Dobesedni zapisi razprav

Sreda, 6. oktober 2021 - Strasbourg

13. Bančna unija - letno poročilo za leto 2020 (razprava)

  Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana Danuta Maria Hübnerin talous- ja raha-asioiden valiokunnan puolesta laatima mietintö pankkiunionia koskevasta vuosikertomuksesta 2020 (2020/2122(INI)) (A9-0256/2021).

  Danuta Maria Hübner, rapporteur. – Madam President, the Banking Union Annual Report 2020 assesses the situation in the European banking sector and effectiveness of the regulatory measures already in place. It calls for action on missing elements of the system but also considers how unfinished architecture undermines the functionality of the already-existing European Banking Union framework.

The focus of regulators, supervisors, central banks, but also legislators, has been on ensuring, on the one hand, the resilience of the banking sector, and on the other, its contribution to the recovery and growth of the real economy. Overall, most European banks have been weathering the crisis well. The two pillars of the Banking Union, the Single Supervisory and the Resolution Mechanism, as well as the robust regulatory framework put in place following the global financial crisis, have made the banking sector better prepared and more resilient to shocks. The temporary regulatory and supervisory relief granted to banks and the capital conservation practices that were applied increased the banks’ capacity to withstand the shock and continue financing the economy. Indeed, one can say that this time around, banks could have been considered as being part of the solution and not a part of the problem.

However, in spite of economic policy response with a concerted implementation of fiscal, monetary and prudential measures on an unprecedented scale, economic uncertainty is not gone. European supervisors diligently keep monitoring the situation, especially as public support, including for credit institutions, will be gradually subsiding.

Within the single market, as recovery from the impact of COVID proceeds, enhanced integration and consolidation in the banking sector becomes all the more important. Unfortunately, cross-border activity and banks’ appetite to consolidate have remained low. Actually, since the creation of the Banking Union, the degree of cross-border exposures of banks has not increased. A centralisation of tools and funding at EU level would reduce fragmentation and increase the credibility of the overall Banking Union, thereby further enhancing financial stability.

Banking Union should provide a fully-fledged framework, with the rules facilitating the free movement of liquidity and capital across the Union, making cross-border activity easier for all banks by bringing down the regulatory obstacles that still impede the emergence of a true single market for financial services in the Union.

The lack of a harmonised bank insolvency framework poses challenges to the Banking Union, leading in particular to the inconsistent application of the resolution regime in different Member States. Completing Banking Union is fundamental for the long-term sustainability of the system. In absence of a Common Deposit Insurance Scheme, capital and liquidity remain largely fragmented in individual Member States, as banks are reluctant to move liquidity.

A proper risk assessment and capital allocation within the Union and within European cross-border banking groups needs the foundation of a Common Deposit Insurance Scheme. Common standards and solid safeguards for large-scale depositors, as well as ensuring the resolvability of cross-border groups, would provide confidence in the markets. This is particularly needed in the post-pandemic context, where different speeds of recovery are observed across the Union.

The European Commission has been reviewing the Bank Crisis Management and Deposit Insurance Framework. The review has been focused on addressing deficiencies in the current framework, in particular related to filling the gap between the resolution framework at European level and national solvency procedures. This is an important concern in relation to small and medium-sized banks, which play an important role in financing the European economy.

A complete Banking Union, as well as increased cross-border activity and consolidation, would allow European banks to grow inside the single market and benefit from economies of scale, reducing their costs and thus improving their competitiveness on a global level.

The Eurogroup’s current efforts to agree on a step-by-step and time-bound work plan on the issues that need to be resolved in order to complete the Banking Union are still inconclusive. My understanding is that completing the Banking Union remains a priority for the European Commission, as it is for this House – as the report makes clear. Unlocking the potential for fully-integrated Banking Union would allow us to better respond to needs and expectations of the citizens and emerge stronger globally. I also trust that a complete Banking Union would provide an important boost to the Capital Markets Union.

The European Parliament remains committed to enhance its efforts and act together with the Council and with the European Commission in reaching an agreement on the remaining issues in the European banking sector, an important contributor to economic and social development. And I’d like to use this opportunity to thank all the colleagues with whom we worked together on this report for their commitment, but also for their ambition.

  Mairead McGuinness, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, firstly, my appreciation for the work of our rapporteur, Madam Hübner, and for her speech on this report on Banking Union. This is Parliament’s sixth report on completing the Banking Union and it shows the commitment of this Parliament to the Banking Union, and we in the Commission appreciate that support and commitment.

But the fact that we are discussing this sixth report calling for more progress also shows how difficult it has been to achieve this shared objective and the need for all of us – Commission, Council, Member States, Parliament – to do much more.

Of course, the Banking Union arose out of the global financial crisis and the eurozone debt crisis. We needed to strengthen the euro and the Economic and Monetary Union. The crisis meant that we found the political will to make difficult decisions and undertake ambitious solutions. But completing Banking Union is becoming harder as time passes and memories of the banking crisis fade. The sense of urgency to complete the Banking Union has withered away, and we have experienced political stalemate over the last two years. And we have failed to make the case to people less familiar with the sometimes overly technical discussions on Banking Union.

I think we need to return to fundamentals and talk and explain to citizens why the Banking Union matters, and that might help us move forward and unlock the blockages.

I believe that this Parliament has a key role to play here in bringing the discussion to citizens and businesses. A Banking Union means a larger market, and that creates more opportunities for economies of scale, as the rapporteur pointed to.

For Europeans, it would mean they can trust that their deposits are equally treated if their banks fail, no matter where they are in the European Union. And it means that we, as policy-makers, are living up to our promises to do all we can to prevent another banking crisis, with the impact that would have on people’s lives and livelihoods – not to mention on taxpayer money.

So your report rightly renews the call for increased efforts to achieve our goals, and I call on you to help us communicate with citizens about the importance of completing this work and therefore put pressure on all of us to do much more.

When it comes to how we manage failing banks, I know Parliament’s support for improving the existing framework. We should prioritise transferring the viable parts of a failing bank to another bank and facilitate the exit from the market of non-viable banks. We can protect financial stability better if we ensure that consumers do not experience significant changes to the services they use.

Where the financial buffers of a failing bank are insufficient, using taxpayers’ money may sometimes appear as the easiest option – but the Banking Union is based on using other measures as a first option. We should rely more on the industry’s own safety nets, such as resolution funds and deposit guarantee funds. Banks need enough liquidity in resolution, and the Banking Union needs to provide such a mechanism.

Moving to the European Deposit Insurance Scheme: if we want every euro deposited to have the same value, we need to grant it the same level of protection through a common deposit insurance scheme. Right now, deposit protection is only national. Common safety nets could deliver more resilience more efficiently and make national schemes less vulnerable to large local shocks. Moreover, it would encourage deeper market integration, which will let European banks grow, becoming more resilient and able to compete internationally.

The completion of Banking Union would underpin a resilient banking sector, a sector that is undergoing transformation due to digitalisation and increased competition from fintechs. Banking Union would increase citizens’ trust in the system. We need a strong and resilient Economic and Monetary Union, and we need to boost our efforts to complete Banking Union, and we need to explain why finishing our work is so important.

I look forward to hearing your contributions in this important debate.

  Lídia Pereira, em nome do Grupo PPE. – Senhora Presidente, a União Bancária, em 2020, enfrentou uma crise sem precedentes, mas mostrou-se mais forte e mais resiliente que há uma década atrás. Os pilares da supervisão e da resolução mostraram-se preparados para garantir a estabilidade financeira do setor bancário. E isso foi essencial para que enfrentássemos a crise com maior confiança.

Infelizmente, há um terceiro pilar que continua incompleto: o Sistema Europeu de Seguro de Depósitos. Se há algo que aprendemos com esta crise é que a interdependência e a solidariedade não são apenas palavras para adornar discursos. Arrastar este processo deixa os depositantes mais ou menos protegidos conforme o país em que têm os seus rendimentos e poupanças, e, portanto, não é justificável.

E se falamos de solidariedade também temos de falar sobre moratórias de créditos. Esta medida foi importante para proteger os cidadãos face a uma crise inesperada. Agora, em alguns Estados-Membros, o nível de créditos que verificam é significativo. No meu país, por exemplo, o valor das moratórias ultrapassa os 36 mil milhões de euros. E se é verdade que a prioridade é a proteção das famílias e das empresas, não é menos verdade que temos de olhar para a dimensão do crédito malparado, que continua estruturalmente elevado em muitos países.

2020 foi um ano de crise em que a União Bancária se mostrou resiliente. Esperemos que, daqui a um ano, assinalemos os avanços adiados há muito tempo. E cá estaremos para os defender.

  Costas Mavrides, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, firstly, I would like to thank the rapporteur, my colleague Danuta Hübner, for our excellent cooperation in drafting this report.

The Banking Union has been one of our key achievements since the financial crisis in 2008. The aim, though, of this annual report is to assess the state of play and functioning of its three pillars: the Single Supervisory Mechanism, the Single Resolution Mechanism and the third one, the European Deposit Insurance Scheme (EDIS), regrettably not yet implemented. As a result of these positive reforms, we have a better capitalised, less leveraged banking sector.

Regarding the current crisis, we praise the immediate response and the temporary relief measures to contain economic damage, and we call for a gradual shift from pandemic relief to recovery support tools. As the S&D Group, we ask for a well—regulated banking sector that can provide financing to the real economy during the post—COVID recovery, secure financial stability, and guarantee high levels of protection for retail depositors.

Unfortunately, though, the lack of political will regarding the establishment of the indispensable third pillar is a real deficiency of the Banking Union, but also a moral mistrust to the fair functioning of the EU as a whole.

In this report, we stress the importance of depositors across the Banking Union enjoying the same level of protection regardless of their bank location. And we call on the Commission to take further steps to relaunch the negotiations on the EDIS through a roadmap-based work plan. At the same time, we call on the Council to a firm commitment towards an agreement, despite the disappointment of the June Council meeting.

Lastly, this report underlines the importance of protecting consumer rights against abusive contract terms and practices employed by banks, and cautions the Commission to scrutinise consumer contracts to ensure the effective implementation by all Member States of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive, using all means available.

  Piernicola Pedicini, a nome del gruppo Verts/ALE. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, noi riteniamo che questa relazione annuale sia complessivamente equilibrata quando parla di finanza sostenibile e tassonomia, supervisione delle crisi bancarie, gender balance e implementazione della direttiva sulla antiriciclaggio, nonché degli effetti sulle vendite su larga scala dei prestiti in sofferenza.

Tuttavia, riteniamo che sia debole o poco ambiziosa sulle garanzie di tutela per i risparmiatori e abbiamo serie preoccupazioni sia per le regole sia per i requisiti di capitale, quando questi non dovessero riflettere il rischio.

Un'ultima considerazione sul tema dell'accesso al credito: nelle aree geografiche con maggiore ritardo di sviluppo, ritenute una priorità nel dispositivo per la ripresa e per la resilienza, il settore bancario è praticamente del tutto assente, rendendo di fatto impossibile il finanziamento dell'economia reale.

Sono pertanto necessarie misure straordinarie di finanziamento della ripresa e di incentivo al prestito alle piccole e medie imprese, proprio nelle aree geografiche ritenute a maggiore rischio.

  Gunnar Beck, im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Olaf Scholz, wohl der nächste deutsche Bundeskanzler, will die EU-Bankenunion durch die gemeinsame Einlagensicherung EDIS vollenden. Damit sollen auch nordeuropäische Sparer marode Banken in der gesamten Eurozone retten und sanieren. Nach dem Brexit zahlt Deutschland bereits jährlich rund 45 Milliarden Euro an die EU. Hinzu kommen rund 100 Milliarden TARGET2-Kredite an die Euro-Zone und rund 80 Milliarden Euro Enteignung der Sparer durch Negativzinsen der EZB und steigende Inflation.

Und die sogenannte gemeinsame Asylpolitik, deren Regeln jeder missachtet, kostet die Deutschen gleich noch mal 40 bis 60 Milliarden Euro jedes Jahr. Dazu kommen dann noch die wahnwitzigen Kosten der Klimarettung. Nirgends sind die lohnbezogenen Abgaben höher als in Deutschland – außer vielleicht in Belgien –, nirgends die indigene Geburtenrate niedriger und die Menschen älter als in Deutschland, Italien und Japan. Und nirgends sind die Strompreise höher als in Deutschland – Tendenz immer weiter steigend.

Sie verhalten sich hier, als wären wir im Schlaraffenland. Denn die deutsche Regierung wähnt sich wirtschaftlich allmächtig wie die USA nach 1945 und verpulvert das Geld für größenwahnsinnige Währungs-, Finanz-, Migrations- und Klimaprojekte, die scheitern müssen, weil sie gegen die Weltordnung und Vernunft sind. Wen die Götter zerstören wollen, den machen sie zuerst wahnsinnig.

Und so seien Sie gewiss: Wird die deutsche Kreditwürdigkeit erst einmal herabgestuft, dann ist es vorbei mit Ihren Ablassbriefen, Gesellschaftsexperimenten, Bankenrettungen und Ihrem Weltrettungswahnsinn!

  Eugen Jurzyca, za skupinu ECR. – Inštitúcie bankovej únie prešli od finančnej krízy reformami zlepšujúcimi jej stabilitu a odolnosť. Návrh na zriadenie spoločnej garancie za bankové vklady by však za súčasných podmienok ešte podľa môjho názoru stále predstavoval morálny hazard, a to prenesením potenciálnych nákladov z jednej skupiny členov eurozóny na druhú. Dodnes sme pritom nevyčerpali možnosti, ako zvýšiť zdravie bankového sektora bez ďalších garančných schém. Domáce úlohy vo forme štrukturálnych reforiem a zníženia úrovne nesplácaných úverov si stále nesplnilo viacero členov eurozóny. Zdieľanému riziku musia predchádzať jasné podmienky reforiem a ich realizácia tak, aby nedochádzalo k fiškálnemu čiernemu pasažierstvu. V opačnom prípade budú totiž spoločné garancie neférovou hrou s nulovým súčtom, kde nevyhrávajú všetci, ale jedni na úkor druhých.

  Martin Schirdewan, im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Frau Präsidentin! In der EU lagen die Kosten der Bankenrettung infolge der großen Finanzkrise bei sage und schreibe 1,7 Billionen Euro, und damals wurde hoch und heilig geschworen, dass nie wieder die Steuerzahler zur Rettung der monströsen Zockerboni und Megabanken zur Kasse gebeten werden. Das war die Geburtsstunde der Bankenunion, und seitdem ist viel Wasser die europäischen Flüsse heruntergeflossen.

Viel passiert ist jedoch nicht, denn auch ein Jahrzehnt später haben wir noch immer Megabanken, welche zu riesig und zu komplex sind, als dass man sie scheitern lassen könnte. Das Kernproblem, dass Banken too big to fail sind, wurde nicht angegangen. Ganz im Gegenteil wird durch die EU-weite Angleichung der Bankenregulierung die Konzentration und Verflechtung des Bankensektors sogar erleichtert. Was wir jedoch brauchen, um den Bankensektor zu stabilisieren und in den Dienst der Gesellschaft zu stellen, ist die konsequente Trennung von Investmentbanking und Anlagebanking. Die weiterhin laxen Eigenkapitalquoten sind völlig unzureichend. Der EU—Abwicklungsfonds ist mehr symbolische Maßnahme als effektives Mittel, um bei einer systemischen Bankenkrise wirksam eingreifen zu können.

Sehr geehrte Frau Berichterstatterin, ich begrüße die Initiative für eine bessere Regulierung des Schattenbankensektors. Ich stehe auch hinter der Forderung, den Kampf gegen Geldwäsche zu beschleunigen. Jedoch kann ich den Bericht als Ganzes nicht unterstützen, denn er vernachlässigt leider die massiven Mängel in der Architektur der Bankenunion, sodass am Ende wieder die Steuerzahler blechen müssen.

  Ivan Vilibor Sinčić (NI). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, zadnjih godinu dana u Europi imamo neviđeno povećanje dugova pa je tako omjer državnog duga prema BDP-u porastao sa 77,5 na kraju 2019. na 97 na kraju 2020. godine, dok se u eurozoni povećao s 83,9 na nevjerojatnih 98 posto. Za oba ta područja to je najveće zabilježeno godišnje povećanje duga, ali i zabilježen otkad postoje podaci.

Javni dug država članica pak premašio je 12 tisuća milijardi eura, dok je 2000. godine bio tek 5 tisuća milijardi. U ovoj zadnjoj krizi prvi puta je EU emitirao zajedničku obveznicu kako bi se spasio europski politički projekt i utapanje brojnih zemalja u dugovima. Kad kamatne stope ponovno počinju rasti, što je neizbježno, u velikim problemima će se prvo naći najzaduženije zemlje od kojih je u najlošiji poziciji upravo velika talijanska ekonomija, a koje neće moći servisirati niti svoje stare dugove, a kamoli svoje udjele u novim zajedničkim obveznicama.

Prije deset godina u krizi eura pokazalo se da su zemlje van eurozone mnogo uspješnije, a isto možemo očekivati i sada.

  Isabel Benjumea Benjumea (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, señorías, durante la crisis provocada por la COVID-19, los bancos, sin lugar a dudas, han sido un pilar fundamental para la recapitalización de las empresas y para la reactivación de la economía europea. Y lo han sido en gran parte gracias a los avances que durante el último año han fortalecido el tercer pilar de la unión bancaria y conducido hacia la creación de un Sistema Europeo de Seguro de Depósitos.

Un sistema bancario fuerte que sea capaz de resistir a potenciales crisis y de servir como pulmón económico de nuestra región pasa por tener como prioridad el establecimiento de las reformas necesarias en materia de resolución y de seguro de depósitos. Por eso, celebro los pasos dados hasta el momento en esta dirección y animo a la Comisión a seguir en esta línea.

Sin embargo, si algo hemos aprendido también durante estos meses es que los mercados de capitales también son un pilar fundamental para la recuperación de la economía europea, ya que esta todavía depende demasiado del crédito bancario y eso es una debilidad para nuestras pymes, para nuestras empresas. Por eso, debemos trabajar por fomentar la cultura del equity en Europa.

Los mercados de capitales tienen la capacidad de financiar a los hogares y empresas europeas, de permitir la entrada de inversores minoristas y de generar un mercado más integrado y fuerte. Esta es la línea por la que debemos apostar. Así pues, la combinación de un sistema bancario fuerte y de un mercado de capitales unido es clave para la recuperación de nuestra economía, para una unión económica y monetaria más estable y para hacer de la Unión Europea la región más competitiva y atractiva para las inversiones internacionales.

  Jonás Fernández (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, en primer lugar, me gustaría dar las gracias y felicitar a Danuta Hübner, a Costas Mavrides y al resto de ponentes alternativos por negociar un informe sobre la unión bancaria muy necesario. Tan necesario como que es esencial después de los bloqueos que vimos en los últimos meses en el Consejo, en el Eurogrupo, que han sido incapaces ni tan siquiera de poner negro sobre blanco una hoja de ruta, un camino, una guía para los próximos años. Y, por lo tanto, que el Parlamento tenga una posición —quizá no todo lo audaz que a algunos nos gustaría en algunos puntos, pero sí una posición clara de defensa, de insistir en la necesidad de impulsar la unión bancaria— yo creo que es un síntoma muy importante de la responsabilidad de esta Casa y también del apoyo que esta Casa está dando a la Comisión Europea para avanzar en la unión bancaria.

Pero, siendo esto cierto, también lo es que no podemos culpar solo al Eurogrupo o al Consejo de las dificultades, porque —como ya se ha dicho aquí— llevamos años paralizados en la negociación del seguro de depósitos europeo y es una paralización de la que somos responsables, sin duda unos más que otros. Pero me gustaría también aprovechar esta sesión para reivindicar, para pedir, para clamar a aquellos que están dificultando esa negociación que abran la puerta.

Porque estamos en una situación complicada. Es cierto que esta crisis la hemos pasado sin crisis bancarias, gracias, por otra parte, a los requisitos de capital, a la regulación de Basilea, que necesitamos fortalecer en los próximos meses, pero es verdad que el marco institucional de nuestro sector bancario sigue siendo inestable.

Y esperamos que la Comisión presente en los próximos meses un nuevo marco de gestión de crisis. Hay cosas que hacer ahí. El informe, yo creo que apunta muy claramente a lo que tenemos que abordar y esperamos que la Comisión así lo haga. Pero también es importante reconocer que, para que la Comisión siga, este Parlamento tiene que apoyar, y este informe sobre la unión bancaria apoya, pero necesitamos tramitar ya el seguro de depósitos.

  France Jamet (ID). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, Madame la Rapporteure, mes chers collègues, l’union bancaire est le serpent de mer constant de la politique européenne. Aujourd’hui, vous prétendez superviser l’hyperconcentration d’un risque, alors qu’il est déjà hors de contrôle.

Le cloisonnement des marchés, la séparation des risques et la diversité des modèles de fixation des prix et de contrôle sont des conditions de la sécurité. L’interdépendance et la concentration multiplient le risque systémique, surtout quand ils relient des marchés hétérogènes comme le restent encore les marchés nationaux européens. Mais le principe est fondé sur un système qui, une fois le contribuable rincé, engage les épargnants, les déposants et les entreprises à payer la note pour sauver les activités spéculatives des banques.

On sait déjà que ces mêmes banques sont exposées à de multiples bulles qui risquent d’éclater demain, du fait de la pandémie et du fait que les banques n’ont pas voulu tirer les nécessaires leçons des faillites précédentes. Il suffit pour s’en convaincre de voir les demandes de dérégulation exigées par le lobby bancaire au plus fort de la période COVID-19, où l’on trouve encore des activités de titrisation très risquées, celles-là mêmes qui ont conduit à la faillite de Lehman Brothers et à l’explosion mondiale de 2008. On prend les mêmes et on recommence. L’addition de faiblesses n’a jamais constitué une force. La clé n’est pas la mutualisation du risque, mais son redécoupage et sa déconcentration. Tel est le rôle de l’État-nation que nous appelons de nos vœux.

Vous avez construit une union bancaire en laissant la protection des épargnants au dernier rang de vos préoccupations. Nous, nous pensons que c’est en prenant des mesures de régulation fortes au niveau national que nous serons à même de protéger les épargnants et les déposants, qui sont au premier rang de nos préoccupations.

  Michiel Hoogeveen (ECR). – Voorzitter, hoewel er in het jaarverslag over de bankenunie waardevolle aspecten staan, en met name op het gebied van toezicht, hebben wij ook serieuze kritiek. Zo ondersteunt de tekst de zelfinschatting van de bank over klimaatveranderingsrisico's. Sinds wanneer behoort klimaat tot het monetaire mandaat van een centrale bank, laat staan de bankensector? Wij vrezen dat rücksichtslos groen geld alloceren tot groene bubbels zal leiden. We zijn al genoeg bubbels aan het blazen, zoals op de huizenmarkt.

Maar de meest opvallende zorg is dat er met geen woord wordt gerept over inflatierisico's en de vertraging van noodzakelijke hervormingen in sommige lidstaten. In plaats daarvan staat een gemeenschappelijk Europees depositogarantiestelsel (EDIS) nog steeds hoog op de agenda. Wij zijn hier tegen. Elke lidstaat is verantwoordelijk voor het eigen depositogarantiestelsel. Nederland heeft zijn eigen banken gered en is niet verplicht om ook de risico's van banken in andere lidstaten voor zijn rekening te nemen.

Kortom, er zijn voor ons teveel problemen om dit jaarverslag te steunen.

  Mislav Kolakušić (NI). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, prijedlogom izvješća pozdravlja se ulazak Republike Hrvatske u eurozonu. Glavna industrija Republike Hrvatske postala je slanje novca hrvatskih radnika i iseljenika iz inozemstva. Na to je svedena nekoć izuzetno razvijena industrijska država istočne Europe.

Uvođenje eura i predaja monetarnog suvereniteta bez održavanja referenduma i utvrđivanja volje građana može se usporediti samo s Pavelićevom predajom suvereniteta nad Dalmacijom Talijanima. Slijedom činjenice da oko 3,2 milijuna hrvatskih iseljenika danas živi i radi u inozemstvu, dok u Hrvatskoj živi trenutno samo 3,8 milijuna stanovnika. Gotovo cijela Hrvatska živi izvan Hrvatske. Možemo se onda odreći i hrvatskog jezika jer će to biti praktičnije.

  Tomislav Sokol (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, potpredsjednice, povjerenice, kolegice i kolege. U kontekstu izvješća o bankovnoj uniji želim skrenuti pozornost na problem s dopuštenim i prešutnim prekoračenjima s kojima se europski građani susreću. Hrvatska narodna banka utvrdila je da 70 % potrošača u Hrvatskoj s otvorenim tekućim računima ima odobreno prekoračenje. Pri tome, više od 95 % svih prekoračenja čine ona prešutna koja su u prosjeku 30 % skuplja od dopuštenih. Ovih činjenica potrošači nažalost nisu svjesni zbog čega je potrebno raditi na njihovom boljem informiranju o financijskim proizvodima koje koriste. Analiza HNB-a pokazala je, dakle, da je financijski instrument prešutnog opterećenja prekoračenja, koje treba biti iznimka, postao pravilo. Istovremeno, potrošači su izloženi riziku da kreditne institucije mogu zatražiti povrat iznosa prešutnog prekoračenja, a da im pritom nisu dužne omogućiti obročnu otplatu dugovanja. U tom smislu potrošači su izloženi samovolji. Zato je potrebno revizijom europskog zakonodavstva obvezati banke da u slučaju kada traže povrat prekoračenja potrošačima ponude mogućnost obročne otplate. Sve manje od toga predstavljalo bi nerazmjerno opterećenje za građane. Uz to, za rješavanje ovog problema, potrebna je snažnija suradnja u okviru Europskog sustava središnjih banaka. Stoga dozvolite da se s ove govornice još jednom snažno založim za rješavanje problema s prekoračenjima, od vitalnog značaja za mnoge europske građane i pozovem da ovo pitanje postavimo visoko na našu listu prioriteta.

  Marek Belka (S&D). – Madam President, an excellent report. My congratulations to Danuta. It made me ask myself a question: has the banking union been a success? My answer would be partially yes: the banks are stronger, better capitalised, better supervised and they survived the COVID crisis quite well.

But we have to remember that the ultimate rationale for the idea of the banking union is to provide transborder efficient flows of private capital. If this is not the case, we will fail. If we complete the institutional framework of the banking union, let’s look then at the results of it. Will the private capital flow, or not? If not, then the euro will remain on shaky ground forever.

  Gerolf Annemans (ID). – Voorzitter, collega's, het is hemeltergend dat dit Parlement niet de lessen heeft getrokken die het had moeten trekken. Voor de banken moest het voor de crisis van 2008 altijd meer, altijd groter en altijd verder zijn. Daarmee ophouden was – dacht ik – de les die we trokken uit de financiële crisis. En de vraag was natuurlijk ook of burgers en bedrijven beschermd moeten worden tegen het wanbeleid en het mogelijke bankroet van banken. Ja, natuurlijk. Onze mensen hebben gewoon de tijd en de middelen niet om zich daar individueel tegen te wapenen.

Echter, is de pan-Europese bankenunie daarvoor een goede oplossing? Absoluut niet, want om te beginnen negeert de bankenunie nog altijd de fundamentele problemen van de bankensector. Dertien jaar na de financiële crisis zitten er nog steeds geen tussenschotten of firewalls tussen de spaarbanken en de investeringsbanken. Nog steeds riskeren wij financiële crises doordat banken te groot zijn, te veel risico's nemen en meer beleggen in elkaars producten dan te investeren in de echte economie. Deze resolutie pleit zelfs voor schaalvergroting met nog grotere en grensoverschrijdende banken, met alle mogelijke desastreuze domino-effecten van dien.

Hebben wij dan niets geleerd van deze crisis? Het waren kleine en middelgrote banken die Europa overeind hielden. Natuurlijk moet het geld van de mensen op bankrekeningen beschermd worden, zeker in een gigantische schuldeneconomie als die van de huidige ECB. Maar één uniforme depositogarantie voor de hele eurozone houdt gewoon geen rekening met de verschillende risico's in landen, waardoor er in sommige landen meer bescherming nodig is en in andere minder. Ze ontdoet ook de zondaars van een essentieel onderdeel van een stabiele financiële omgeving, namelijk de eigen verantwoordelijkheid. Het toezicht op banken en de garanties moeten daarom nationale bevoegdheden blijven.

En ten slotte, er kan in dit Parlement geen halve zin gezegd of geschreven worden, of het moet groen en klimaatneutraal zijn. Ook de bankenunie moet in dit verslag de klimaatreligie dus ondersteunen. Dat betekent sinds de goedkeuring van de taxonomieverordening dat er Europese bureaucraten aan het stuur van onze banken zullen komen, en zij gaan bepalen welke investeringen nog mogen of niet. Zo'n staatsgeleide economie is misschien de droom van de vele openlijke of verdoken communisten in dit halfrond, maar zeker niet het ideaal van de stichters van de Europese samenwerking. Dus ook al zeker niet van ons, van de patriottische krachten in Europa.

  Pedro Marques (S&D). – Madam President, first, I would like to congratulate Danuta. We have had this endeavour together already in this mandate. It’s again an excellent report, a drive from this Parliament to push for the completion of the banking union.

I’d like to go back to Marek Belka’s intervention. Yes, indeed, we have to say that we came to this crisis with the banking sector better prepared for the turmoil of the crisis. Yes, it is true that we faced the crisis with more resilience, even if with a lot of public policy in the middle of it to sustain the situation, also in the banking sector and the financing of the economy.

But, in the end, we have all been pledged to the completion of the Banking Union. We cannot have the financing of Europe – we want the safety of the banking sector in Europe – without the third pillar, without EDIS (the European Deposit Insurance Scheme). We need EDIS because we need to protect citizens against the banking crisis all over Europe, because it will improve the confidence of depositors and investors all over Europe. It will strengthen the stability of the euro of our Economic and Monetary Union. All Member States can benefit from it. We need to complete it. We need to find the political will to do it.

  Antonio Maria Rinaldi (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, se per Unione bancaria si intende il trasferimento delle competenze di vigilanza dalle autorità nazionali a quelle europee, non si comprende come mai permangano ancora alcune fortissime discriminazioni.

Infatti, si riscontrano asimmetrie a discapito delle banche commerciali che operano essenzialmente a supporto dell'economia reale, cioè a vantaggio del sistema produttivo, a favore invece di quelle che operano prevalentemente in operazioni finanziarie non supportate da operazioni commerciali, ma che tuttavia, essendo esposte a notevolissimi rischi non debitamente monitorati e codificati, possono condizionare negativamente a livello sistemico l'intero sistema bancario.

Questi timori nascono dalla consapevolezza che esistono rischi potenzialmente elevati a cui molti istituti bancari europei sono esposti ormai da anni, avendo nei propri asset derivati finanziari complessi, cioè quelli catalogati in level 2 and 3 e i cosiddetti titoli tossici, essendo il rischio degli altri derivati già presidiato dai CCP (Central Counter Party) ed EMIR (European markets infrastructure regulation) sui derivati OTC.

Di contro, invece, per gli NPL è previsto un preciso calendar provisioning, massimo di 7 anni, prima di esternalizzarli, cioè cederli, mentre per i derivati complessi, classificati come level 2 and 3, non è prevista una tempistica analoga e nessuna linea guida e metodologia al riguardo, né tantomeno specifici accantonamenti di capitale a fronte di possibili valutazioni errate.

Non è comprensibile pertanto che, mentre si sono adottate nei confronti delle sofferenze commerciali linee guida restrittive e codificate, si è invece inspiegabilmente protetto l'accumulo di enormi rischi in derivati complessi, lasciati al solo calcolo autoreferenziale dalle banche stesse coinvolte, con macroscopici conflitti di interesse e senza valutare il rischio del crescente fenomeno dello shadow banking system, dove a oggi non esiste ancora vigilanza adeguata.

Inoltre, sull'intero sistema bancario europeo gravano le incognite di Basilea IV, di cui conosceremo i particolari a fine ottobre prossimo, ma il rischio concreto è che il suo recepimento possa penalizzare ulteriormente le piccole e medie imprese con un sistema del credito ancora fragile.

Infine, sul completamento dell'Unione bancaria e schema di garanzia dei depositi comuni EDIS non ci convince un modello ibrido per il fondo di garanzia comune, in quanto senza una vera e reale mutualizzazione dei rischi esso non produrrà nessun vantaggio, né rafforzerà la capacità delle banche dell'Unione di resistere a eventuali shock. Al contrario, rimarcherà il principio di differenziale di rischio tra economie del centro e della periferia e paradossalmente spianerà la strada a chi sostiene vada abolito il risk free sovrano.

  Paul Tang (S&D). – Madam President, I would like to thank Danuta Hübner and the shadows for an excellent report.

Ik zal doorgaan in het Nederlands, want ik wil graag toch een punt maken dat voor verdere discussie van belang blijft, want na de financiële crisis zeiden we: dit nooit meer. We wilden niet meer opdraaien voor de riskante weddenschappen van bankiers, bankiers die het risico namen met het idee “bij kop win ik en bij munt verlies jij”. En toch laten we dat opnieuw gebeuren.

Banken nemen wederom buitensporige risico's omdat ze weten dat ze ermee wegkomen. Ze nemen risico's, dit keer niet alleen met ons geld, maar ook met onze planeet. Banken investeren volop in fossiele brandstoffen en laten ons het puin ruimen. En als het puin geruimd is en een transitie geslaagd is, dan zullen hun investeringen opeens niets meer waard blijken. En dan mogen wij de rekening oppakken en wederom omvallende banken steunen.

De regels van de bankenunie moeten worden herschreven met als uitgangspunt: stabiliteit en duurzaamheid zijn twee kanten van dezelfde medaille. Speciaal voor mijnheer Annemans.

  Alfred Sant (S&D). – Madam President, the inertia in developing the Banking Union to its logical end has made the lack of crisis news from the European banking sector sound like good news. Yet, European banks have been consistently underperforming relative to their non—European competitors for too long. Their profitability has not been too good. Generally, the European banking system is still considered too fractured to be able to compete effectively in the long term on global markets.

The Green Deal, digitalisation and extensive new anti—money laundering requirements have been forcing some European banks to keep back from new and established business arrangements. In a way, the massive financial interventions of governments and the European Central Bank during the COVID—19 pandemic provided good scope for masking fundamental problems. However, they also enabled banks to survive, though many, especially at the periphery, saw their returns on equity (ROEs) go negative.

Clearly, the structure of European banking will top the agenda of the day someday, not so far away. It will be a painful process, also because Banking Union has been shelved for far too long for political reasons that will, in future, appear to be paltry.

  Pedro Silva Pereira (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, a verdade é que, depois de anos de palavras e compromissos, a União Bancária continua hoje a ser uma história inacabada.

É certo, os progressos feitos permitiram já ao sistema financeiro responder melhor a esta crise do que à crise anterior, com um novo sistema de supervisão do Banco Central Europeu, o novo quadro regulatório e as medidas de controlo do crédito malparado. É também certo que o Acordo sobre a Reforma do Mecanismo Europeu de Estabilidade, assinado durante a Presidência portuguesa, permitirá que em 2022 o Fundo Único de Resolução possa finalmente estar operacional e contribuir para a estabilidade do sistema financeiro. Mas é precisamente porque houve esta redução de riscos que é tempo de uma maior partilha de riscos, criando o Sistema Europeu de Seguro de Depósitos, que é um pilar essencial da União Bancária.

Por isso este Parlamento, mais uma vez, dirige à Comissão e aos governos no Conselho uma mensagem clara: não deixem para amanhã o que podem e devem fazer hoje. É tempo de concluir a União Bancária e criar o Sistema Europeu de Seguro de Depósitos.

  Caroline Nagtegaal (Renew). – Voorzitter, commissaris, laatst vroeg iemand mij: “Wat heb ik aan een bankenunie, gewoon als hardwerkende Nederlander?” Een simpele maar een supergoede vraag. En de aanleiding van die bankenunie ligt eigenlijk al tien jaar geleden, toen het financiële systeem echt aan de rand van de afgrond stond en banken met gigantische bedragen aan belastinggeld moesten worden gered. En het probleem? Nationale banken die te veel verweven waren met hun overheden. En het gevolg? Een bankencrisis én een schuldencrisis. En voor wie was dat het allerergst? Precies, voor die belastingbetaler. En juist om die belastingbetaler te beschermen, hebben we die bankenunie opgezet, die ervoor moet zorgen dat jouw spaargeld en je hypotheek veilig zijn, en dat de gewone man niet opdraait voor de wanprestaties van banken.

Als VVD vinden wij het belangrijk dat het bankensysteem stabiel is, het spaargeld veilig op je rekening blijft staan, en dat we zorgen dat banken geen risico’s lopen die ze gewoon niet kunnen dragen, om een nieuwe bankencrisis te voorkomen. Gelukkig gaat er ook veel goed. Het bankwezen is een stuk stabieler geworden en heeft zelfs een hele belangrijke rol kunnen spelen tijdens de coronacrisis door de kredietverlening aan de reële economie gaande te houden.

Maar de bankenunie is echt nog niet af. Een Europees depositogarantiestelsel, dat zou het sluitstuk zijn van wat een volmaakte bankenunie heet. Maar niet voor niets is zo'n gemeenschappelijk garantiestelsel een heel heet hangijzer. Het is een must dat banken hun risico's terugbrengen. Daarmee houden ze niet alleen zichzelf veilig, maar wordt ook de Europese solidariteit niet op het spel gezet. En ik ben ook echt blij met dit verslag waarin dat wordt onderkend en waarmee bovendien een duidelijke boodschap aan de Commissie wordt gegeven: wil zij de onderhandelingen voor een Europees depositogarantiestelsel vlot trekken, dan kan dit niet los worden gezien van risicoreductie. Want dat is juist zo ongelooflijk van belang, dat wat door onze hardwerkende Nederlander en Europeaan is opgebouwd: die Europese economie.

  Puhemies. – Kiitos oikein paljon edustaja Nagtegaal. Te puhutte aivan fantastisen hitaasti ja selkeästi. Toivoisin, että täällä enemmän seurattaisiin tällaista rauhallista puhetapaa. Myös tulkit varmasti arvostavat sitä.

  Mairead McGuinness, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I want to acknowledge the work not only of our rapporteur, but also the shadow rapporteurs and everyone who contributed to this debate. There were many opinions, but I heard a very strong call for advancement on Banking Union; I appreciate that message and I take it with me.

I want to acknowledge, as many of you have, that the banks were stronger going into this crisis because of the work you did, as regulators and legislators, in putting in place stronger capital requirements. This is, therefore, a positive development from COVID, but we have not finished the work. We need to understand that, despite the naysayers, there are big benefits from completing Banking Union.

It will help financial firms adjust business models and facilitate consolidation across borders without threatening financial stability. It will also help the banking sector address challenges to the existing banking model and boost competitiveness. Banking Union will support efforts to finance the green and digital transitions. It will also help handle a challenging macroeconomic environment, an ageing society, high levels of debt and low interest. It will ensure that our safety nets are effective and enough funding is available for banks across the Banking Union in times of crisis. Last, but not least, it will benefit European citizens, because depositor confidence is a public good that we have a responsibility to protect.

I note the challenge to agree on everything about Banking Union by the end of this year, but we do urgently need to set things in motion. I would encourage the European Parliament to remain ambitious and to continue working on these files. Progress will only be possible if Parliament plays its full role as co-legislator. I also want to say that the issue of climate change was mentioned in some of the contributions, and climate change is a risk to financial stability unless it is properly accounted for.

I repeat that the Commission stands ready to support work to advance Banking Union – as well as Capital Markets Union – and ultimately the goal is a strong and resilient economic and monetary union. It is within sight, but we have work to do. These will underpin a strong and resilient European economy, laying the necessary foundations to face other challenges.

  Puhemies. – Keskustelu on päättynyt. Tarkistuksista äänestetään tänään ja lopullinen äänestys toimitetaan huomenna.

Kirjalliset lausumat (171 artikla)

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), kirjallinen. – Pankkiunionin viimeistely tulisi ehdottomasti saattaa loppuun tällä vaalikaudella. Vaikka sen rakentaminen on edelleen työn alla, se on saanut pontta koronapandemian ravistelemasta taloustilanteesta. Pankkiunionin viimeistelyn lisäksi tarvitsemme eurooppalaista talletussuojajärjestelmää, jonka perustaminen on edelleen yksi tärkeimmistä tavoitteista. Edelleen tänä päivänä meiltä puuttuu kolme merkittävää osaa vakauden takaamiseksi. Ensiksi tarvitsisimme kunnollisen palomuurin riski-investointien ja peruspankkitoiminnan välillä. Toiseksi kestävän rahoituksen periaatteet ja ympäristöindikaattorit tarvitaan mukaan pankkien toimintaan ja lainoitukseen. Kolmantena tekijänä meidän tulee kiinnittää huomiota sääntelyyn eli siihen, miten ohjaamme uudenlaisia innovaatioita kuten vertaislainoja ja joukkorahoitusta, jotta ne eivät aiheuta piensijoittajille ja kuluttajalle riskejä. Pitkällä aikavälillä yhteinen talletussuoja toisi rahamarkkinoille luottamusta ja vähentäisi pankkien ja valtioiden välistä yhteyttä. Pankkien napanuora valtion velkakirjoihin tulee katkaista, jotta pankkikriisit enää tulevaisuudessa kaadu veronmaksajien maksettaviksi.