The MEPs of the economic affairs committee of the European Parliament feel that the draft report by Esther de Lnge (EPP, Netherlands) on the creation of a European deposit insurance system (EDIS) – the third pillar of Banking Union in the eurozone – is a good starting point for their work, but also that there is still a long way to go before a compromise can be reached (see EUROPE 11660).
Schematically, on the right of the political spectrum, those who took the floor in the discussion held on Wednesday 9 November welcomed it as a balanced approach, stressed the importance of taking enough time to reflect, and highlighted conditionality as an expression of solidarity. On the left, the MEPs instead take the view that the draft report does not go far enough and warn of excessive conditionality, which would mask the temptation to do nothing. Many of the MEPs used the current uncertainties, including Donald Trump's victory in the American presidential elections, to justify the importance of finalising Banking Union.
De Lange reiterated the principles upon which her draft report is based: - no country should ultimately end up in a more difficult situation; - moral hazard must be limited as much as possible; - the work on reducing the financial risks and increasing solidarity must be carried out in parallel; - the intergovernmental route must be rejected, although opinions differ on that point over at the Council. The rapporteur calls for a two-stage system. Between 2019 and 2024, a reinsurance mechanism would progressively cover the liquidity requirements of the national deposit guarantee schemes. Then, an insurance system would progressively cover the losses suffered. She explained that her aim was to find the best system to organise the bank deposit guarantee, at both national and European level, with the same fire-power as the Commission is proposing.
Speaking on behalf of Sander Loones (ECR, Belgium), Germany's Bernd Lucke said that the draft 'de Lange' report was an appropriate starting point. He emphasised the importance of making solidarity for bank deposit guarantees conditional, particularly in tackling the sovereign risk, and making sure that the EDIS system does not inherit any prior banking issues (legacy sharing). Criticising the Commission's impact study as insufficient, Burkhard Balz (EPP, Germany) calls for the MEPs to agree on the length of the reflection period. Among the changes made to the Commission's original proposal (see EUROPE 11437), Sylvie Goulard (ALDE, France) noted a system based essentially on rapid cash injections. However, the work on reducing the financial risks must not be used as a pretext for inaction, she warned.
In the view of Jonas Fernandez (S&D, Spain), the draft report does not fully meet the objective of breaking the link between banking crises and the budgetary difficulties of the states. The less mutualisation there is, the greater the risks will be, he noted. His German colleague, Peter Simon, on the other hand, welcomed the fact that the EDIS system as envisaged by de Lange is based on the existing national deposit guarantee systems. Any delay or watering down of Banking Union would be dangerous, warned Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL, Greece). On behalf of the Greens/EFA, Belgian member Philippe Lamberts criticised the MEPs, mainly German, who want to deal with the banking issues of other countries first before making progress on this dossier. He implied that Deutsche Bank is the most danerous institution we have and argued that finalising Banking Union would jeopardise the very existence of the euro. Marco Zanni (EFDD, Italy) expressed pessimism as to the possibility that the European co-legislator will find an appropriate solution, although creating an effective European backstop for savers is indispensable to restore confidence.
The deadline of mid-December has been set for amendments to be tabled to the de Lange report, but the date on which the parliamentary committee will hold its vote has not yet been decided upon. (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)