Alfred SANT
Alfred SANT

Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament

Member

Malta - Partit Laburista (Malta)

Date of birth : , Sliema

Home Alfred SANT

Member

ECON
Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs
PETI
Committee on Petitions
D-US
Delegation for relations with the United States

Substitute

BUDG
Committee on Budgets
FISC
Subcommittee on Tax Matters
D-UK
Delegation to the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly
D-JP
Delegation for relations with Japan

Most recent activities

Amending certain financial services and investment support Regulations as regards certain reporting requirements (A9-0026/2024 - Othmar Karas)

12-03-2024
Written explanations of vote

This proposal seeks to rationalize and simplify reporting requirements (in the internal market, particularly the financial services sector, and the InvestEU Programme) thereby reducing administrative burdens without compromising policy goals.
The initiative aligns with the Commission's emphasis, according to current administrative jargon, on achieving objectives, at “minimum cost, ensuring efficiency, and facilitating evidence-informed policy-making”.
The significance of reporting requirements in enforcing legislation is accepted but as new regulations were introduced, disproportionate burdens have been imposed, especially on smaller enterprises.
The proposal aims to streamline reporting obligations by reducing duplication and enhancing data exchange between authorities, which is still deficient.
Coupled with safeguards for data protection and business confidentiality, it is a step towards a more streamlined and effective regulatory framework.
I voted for the proposal.
Overall, it presents a balanced, proactive approach to regulatory reform.
Actually, it amounts as well to a sad comment on the state of the capital markets union, with especial reference to financial services.
Progress is incremental, with steps forward conditioned by too many provisos.
These serve to generate the administrative complications which proposals like the present one seek to revisit and lighten.
Sometimes the process amounts to running on the spot, at best to a game of two steps forward one step back.

Implementation of the common security and defence policy – annual report 2023 (A9-0403/2023 - Sven Mikser)

28-02-2024
Written explanations of vote

This Report fails to account for the unique security and defence characteristics of individual Member-States.
Malta's status as a neutral country prohibits participation in the projects of military alliances, unless they are backed by the UN.
The report's premises for EU action contradict this commitment.
Moreover I fundamentally disagree with the creation of a military dimension to the EU.
This is not to deny that member states have the right to create/participate in a European or other military alliance, if they so wish.
Doing this however in the framework of the EU is not the right option.
It will stamp the EU globally with the image of a military power bloc.
And it will inevitably override the interests of neutral member states in the Union.
A European military and defence policy, if decided, had better be pursued in the context of a European Defence Community with separate structures from those of the EU even if operating in parallel with them.
Therefore I cannot agree with amendments to current rules that would confirm qualified majority voting for decisions on the CFSP and CSDP.
Similarly, I disagree with the establishment of a European Defence Commissioner.
So, I voted against this Resolution.

Financial activities of the European Investment Bank - annual report 2023 (A9-0031/2024 - David Cormand)

28-02-2024
Written explanations of vote

As the lending arm of the EU, the EIB remains a crucial financial instrument in support of the EU’s political priorities
It is worrying that the pressure to turn the Bank into a defence bank persists.
The weapons industry has clearly all interests in such a turn.
This despite the fact that that the EIB already has a number of initiatives which are in their nature related to the defence industry.
Actually, there is no evidence of a financing gap in this area.
To further increase military funding, and legitimize ammunition or military equipment under EIB financing, would equate to a severe reduction in the financing of other core areas, including Green Deal and Digitalisation projects.
Moreover, “militarising” the EIB profile would negatively affect the ESG rating of the Bank.
The consequences of the loss of credibility with financial investors are difficult to quantify but are likely to be long lasting.
Finally, as a “defence bank” engaged in the financing of military projects, the EIB would undermine politically those member states (share holders) having a neutral status.
Consequently, expanding EIB financing towards the military industry is and will remain for me a political red line.
I have voted against this report.

Contact

Bruxelles

Parlement européen
Bât. ALTIERO SPINELLI
12G354
60, rue Wiertz / Wiertzstraat 60
B-1047 Bruxelles/Brussel
Strasbourg

Parlement européen
Bât. LOUISE WEISS
T07065
1, avenue du Président Robert Schuman
CS 91024
F-67070 Strasbourg Cedex