this investment bank, and we need to spread the renewable investment wider and to the other economies in Europe. To ensure sustainability of investment in coordination with the Commission, the EIB needs to evaluate their national and collective public investment to ensure that the EU is on track to meet its climate change goals as agreed in Paris within the next five years. In order to achieve this the EIB should only agree future lending compatible with the 1.5 °C climate limit.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marco Valli, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio il presidente Hoyer per la sua presentazione e per essere qui oggi a riportare l'attività della Banca europea per gli investimenti che, ricordo, è la banca pubblica in termini di volumi più grande al mondo. È fondamentale però che ci sia un controllo anche democratico su tutto questo volume di denaro. Quindi è importante che voi rispettiate le raccomandazioni formulate dalla commissione per i bilanci e dalla commissione per il controllo dei bilanci, in cui io sono relatore per la relazione sulla BEI, per garantire la trasparenza e affinché ci sia una compliance sempre corretta da parte della valutazione che fa la Banca europea per gli investimenti.

Un particolare punto va sollevato sulle questioni legate ai progetti che devono avere una valutazione ex ante ed ex post indipendente, appunto per valutare se realmente c'è un'addizionalità o un valore aggiunto in tutti i progetti che finanziate, soprattutto sulle grandi opere infrastrutturali. Su questo c'è un problema fondamentale che è sollevato in Italia e riguarda il progetto della Trans Adriatic Pipeline, che è un progetto fortemente voluto anche dalla politica, sul quale si nutrono forti dubbi che la compliance sia stata rispettata, anche perché è un'opera che passa attraverso dei territori ad alta corruzione dove nei subappalti e negli appalti si potrebbero creare grosse problematiche. In più ci sono le problematiche dei territori che appunto subiscono queste opere molto invasive; quindi andrebbero rispettati i territori e la politica dovrebbe appunto agire e la compliance dovrebbe essere appunto rispettata.

Quindi, al netto di queste mie considerazioni, sono convinto che la Banca europea per gli investimenti stia facendo in alcuni casi un buon lavoro, ma dove la politica influenza i progetti si rischia poi dopo di cadere troppo spesso in quelle che sono opere inutili, ancora legate alle fonti fossili, e quindi che gli obiettivi che ha questo Parlamento e che ha l'Unione europea non vengano rispettati in termini di combattere le emissioni di CO2 e in termini appunto legati a quelli che sono gli obiettivi Europa 2020.

Ho solo due minuti e quindi mi limito a questo, ma ci saranno tante altre cose che segnaleremo nella relazione della commissione per il controllo dei bilanci, e invito appunto il Presidente e tutta la BEI a prenderne carico e rispettare quello che sarà scritto in queste relazioni.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marco Zanni, a nome del gruppo ENF. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io personalmente ho ascoltato gli interventi del Presidente Hoyer, del Commissario Katainen, dei relatori e dei miei colleghi e non condivido tutto questo ottimismo, l'ottimismo che c'è nella relazione e l'ottimismo espresso dagli interventi.

La BEI è uno degli strumenti a supporto dell'economia più potenti che ha l'Unione europea ed è la banca pubblica che eroga più credito al mondo. Parliamo di più di 80 miliardi di EUR di crediti erogati ogni anno. Guardando lo stato in cui versa l'Unione europea e in cui versano le economie dell'Unione europea, credo che si possa fare molto di più in termini di supporto della Banca europea per gli investimenti all'economia reale.

Un primo tema che mi sta a cuore è quello della destinazione degli investimenti e dei paesi di destinazione degli investimenti e dei crediti della BEI. Oggi torna d'attualità il tema della Turchia. La Turchia è un paese che ha beneficiato e continua a beneficiare di un'ingente quantità di crediti da parte della BEI, però purtroppo – e se ne stanno accorgendo anche le istituzioni europee – il regime turco non è compatibile con quelli che si definiscono i valori di democrazia, di trasparenza e di rispetto che sono propri dell'Unione europea.

I numeri della Turchia dovrebbero far riflettere. Dal 2000 la BEI ha erogato circa 30 miliardi di EUR in crediti a questo paese, e questo paese rimane uno dei maggiori beneficiari dei soldi e dei prestiti della BEI, molto al di sopra di alcuni paesi appartenenti all'Unione europea. Quindi, un primo punto fondamentale è riorientare i crediti verso paesi problematici e verso il mercato interno. Il ruolo della BEI deve essere quello di supportare, soprattutto in un momento di crisi, la domanda interna che è crollata e gli investimenti interni.

Un altro tema molto importante è quello dei cosiddetti strumenti innovativi che abbiamo visto in questi ultimi due anni. Parlo dell'EFSI e del Fondo europeo per lo sviluppo sostenibile. Anche qui necessitiamo di più trasparenza, necessitiamo di un lavoro migliore sul concetto e sul criterio di addizionalità, e questi strumenti devono essere più realistici anche nel supporto che danno. Moltiplicatori senza senso possono essere belli da dichiarare ai giornali, ma l'impatto in termini di investimenti e di lavoro purtroppo è di molto inferiore.

(L'oratore accetta di rispondere a una domanda "cartellino blu" (articolo 162, paragrafo 8, del regolamento))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  David Coburn (EFDD), blue-card question. – Mr Zanni, I’d like to ask you what you think about this: Britain is owed somewhere in the region of GBP 35 billion, which obviously we want back in 2019. What do you think that’s going to do to the bank’s finances, and will they be able to pay it back? Have they got the money? Because we want it back – they’re certainly punishing Britain as hard as they can, so let’s punish them. Do you think we should, Sir? Give me an answer; you’re Italian.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marco Zanni (ENF), risposta a una domanda "cartellino blu". – Sicuramente è un diritto del Regno Unito e dei cittadini del Regno Unito riavere indietro quanto gli spetta, in termini sia di asset sia di denaro da parte dell'Unione europea, una volta che la Brexit avrà effetto.

Il contributo quale grande azionista della BEI da parte del Regno Unito ovviamente dovrà essere tenuto in considerazione quando si troverà un accordo definitivo sulla Brexit. Certo immagino che la BEI avrà un impatto ovviamente nella sua attività, vista la mancanza di un grande contributore come il Regno Unito. Spetta ai manager trovare il modo di far quadrare i conti. Però è giusto che i cittadini del Regno Unito riabbiano quanto gli spetta in termini di asset e di denaro anche dalla BEI.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, queria saudar o Vice-Presidente da Comissão, o Senhor Presidente do Banco Europeu de Investimento e realçar, saudar também, todo o trabalho que o Banco Europeu de Investimento tem feito, um trabalho que é fundamental para o investimento sustentável, quer o investimento público quer o investimento privado.

Em 2017, é verdadeiramente impressionante o trabalho realizado e o financiamento de projetos no valor de 78 mil milhões de euros, que geraram um investimento de cerca de 250 mil milhões de euros, apoiando mais de 285 mil pequenas e médias empresas, ajudando à criação e à manutenção do emprego.

Um Banco Europeu de Investimento que tem apoiado projetos nas áreas que consideramos estratégicas e que também tem evoluído com o EFSI, com o Plano Juncker, o Fundo Europeu para Investimentos Estratégicos, de que fui correlator. Um fundo que já mobilizou mais de 257 mil milhões de euros, que não vai substituir a política de coesão, mas que também se preocupa com a coesão territorial. Aqui é necessário também que haja plataformas de investimento para concluirmos a união de energia, a Agenda Digital e, nesse sentido, as plataformas entre Estados-Membros são essenciais, e daí termos reforçado o conceito de adicionalidade e também o termos pedido para que os projetos aprovados no plano Juncker tenham em conta a realidade local. E, portanto, saudar mais uma vez e realçar o trabalho positivo que o Banco Europeu de Investimento tem feito.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  John Howarth (S&D). – Mr President, I thank Ms Gardiazabal Rubial for a very thorough report. It demonstrates well the value of an investment bank driven not solely by the need for commercial return but also by the urgent need for investment in the parts that commercially driven investment banking cannot reach. There are always areas in which the market will fail and there will always be projects that cannot be delivered by the market alone, and that is where the contribution of the European Investment Bank (EIB) will remain essential.

The priority areas for the EIB’s operations – innovation and skills, SMEs, climate and the environment and our infrastructure – encompass some of the most important priorities of the European Union budget. The low-carbon economy and the shift from the internal combustion engine will require substantial investment across the Union in power network infrastructure. The completion of a digital single market that enables rural as well as urban communities to engage will require substantially different forms of infrastructure investment, which will represent the changing face of cohesion policy.

These real needs will require a European Investment Bank that is agile as well as forward-thinking. Unfortunately, the United Kingdom, which has a 16% stake in the EIB’s capitalisation is intending to leave the European Union but, however long it may take to refund the UK’s stake, it is worth remembering that the UK has received more than EUR 30 billion in investment from the EIB. What a pity that will come to an end!

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  David Coburn (EFDD), blue-card question. – Thank you Mr Howarth, it is always fascinating listening to you, but I do believe you’re from the North East, am I correct?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  John Howarth (S&D), blue-card answer. – Was that the question? I was originally. I represent the South East.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  David Coburn (EFDD), blue-card question. – You represent the South East. Well, how are you going to explain to the people who elected you – the ordinary working people of Britain – that you do not want our EUR 35 billion back? That’s a lot of hospitals, that’s a lot of infrastructure, that’s a lot of nurses. How are you going to explain that, Sir? They have decided to leave. Try and explain it to me, Sir. I’d love to hear.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  John Howarth (S&D), blue-card answer. – First of all, I will not allow Mr Coburn to put words into my mouth. I have never said that I do not want the European Investment Bank to return the British investment stake in it, but it has to be able to return that stake over a period in which the loans that the UK has received – which, as I have already told him, are worth GBP 30 billion – are amortised, and therefore you will find that the return in that stake and the other things cancel each other out. When you talk about ordinary people, let’s talk about what this investment has delivered – like secondary schools in exotic places like Yorkshire; like Crossrail in London and the Thames Valley in my constituency; like the Thames Tideway Tunnel; like smart meters for seven million homes in the United Kingdom, which enables those people to save energy and pay less for their energy. Why will you not join me in backing the UK’s continued involvement with this investment bank, if and when we do leave?

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Karol Karski (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Nie ulega wątpliwości, że Europejski Bank Inwestycyjny wyraźnie poprawił warunki inwestycji w sektorze małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw na rynkach europejskich. Dzięki takim instrumentom jak Europejski Fundusz Inwestycyjny czy Europejski Fundusz na rzecz Inwestycji Strategicznych EBI może stać się prawdziwym filarem polityki spójności, eliminując gospodarcze i społeczne nierówności między europejskimi regionami. Zgadzamy się również z posłem sprawozdawcą, że EBI powinien odgrywać podstawową rolę we wdrażaniu strategii „Europa 2020ˮ. Szczególnie doceniamy w tym miejscu znaczenie instrumentu „Łącząc Europę”, z którego funduszy częściowo finansowane są odcinki wielkiego projektu „Via Carpatiaˮ. Ponadto podzielamy pogląd, iż EBI może aktywnie uczestniczyć w zwalczaniu pierwotnych przyczyn migracji oraz podejmować działania w krajach szczególnie dotkniętych kryzysem migracyjnym, w tym przez intensyfikację działań humanitarnych.

Delegacja polska w grupie ECR, podzielając większość wniosków pana posła sprawozdawcy, będzie głosowała za przyjęciem jego sprawozdania.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I want to thank Mr Hoyer. We have been discussing this but something we need to discuss is fossil-fuel lending by the European Investment Bank (EIB). I know, Mr Hoyer, that you have your emissions performance standard of 550 g CO2/kWh, which is taking out the lending to coal, but we need to talk about gas. What we see in Europe is that we are binding ourselves to a new addiction to fossil fuels, and that is not part of the implementation of the Paris Agreement, whereas you said in your first reaction to the Paris Agreement that you would be leading in its implementation.

Well, lending to gas is not leading on implementation of the Paris Agreement, and let me just mention some numbers before you answer that such lending is needed for energy security. Current European imports stand at 300 billion cubic meters of gas per year. The infrastructure is already in place for 600 billion cubic meters. If we count plans to be funded, it goes to the level of thousands – a tripling of current imports. That is locking ourselves into fossil!

So can you please promise us that you will make sure the EIB is going to eradicate fossil lending totally?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  David Coburn (EFDD). – Mr President, according to the Rubial report which we have discussed today, the European Investment Bank (EIB) is considered to be the financial arm of the EU and the key institution that sustains public and private investment in the EU. The European Investment Bank is owned by the EU taxpayers; the United Kingdom represents 16% of the EIB capital. Although it is one of the largest shareholders since Article 50 has been triggered, the European Investment Bank only guaranteed three loans worth GBP 285 million to British projects. Over the same period, the EIB gave more than 700 loans to other EU Member States. This funding was worth more than GBP 40 billion.

In the meantime, Mr Hoyer, as President of the EIB, stated in the German press that we will not get back our capital – an equivalent of almost GBP 35 billion – before 2054. This is a scandal. British taxpayers want their money back – not in 2054, not in 2021, after the transition period that the Prime Minister is advocating, but at the end of March 2019: on the day we leave the EU. We would like it back before the EIB squanders it on flaky projects. And, Mr Howarth, the money that was spent by this is our money. We contributed it, so we are just getting our own money back.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D). – Panie Przewodniczący! Niech nasza debata wróci do normalności po tej chwili odmienności. Mianowicie mamy do czynienia z dobrym sprawozdaniem na temat dobrych wyników działalności finansowej dobrego, a może nawet bardzo dobrego banku. To jest pierwszy istotny, trwały element. Po drugie, wszystkie cele priorytetowe, które sobie tutaj określamy, Europejski Bank Inwestycyjny podejmuje, realizuje i z reguły robi to i bez błędów, i z sukcesem. Po trzecie, mamy nowe elementy, jak chociażby nowe instrumenty finansowe i Fundusz Inwestycji Strategicznych, co jest ważne dla regionu, z którego ja pochodzę, dla Polski i dla krajów ościennych. Powinniśmy ponadproporcjonalnie skierować środki w tę część, żeby ten poziom spójności nam wzrósł.

Zostało mi tylko sześć sekund, chciałbym się podzielić dobrą wiadomością. Byłem świadkiem dziesięć dni temu, jak prezes Hoyer w Warszawie od stowarzyszenia biznesmenów otrzymał zasłużoną honorową nagrodę. Gratuluję panie prezesie i tą radością dzielę się tu ze wszystkimi.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Rosa D'Amato (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio la collega per la sua relazione che presenta, a mio avviso, degli aspetti sicuramente positivi, quali l'importanza degli obiettivi relativi agli accordi di Parigi in materia di clima, il potenziale della BEI nel migliorare la situazione economica nel vicinato e soprattutto il rilievo che viene dato ai meccanismi per evitare finanziamenti a società che compiono frodi fiscali.

Vi sono però degli elementi che non ci convincono e mi riferisco, in particolar modo, a due aspetti. In primo luogo, una preoccupante mancanza di trasparenza, ed è bene qui ricordare che la BEI non garantisce sempre pieno accesso ai dati relativi ai progetti finanziati.

In secondo luogo, la decisione da parte della BEI di finanziare impianti infrastrutturali ad alto impatto ambientale e dubbia addizionalità, come la TAP, viola un principio, fra gli altri, quello di precauzione, a cui noi teniamo molto. Finanziamenti di tal genere ad opere impattanti l'ambiente, con effetti sociali ed economici disastrosi sulle comunità locali, andrebbero immediatamente interrotti.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Diane James (NI). – Mr President, good evening sir, good evening chamber and thank you very much for the opportunity to address you. Well, what did we actually learn from this report? What are the financial activities actually being conducted? Let me start with a very simple list. The EIB has involved itself in geopolitics, notably in the Ukraine, stirring up tensions there. It has also involved itself in offshore vehicles and some rather unsavoury, always interesting the word unsavoury, counterparties inside and outside of Europe. Small wonder then, that well over 100 cases, on public record I would remind you, of alleged fraud involving EIB funds are opened every year. Now for decades the EU has disguised the true size of its budget via funding from the European Investment Bank. The EIB is supposedly mandated to only lend to projects which were in line with the objectives of the EU. Yet its portfolio has ballooned to well over EUR 500 billion and this doesn't include the 500 billion the EIB manages on behalf of the Juncker fund. In short, the EIB has extended its reach to eight times the size of the stated EU budget. Were it a school report, could do better I think would be the result.

 
  
 

Procedura "catch-the-eye"

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la crisi economica ha indebolito la crescita nell'Unione europea, determinando un calo degli investimenti che ha raggiunto livelli allarmanti nei paesi maggiormente colpiti dalla crisi. Accolgo con fiducia le parole del Presidente della BEI Hoyer quando afferma la volontà di fornire un sostegno reale per la crescita e la creazione di posti di lavoro, perseguendo gli obiettivi dell'innovazione, della maggiore coesione economica e sociale e della tutela ambientale.

Proprio in relazione alle politiche ambientali, ritengo necessario un maggiore ricorso della BEI ai Green Bond, uno strumento finanziario in uso da pochi anni che ha registrato un vero e proprio boom nel 2016 e che potrebbe essere una delle chiavi per la risoluzione di moltissimi problemi, come ad esempio quelli delle zone ad alta pressione ambientale, come la Terra dei fuochi, che necessiterebbe di investimenti in bonifica delle aree contaminate, proprio come si è già fatto con i terreni inquinati in Belgio e in Olanda. È fondamentale investire con modalità innovative sull'ambiente per favorire concretamente la crescita economica e sociale dei territori.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Πρόεδρε της Ευρωπαϊκής Τράπεζας Επενδύσεων, κύριε Hoyer, θα σας θέσω τα ίδια ερωτήματα που έχω θέσει και σε προγενέστερη συζήτηση αλλά δεν μου απαντήσατε και αφορούν τη χρηματοδότηση της Fraport από την Ευρωπαϊκή Τράπεζα Επενδύσεων με 280 εκατομμύρια EUR. Η Fraport πήρε, για 40 χρόνια, 14 περιφερειακά αεροδρόμια στην Ελλάδα και υποτίθεται ότι έπρεπε να καταβάλει στο ελληνικό δημόσιο 1,2 δισεκατομμύρια EUR. Πήρε από τράπεζες 688 εκατομμύρια EUR σε δάνεια, εκ των οποίων 284 εκατομμύρια ευρώ από την Αlpha Βank στην οποία εσείς, ως Τράπεζα, δώσατε 100 εκατομμύρια ευρώ. Δεύτερον, η Fraport έπρεπε να πληρώσει 330 εκατομμύρια EUR για έργα στην Ελλάδα. Που τα βρήκε τα χρήματα; Μα εσείς δώσατε στη Fraport 280 εκατομμύρια EUR. Τα υπόλοιπα 50 θα τα βρει στα κέρδη. Κάθε χρόνο, τα κέρδη της Fraport από τα αεροδρόμια είναι 100 εκατομμύρια EUR. Τέτοιους επενδυτές, ξέρετε πώς τους λέμε στην Ελλάδα; Τους λέμε «τζάμπα μάγκες» διότι, στην ουσία χωρίς να έχουν χρήματα, με δική σας συμβολή, αρπάζουν την ελληνική κρατική περιουσία. Αυτή είναι η δραστηριότητά σας και θέλω αυτή τη φορά να απαντήσετε. Να απαντήσετε αυτή τη φορά!

 
  
 

(Fine della procedura "catch-the-eye")

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jyrki Katainen, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you very much for a good and partially very colourful discussion.

Just a few comments. Many Members said that the EIB should be more transparent. Just to look at this issue from one perspective. If somebody is interested in EFSI projects just go to the EIB’s website and you can find every single project that has been signed. Unfortunately this opportunity is not taken up very often and many MEPs could spread the good word about what EFSI can do in your region or in your country if you could see what the others have already done, how money is being used.

The second point. EFSI and the EIB more generally speaking is a demand-driven bank. So EFSI or the EIB generally speaking doesn’t send money according to its own decisions. You have to ask. You have to negotiate and then if preconditions are met the company or the public authority can get financing. This is why, for instance, if you look at the difference between Bulgaria and Romania it is so big. Whereas Bulgaria is the second biggest beneficiary of EFSI funding, Romania is one the one of the countries which have barely used EFSI opportunities. But you cannot push on a rope, even though we try. The EIB is offering technical assistance through the technical investment advisory hub and this is one of the tools we want to use even more in order to make sure that all countries and regions can benefit from EFSI financing. Many Members were worried about climate-related investments and many Members said that the EIB should finance more climate-related investments. The EIB is already now – and correct me, Mr Hoyer, if I am wrong – but according to my knowledge, the EIB is the biggest climate financer when looking at these kind of banks. Also EFSI 2.0 has already decided to dedicate some 40% of overall investment capacity to address climate change.

Finally, to our British friends, concerning Britain and British businesses: the British business sector is one of the most active users of EFSI and the EIB has a significant portfolio in Britain. British businesses and the public sector have deliberately sought to use EFSI and the EIB because it had created added value to the British economy.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Werner Hoyer, President of the European Investment Bank. – Mr President, there are so many – sometimes colourful – questions, as the Commissioner has said, that I cannot respond individually to each and every one, but I promise you that my people have written everything down, so we will approach you individually in order to answer your questions. Let me concentrate on a very few points.

Number one: the geographical balance of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) and the lending of the Bank in general. If somebody writes big articles in newspapers, comparing the investment volume in the United Kingdom with the investment volume in Malta, you will be surprised that the UK has more than Malta. There’s a little bit in relation to GDP and a little bit in relation to the overall investment activity in a country that has to be observed in that context. So you have to see the figures by GDP or the figures as a percentage of overall investment activity. There, I think we are very good now.

Secondly, the Juncker plan consists of three equally important strands: EFSI, advisory services and the institutional and regulatory improvements that the European Union needs. The Commission, the Parliament and the Council are working on all three of them, and this is why we take advisory services so seriously, and we cooperate closely on the advisory hub, together with the European Commission. For some countries this is, for the time being, the only way to be able to participate in EFSI, and where more can be done, we are ready. In some cases where the percentage of investments via EFSI or via the EIB in general is extremely low, we see also that the overall investment activity – private investment activity – in that country is extremely low. There must be a reason for that and we must address it together.

On the third issue, we should remind ourselves of the status of the Bank, which emanates from the Treaty of Rome. There it says that the objective of the Bank is to contribute to the forming of an internal market – that was sensational in the year 1957 – and to the levelling-out of regional differences. Neither job has been done yet. Too much of our GDP in the Member States of the European Union still follows the rule of the national, local or regional legislation, and not European legislation. So the internal market is not perfect yet, and in addition to that, we still have huge regional differences. This is why cohesion policies are of such importance for us.

The accountability / compliance question is extremely serious. We know that we have to continually improve on that, but I think that, in comparison to our peers in the multilateral development institutions and financing institutions, we are second to none.

There was a word on crowding-out in the remarks by Mr Niedermayer and I take that very seriously, because it is my firm conviction that there is no role for a public bank to finance something if that can be financed by private institutions. But let’s be honest: in very many cases it is our engineers (because we are the engineering bank in the world) who check a project, come to a positive conclusion, say it is good project and give the stamp of approval to the project and then, all of a sudden, private investors think it is a good project and say, ‘let’s participate and let us ourselves be crowded-in’. So sometimes the opposite of crowding-out is true: we crowd in. Basically, the EU Bank is the crowding-in institution in the world. We sell our bonds (EUR 70 to 80 billion per year) on the international capital markets, with which we finance all these activities. In addition to that, we never finance more than one third, so this brings you to the level of roughly EUR 80 billion of activities, producing EUR 272 billion of overall additional investment in Europe.

We can talk forever about energy lending. The energy policy of the European Union, unfortunately, is not set by me, or it would look a little bit different. We finance activities that are in line with the energy objectives of the European Union. We are going a little bit beyond that. There is no doubt about that, because our energy lending is energy-source neutral, but still I cannot promise you that some day I will have stopped financing fossil-fuel energy projects. This would not be honest, because the Member States of the European Union who own us will say that they do not follow that way.

On the question of the Paris Agreement, I must say that we are extremely proud that we were the driving force behind the role of the multilateral development banks in the Paris Accord, and we still believe that we should continue that role. As a matter of fact, when it comes to green bonds, which were just mentioned, we were the inventors of the green bonds (climate awareness bonds). We are still the largest issuer of climate awareness bonds and we are the ones who are now trying to find ways of expanding the idea of these – let’s say social responsibility bonds – to other areas in order to help finance sustainable development goals and other goals – in particular, for instance, right now when it comes to the Ocean Conference which is just ahead, where we have to bring a big European contribution to cleaning up the oceans.

One final word on Brexit. Brexit can break my heart, but I think that, whether we like it or not, we have to accept the decision, although sometimes one wonders what had been done in order to give the British people the real picture of what will happen when Brexit takes place. It probably will take place, but let’s look at the figures. The United Kingdom has paid EUR 3.5 billion into the Bank over the last 40 years. They will get that back, but the overall volume of indebtedness of the European Investment Bank is EUR 243 billion. With that, the Member States of the European Union guarantee our projects, which consist of a number of assets of, all in all, close to EUR 600 billion. That means that if something goes wrong, the Member States have liability here. The United Kingdom has a contingent liability of EUR 36 billion (or EUR 35 point something billion), and that will remain. It is not so that we pay out to the United Kingdom – they have never paid in, and if something goes wrong, they have a contingent liability. So these are the facts. Unfortunately, Mr Coburn has already left, because that additional information would probably have been too much.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, ponente. – Señor presidente, ya llevamos aquí casi tres horas debatiendo sobre el Banco Europeo de Inversiones, sobre sus actividades, sobre su coherencia con las políticas de la Unión, y yo creo que ya va siendo hora de concluir.

Yo simplemente quería hacer un pequeño resumen de cuál era el objetivo de este informe porque lo que hemos tratado de hacer es, evidentemente, analizar cómo es la situación del Banco Europeo de Inversiones, cómo realiza sus actividades, y, sobre todo, le hemos puesto muchos deberes para el futuro, porque al final le pedimos que haga más para las pequeñas y medianas empresas, que mejore el equilibrio geográfico en sus inversiones, que haga más en su política contra el cambio climático modificándola, que haga más en política de igualdad, más en infraestructuras sociales, más en transparencia, más en rendición de cuentas, más en indicadores, etc.

Al final le hemos puesto una serie de deberes para el futuro y, como estos son informes anuales, yo simplemente invito al Banco Europeo de Inversiones a que ponga en marcha todas estas modificaciones, a que siga trabajando en aquello que ya ha empezado, como hemos mencionado antes en el debate. Y, bueno, nos veremos dentro de un año para poder evaluar una vez más cómo van esos cambios dentro del Banco Europeo de Inversiones, y espero que sigamos mejorando el trabajo del Banco y también el trabajo de la Unión Europea. Porque, como hemos dicho en este debate y en el anterior, el Banco al final es una herramienta fundamental para poner en práctica las políticas que en este hemiciclo decidimos. Así que esperemos que todos sigamos avanzando por este buen camino.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Presidente. – La discussione è chiusa.

La votazione si svolgerà giovedì 8 febbraio 2018.

Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 162)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Valdemar Tomaševski (ECR), raštu. –Garantijų fondo finansinio valdymo klausimas yra labai svarbus atsižvelgiant į Europos Sąjungos finansinius interesus. Pranešime teisingai pažymima, kad Garantijų fondo finansinį valdymą iš EIB turėtų perimti Komisija. Komisija turi ilgalaikės panašių investicijų valdymo praktikos. Valdymas turėtų būti vykdomas laikantis aukščiausių skaidrumo ir demokratinės atskaitomybės standartų. Perimdama Garantijų fondo turto valdymą Komisija turėtų toliau racionalizuoti ir konsoliduoti Fondo turto valdymo veiklą ir toliau gerinti jo pasiektus rezultatus. Valdymo perdavimas turėtų padėti sutaupyti lėšų Sąjungos bendrajame biudžete ir sudaryti galimybę Komisijai pateikti Europos Parlamentui geresnę ir tikslesnę informaciją apie Garantijų fondo valdymą ir padėtį. Be to, ataskaitoje turėtų būti pateikiama išsami informacija apie Fondo panaudojimą ir apie pažangą, kurią finansuoti projektai paskatino paramą gaunančiose šalyse. Tai paskatins ES institucijų skaidrumą.

 
Letzte Aktualisierung: 8. April 2019Rechtlicher Hinweis