Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner, on too many occasions, those of us who work in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, mainly on matters relating to financial regulation, discuss, approve, negotiate regulations, directives, and, on many occasions, it is difficult to translate into common language what we do. It is difficult to speak of the solvency of the entities, of capital requirements: These are concepts, perhaps, too far removed from the day-to-day life of Europeans. But today we are here to welcome the adoption of a new regulation to whose content we are linked on a daily basis. Who hasn't made a bank transfer? Who has not tried to make an instant payment through their checking account and has seen that their bank wanted to set a commission? Well, with this agreement of the Council and Parliament, we are establishing a new regulation of these instant payments to make life much easier for citizens, to advance in the capital markets union and in the banking union itself and, as I say, to make life easier for all Europeans. So congratulations to everyone. A pleasure.

Madam President, Commissioner, we started this plenary session just a few hours ago, paying tribute to Jacques Delors and among his assets, he is promoting the single market in the European Union. Simply by respecting its legacy, we have to recognise that there are still specific markets in the Union that are still not sufficiently consolidated: One of them is the capital market. I would like to congratulate Danuta Hübner on his work, which has led us today to adopt two regulations to boost this capital markets union, both from a retail point of view - so that savers have more and better information and, in addition, some activities are prohibited, which generated costs and hardly contributed any value - and a legislative proposal that addresses how we should improve this capital market from a wholesale perspective. But, while concluding these agreements, we have to acknowledge the work that still lies ahead of us. The next legislature has to be a key legislature for the Capital Markets Union, because we need much more funding to sustain the green transition, the digital transition and to continue to make efforts to improve this Union, which reminded us today of Jacques Delors.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there have undoubtedly been great debates, great steps have been taken and efforts have been made over the years, and I would particularly like to thank Commissioner Schmit for his work in developing a very active social agenda from the Commission, aimed essentially at answering the question that brings us here today: how to improve access to housing for young people? How to improve access to work, its capacity, in short, to develop an autonomous life? And, as I said, the proposal for platform workers, the proposal for minimum wages, the proposal also to control holiday housing, which this Commission has put in place, have been welcome and very necessary. But it's not enough. When we talk about housing policy, I think we need to be aware of the many local realities behind housing. Many times in large cities we have problems of inflation in rental prices, but in rural areas we have the problem of the absolute absence of housing: young people in rural areas who cannot emancipate themselves because there is no housing available in the markets. And, therefore, designing comprehensive policies for the Union as a whole is difficult because there are local realities that, in one way or another, determine the problems or solutions to solve them. In any case, I would like to point out that the European Investment Bank could do more. The European Investment Bank could, as part of that climate bank campaign, help finance sustainable and green housing for young people.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have been talking for many years, perhaps too many, about the need to boost European industrial policy. The concept of open strategic autonomy is a necessary idea, a timely agenda, for the present of the Union, but it needs financial resources. And it needs financial resources because, without clear budgetary support from the Community institutions, we somehow leave that responsibility solely to the Member States. And if we reduce the regulation of state aid along the way – certainly in order to advance this industrial policy – we are seriously jeopardising the cohesion and integrity of the single market. We have to say that the Commission's proposal, which is a response to a request from this Parliament to set up a sovereign fund called STEP, is a small, very small one. step in the right direction because there are hardly any new resources. Parliament has reached a great deal of agreement - and I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs - to increase the budgetary capacity, the search for funding in the margins of the budget, from the EUR 10 billion proposed by the Commission to EUR 13 billion. It's a good advance, but it's certainly not enough. In the debate we had two weeks ago in this House, I asked you, Commissioner, whether you would consider making use of the EUR 93 billion in appropriations not requested by the Member States under the recovery and resilience plan, whether you would make any proposals to be able to make use of that funding. He said it wasn't legal, it wasn't possible. Well, this Parliament today is debating and tomorrow will approve a new mechanism to be able to make use of those 93 billion by fulfilling all the requirements of the Council Regulation that put in place Next Generation EU and that only needs the political will on the part of the Council so as not to waste those resources that we so badly need at European level. That is why I would like to invite the Commission to read this Parliament's proposal carefully and join us in convincing the Council's hesitant - and there certainly are - to finish financing the industrial effort in the European Union.

Mr President, Commissioner, without a doubt, the digitalisation of the economy is requiring us to update all laws, regulations, regulations and directives, in order to try to maintain the same principles and objectives, but through different instruments, inasmuch as that digital world needs, as I said, regulation equivalent to the rest of the economy. On this occasion we welcome – and I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and the entire negotiating team on this – the updating of the necessary regulation to control this range of financial services at a distance, in which, in some cases, if there is no very clear control, there may be problems of diminishing consumer rights. I would like to highlight the work of the S&D Group to ensure physical presence, human contact, in these types of contracts.

Madam President, Commissioner, I must certainly start this debate by thanking and congratulating the work of Mr Tang, rapporteur for the report on the proposal for a regulation on European green bonds, over the last few months. An essential work, together with the rest of the shadow speakers, to put in place, also in this case, the first global regulation that will help to drive savings and investment towards green assets. This regulatory innovation in Europe, which joins many others in the framework of the green transition, clarifies, provides transparency and will make it easier for responsible investors to distribute their resources, which will also contribute to the transition itself. I would also like to recall that this agreement is a starting point. We cannot think that everything is done; there are some elements in this agreement with the Council that need to be reviewed in the future. We need to clarify a little more the quality of the underlying assets of these loans, these green bonds. So the work continues, and I congratulate Mr. Tang.

Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Council representative, if we look at the situation of access to housing across Europe, perhaps we could agree that there are two major problems. The first is undoubtedly high prices – linked in some areas to shortages, mainly in rural areas – and the second is the challenge of improving the construction of our homes to avoid climate change and advance the European Green Deal. For this, we have put in place the Social Climate Fund and have also allocated additional funding to Next Generation EU. Undoubtedly, an important step, but not enough. However, to help contain prices, to improve the supply of housing, we are still a long way from the road we must travel. Undoubtedly, decent housing is Europe. Europe must be synonymous with decent housing.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, this is certainly a necessary debate these days and I would like to thank the Left Group for proposing this discussion in this week's plenary sessions after the last interest rate hike by the European Central Bank. I will barely put forward two ideas to fuel this discussion. On the same day as the Governing Council of the ECB met, its new inflation forecasts were published, which put that figure for 2024 at 3.2% on average for the year. This means that, during the second part of next year, inflation will be around 2.5% according to the Central Bank's own forecasts and will decline further in 2025 to 2.1%. In this regard, I wonder what is the need to accelerate the convergence of inflation towards 2%, taking into account that the revision of the mandate interprets its objective in the medium term and taking into account the risk of a certain recession that we have in the euro area, and of recession in some very important economies in that area. There is always a compromise between growth and inflation and I think that, when forecasts suggest that in twelve or fifteen months inflation will only be very slightly above 2%, the risks to economic activity are more important than bringing that 2% one month up or one month down. In any case, this debate also leads us to another discussion that we are having these weeks, which is none other than the review of the economic governance of the Union. Because at the moment only monetary policy is able to help manage cycles. We still do not internalise the need for a consolidated fiscal position in the euro area, and this is very important because, with a European fiscal pillar, we could manage cycles substantially better and avoid scenarios such as the one we are suffering with these interest rate levels. We have to have that debate.

Madam President, representatives of the Commission and the Council, in this interesting and lengthy debate I believe that Parliament's position has become clear. And I join the words of my colleague Eider Gardiazábal on the need to respond from this budget to the challenges and challenges, not of the future but of the immediate present. And speaking of the immediate present, I would like to put a direct question to the Commission. There are €90 billion available under the Recovery and Resilience Facility that Member States have not requested, and we have until the end of the year to use them. We have a lot of work to do and €90 billion that may be lost. I would like to ask the Commission whether it is thinking of proposing something to the Council and to this Parliament in order to be able to make use, as I say, of those EUR 90 billion that will be lost at the end of the year if we do not do something together.

Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the truth is that this has been a legislature in which there has been remarkable progress in tax matters, both at European and international level. And it could be said that they are forcibly hanging and increasing public debt, which we were forced to carry out to cover the risks of the COVID crisis and, later, in the war, have somehow put on the table the debate about the need to raise more and better. In any case, we have made good progress in corporate taxation, but it is true that, in taxation of large assets,family office», phantom societies, such as those we are debating today, we have only just begun the journey. And he said we can see the glass half empty or half full. There has been significant progress, as I said, but we cannot take any further delays in the Council in adopting a directive in which the arguments of administrative obstacles cannot be the element blocking a quick decision.

Mr President, Commissioner, allow me to extend a special greeting to the Spanish Presidency, welcoming its representative. It is a pleasure to have this July plenary session with the Spanish Presidency, which will accompany us until the end of the course. And it is certainly a pleasure because the Secretary of State has pointed out well the efforts and successes that the European Union has had in recent years: the fight, first, against the pandemic, the response to the effects of Putin's invasion of Ukraine, with Community policies that have helped, and much, the Member States, but also directly to the citizens, the middle classes and the working classes to face uncertain and difficult moments with greater success than in past crises. In any case, at this time, when it seems that the scenario is not or should not be as negative as that of the fears we suffered in 2020, 2021 and 2022, it is true that there is uncertainty about the withdrawal of many measures to support the popular classes and the very revision of the fiscal rules or the need to really relaunch the European Pillar of Social Rights. The European Parliament is committed to this and I dare say that it offers itself to the Presidency to achieve these objectives in the coming months.

Mr President, Commissioner, allow me to devote these first seconds of my speech to thanking President Hoyer for his twelve years of service to the European Union, in which the European Investment Bank has undoubtedly taken an institutional leap of presence and cooperation with this Parliament that I would like to thank. It is true, as you said, that we have not always taken the same view – and I remember the discussions around the implementation of InvestEU, among other issues – but I did not want to stop thanking you for your work, even though this consumes almost all of my speech. In any case, thinking about the future, the European Investment Bank has taken a big leap, becoming the great climate bank of the European Union, also pushed by this Parliament. And, without a doubt, the Bank must also be able to make an additional leap in cooperation to solve some problems that we have on the design of State aid and the cohesion of the single market by contributing, and much more, to the creation of a sovereign instrument that helps us to face the great challenges of the digital transition, of the green transition, from European sovereignty and with a contribution from the European Investment Bank that states alone cannot make, and with a special contribution also to the just transition mechanism for some regions such as my own, such as Asturias, which needs the support of the EIB.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, first of all, allow me to thank the rapporteur for this report, my colleague René Repasi, who has managed to produce a necessary, timely report which, in some way, also reflects the institutional inconsistencies of our regulatory framework, which requires a reflection on the review of competition policies. In recent years, we have had, first, the shock stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic and, subsequently, Putin’s war in Ukraine. Both events have reminded us of the need to strengthen the Union's strategic autonomy. But the European Union barely has the budget of the states to be able to support our industry and be able to guarantee that strategic autonomy. And while the Commission has tried to bring some order to state aid, there is certainly very little margin between supporting our economy and ensuring the soundness of our single market. And we are always playing between the extent to which we can open our hand to state aid – because the needs are obvious – and the extent to which that flexibility erodes or can erode the single market. I said at the beginning that we have an institutional problem, because we will certainly only solve these inconsistencies with a European Union budget and with European programmes that help to respond, while also protecting the single market.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, some of the problems of the current tax rules have already been reviewed in these minutes of debate, and I believe that there is a certain consensus in recognizing that, in the face of these problems, we need new rules, although, certainly, the debate on the new rules is pending for the coming months. However, there is a problem with the current rules which the Commission's proposal does not resolve and which I think must be mentioned at the seat of the European Parliament, at the seat of European sovereignty, and that is that the current and possibly future rules are intended to be applied in each of the States without a reflection on the joint effect of fiscal policy - as I say - on the whole economy of the European Union and fundamentally on the euro area. We have a monetary policy and in the euro area we have 19 different fiscal policies. And these national fiscal policies will remain different with future rules. And we need to internalise the effect of all national policies and ensure that the euro area has a consolidated fiscal policy in line with the cycle.

Mr President, Commissioner, welcome back. We discussed before about the challenges, the opportunities, the uncertainties of the world around digital assets. And undoubtedly, in my opinion, the greatest uncertainty of this change, of this innovation in financial assets, is the potential loss of monetary sovereignty that could occur in the face of a growing disintermediation of publicly issued currencies by central banks. Given the difficulties in managing cycles under these conditions – indeed, we can remember what happened in the Western world in the 19th century, at the end of the 18th century, when there were no public currencies, when there was no monopoly on the issuance of currency, this must be borne in mind – we have to think – and in my opinion this is the answer to the question asked by my colleague Markus Ferber previously – that the reason for having a digital euro is to guarantee monetary sovereignty in a structural way. Now, this great goal has to be achieved by starting with small steps. And the Commission and the European Central Bank are probably thinking of a rather unambitious proposal that, in some way, may not be distinguishable from other payment systems. And at this point the uncertainties of some colleagues arise: Why do we want a payment system that has little difference with those already offered by the private sector? The answer, in my opinion, is to have the framework, the structure to guarantee our monetary sovereignty in the medium term, because certainly the future is inscrutable.

Madam President, Commissioner, there is no doubt that the crypto environment and technological advances in this area make it possible to open up new avenues of innovation and also open spaces for financial democratisation. However, crypto-assets also generate very important challenges: supervisory challenges, regulatory challenges, challenges in controlling the financing of terrorism and other illegal activities and, undoubtedly, challenges also for monetary sovereignty itself, for which we will discuss the proposal for the digital euro later. We welcome this new regulatory framework, the MICA, which will allow some of these assets to be channelled. But it is also important to recognize that there are some holes, some spaces, in that regulatory framework that should invite us to a second MICA, we could say, in the coming times. In any case, and as this Parliament's rapporteur on the package to improve the prudential treatment and security of our banking sector, I would like from here to invite the Council of the European Union, and especially its Swedish Presidency, to open up discussions in the framework of the trilogues on this Parliament's proposal to introduce the prudential treatment of the assets of these crypto-assets in banking regulation. I believe that we have a good opportunity to make further progress on this regulatory path, to which the Commission also invites us, and to ensure an environment of greater stability that allows, on the other hand, to take advantage of the innovative advantages of this type of asset.

Madam President, Madam President of the Commission, Mr President of the European Council, welcome, it is a pleasure to be here to review the conclusions of the last meeting of the European Council and I will dwell in particular on the proposal and on the support of the European Council for the revision of the tax rules. The debate on the need to adapt our economic governance framework had been on the table for some time. More than a year ago, Parliament adopted a report calling for changes to these tax rules. The Commission has opened the debate and I welcome the fact that the Council has supported it and that it proposes that the Commission be encouraged to present these new legislative initiatives, with which, without a doubt, we must move towards a more flexible model, where the financial situation and fiscal position of each of the States are more taken into account. In addition, in this new framework that the Commission proposes – more flexible and where there is more negotiation – we must also demand, on the part of Parliament, greater involvement in the supervision and control of the whole management of the European Semester.

Madam President, Commissioner, I will be very quick. Very quickly, because I reasonably agree with you on how you have exposed the situation and the emergencies or problems we have in Europe. First, we need a proposal now to revise the banking crisis management framework. We know that it has been delayed and we need a legislative proposal now to deal with it quickly. Secondly, I would like to send a message to my colleagues in Parliament and to our friends in the Council: in the trilogue on the implementation of the Basel Agreement we have to be very, very careful – in view of what has happened in the US – and review, negotiate and see to what extent Europe is able to comply with it. Because, even if we apply similar criteria to all banks, we do not apply all the Basel criteria, and in that negotiation we should avoid it. And finally, the European Unemployment Insurance and the European Deposit Insurance System (EDIS). We in this Parliament are trying to revive the negotiation. He's standing in the Council. But it's urgent.

Mr President, Commissioner, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, we are certainly facing a timely debate, a relevant debate and a debate also necessary to face the future of the European economy. It is true that in this discussion that we are holding there are different proposals, different ideas, different contributions. But I believe that at this time too, of - let us be clear - uncertainty for the future, we can remember the founding fathers, and we can remember the principle of the social market economy, to which we have added the green motivations, the energy transition, as a basis that can light the way for us. This social market economy, which is also green, requires further consolidation of the internal market, it requires exploiting the advantages of this large single market, but also strengthening and building, also at European level, income redistribution systems that allow the benefits of the market to reach all citizens, all men and women of the European Union. And therefore, there and in the primarily financial area - we have the banking union, to be completed, the capital markets union and certainly the tax challenges - we are required to have a European system that also redistributes income among all Europeans.

Madam President, Commissioner, President Lagarde, some time ago, when the European Central Bank was reviewing the definition of price stability, some of us felt that there was some uncertainty in that new definition. That medium term had doubts about whether it was 18 months, two years, one year... What was "medium-term"? In addition, it introduced uncertainty about the extent to which we could define 2% in that medium term, if we were talking about the average in that period, the median, fashion. In any case, beyond these uncertainties, what seems clear is that inflation is already moderating and that the European Central Bank's own forecasts put inflation in the fourth quarter of this year at 3.6%, which means that in December we would be at 3%. In addition, the ECB’s own forecasts put inflation over the whole of 2024 somewhat above 2%. Therefore, with these forecasts ceteris paribus, without assuming any change in monetary policy, in 18 months we would have inflation of just over 2%. I would ask for prudence in the face of future rises.

Mr President, Commissioner, the European economy certainly needs more private investment, but also more public investment to meet the challenges of the industrial future in the context, of course, of the energy transition. But let me focus my speech - these few seconds I can talk to you directly - on the fact that we cannot pretend to respond to US initiatives by leaving only the financial capacity for public support to states. Because, certainly, in that case, by trying to respond to the United States, we can call into question the integrity and cohesion of the single market, one of the European Union's great assets. In this regard, I also dare to suggest to the European Commission that we do not relax the control of State aid that we carry out over the Member States until we are clear about what it is like, how it is financed and how much we will have in the sovereign wealth fund. Because only through Community support would that response and that industrial policy make sense.

Mr President, Commissioner, it is right to come to a debate in this Parliament with an agreement with the Council based on the European Commission's proposal, which certainly has to help address those transitions that the European economy has ahead of it: the digital transition and the green transition. It also has to cover the need for long-term investment; Europe suffers from still limited investment to meet the challenges ahead, and private investment is certainly needed to tackle that path. My group had some doubts about the proposal and some amendments during the negotiation process, because, undoubtedly, sharing the objective of channelling savers' investment into long-term projects, we did not want this text, this reform, to mean deregulation by the back way or to reduce controls, requirements, which on these or other products we have to discuss and which are on the table in the framework of the capital markets union. Undoubtedly, there have been attempts to reduce regulation, to reduce the protection of retail consumers. However, as I say, I believe that the final text is balanced and allows for adequate protection fundamentally for retail investors who decide to steer their savings towards these products. My group is also pleased to have extended control over those countries where these products can be invested, not only by incorporating the blacklisted countries of the European Union in the fight against money laundering, but also to those countries in Annex 1 of non-cooperative jurisdictions. I think it is a good step that also helps in the fight against money laundering and the illicit tax behaviour of third jurisdictions. And, undoubtedly, perhaps the weakest part of the text has been the chapter on sustainability, which we hope and hope will be reinforced in this future revision, if we really want this instrument to be useful in advancing the green transition as well.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, the battle against circumvention, against tax fraud, against tax havens, is a battle that we have to win and it is true that in recent times we are having some good news. The OECD agreement to set that minimum corporate tax rate at 15% is a great initiative that we have to put in place now, after blockades and blockades by some countries or others, and there is an important agenda in this area. But we also have to recognize that, while the prosecution of tax fraud by multinationals is advancing reasonably, we are not making progress in the fraud of the great wealth of family wealth that these shell societies use to evade taxes. This directive presented by the Commission is a step in the right direction and this Parliament supports it and supports it and we ask from here or demand the Council and, especially, some governments, which have been blocking these and other initiatives in the Council, to finally follow the support of the European Parliament and the Commission.

Madam President, Commissioner, we are certainly going through difficult times. The economic and social effects on the whole European continent of Putin's war in Ukraine are present. And they are also present in the difficulties to make ends meet and in the difficulties to pay the energy costs or the food costs of our citizens. And I think the Commission has worked well. We welcome the agreement on the REPowerEU plan and welcome the social contributions on the energy sector, but we also see Member States responding with different measures, with little order, with little organisation, with almost everyone looking for particular solutions. In some cases it recalls the first months of the impact of the pandemic, when governments were trying to resolve but a Community response was lacking. It is important that the review of State aid is well controlled by the Commission. We run the risk of putting the single market at stake and we need an instrument, such as SURE, to harmonise policies in the face of this energy crisis in the European Union and, indeed, to speed up the reform of the electricity market.

Madam President, Commissioner, the debate we are having today undoubtedly marks a before and after in the design of the European Union, just as it was marked by the decision to issue the debt of the Next Generation EU, undoubtedly looking for the fringes or spaces that the Treaties allowed us. And I would like to congratulate the Commission on its debt strategy, which is applauded by our creditors, by the markets. But I would like to insist or incentivise the European Commission a little more when it comes to clarifying the map in order to have the own resources needed to repay the debt. We already know that the digital tax that we had predictably will not be approved. We need to look for additional resources. We have that agreement to set a minimum corporate tax of 15% which could well give us the opportunity to introduce a tax for those who benefit from the internal market, the single market. And I think we need more ambition, more work and more commitment from the European Commission to fully clarify the own resources framework.