Summary of the meeting of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON), held in Strasbourg on 17 January 2011

Inhoud

Delen

enveloppe
  1. Tekst
  2. Originele weergave
  1. Meer informatie

1.

Tekst

COUNCIL OFStrasbourg, 18 January 2011 THE EUROPEAN UNION 5475/1/11 REV 1 PE 10 ECOFIN 18 UEM 8 NOTE from : General Secretariat of the Council

to : Delegations Subject : Summary of the meeting of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON), held in Strasbourg on 17 January 2011 The meeting was chaired by Ms BOWLES (ALDE, UK)

  • 1. 
    Professional cross-border transportation of euro cash by road between euro-area Member

States ECON/7/03539, 2010/0204(COD), COM(2010)0377 Responsible: ECON Opinions: EMPL, TRAN Consideration of draft report and Extension of the scope of the regulation (EU) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the professional cross-border transportation of euro cash by road between euro-area Member States ECON/7/03542, 2010/0206(APP), COM(2010)0376 Rapporteur: Ms Auconie (PPE) PR PE454.641v01-00 Responsible: ECON Opinions: EMPL, TRAN Consideration of draft report

Ms Auconie (PPE, FR), rapporteur, emphasised that although euro notes and coins were introduced as long ago as 2002, the market for transporting euro cash was still highly fragmented. Widely diverging national rules made it very difficult for cash-in-transit (CIT) companies to provide cross- border services. The purpose of the draft regulation was therefore to simplify the regulatory constraints so that euro notes and coins can circulate more easily among the Member States that have adopted the currency. The rapporteur considered that the proposal drawn up by the Commission was a balanced one. She highlighted what she considered to be the three major goals of the legislative act: Member States should be able to select as many options as they wish from the

five transportation methods for notes and the two for coins which are set out in the regulation;

because of the particular dangers involved in cash transportation, the regulation should help to reinforce the imperative of safety for both CIT staff and the public, and lastly, the regulation should not result in an erosion of employment conditions for CIT staff. Finally, she stressed the link between the two legislative proposals, as the second proposal was meant to extend the scope of the Proposal for a Regulation on the cross-border transportation of euro cash by road between euro-area Member States (the main proposal) to the territory of Member States that are about to introduce the euro, since there was normally an increased need for euro cash transportation in the run-up to the changeover.

Mr Scicluna (S&D, MT) was satisfied with the overall content of the proposal, but announced some amendments in relation to the involvement of the EU Institutions and to the professional training of staff.

Ms Swinburne (ECR, UK) referred to pressure received from lobbies to introduce extra standards for CIT operators. She warned against such reinforcement of standards that she considered could impinge on the proper functioning of the internal market.

The representative of the Commission agreed with most of the amendments that had been tabled, with one exception. In his opinion, the initial proposal of the Commission aimed at introducing a number of transport options should not be replaced by a provision allowing Member States to choose just one option. According to the Commission representative, Member States should be invited to leave at least two options open.

Calendar

Deadline for amendments: 27 January 2011;

Consideration of amendments: 28 February 2011

Vote in ECON: 28 February 2011;

Plenary: April I 2011.

  • 2. 
    Towards adequate, sustainable and safe European pension systems ECON/7/03600, 2010/2239(INI), COM(2010)0365 Responsible: EMPL* Ms Oomen-Ruijten (PPE, NL)

Opinions: ECON*, ITRE, IMCO, FEMM

Mr Cuta (S&D, RO), rapporteur, acknowledged the large number of amendments that had been tabled and said that he was ready to discuss them on 19 January 2011 in order to find a compromise, but he said he was unwilling to take on board mere deletion proposals.

A few Members insisted on the principle of subsidiarity to limit the scope of the initiative report.

Mr Skinner (S&D, UK) considered that Solvency 2 rules should not be applied to pension schemes, as in some Member States these are not organised as insurance companies, to which Solvency 2 requirements are applicable. Mr Skinner insisted on the need rather to apply capital adequacy rules.

This was also the view of Mr Sterckx (ALDE, BE), who insisted on the need for sustainability, and of Mr Mann (EPP, DE), who considered that the status quo should be maintained, as pension schemes needed stability and some of them had proved to be resilient during the crisis, while Ms Essayah (EPP, FI) considered that solvency 2 requirements could be detrimental for smaller companies. Ms Ford (ECR, UK) stressed the importance of the open method of coordination, in order to give precedence to the exchange of information over common rules in this sector.

Ms Jazlowiecka ((EPP, PL) added that no European definition of what is meant by "adequate pension" should be introduced. Ms Gáll-Pelcz (EPP, HU) drew attention to the issue of gender discrimination, since women were able to subscribe to pension schemes only under favourable circumstances. Ms Berès (S&D, FR) criticised what she considered to be an overly wide definition of subsidiarity, and considered that only some aspects should be left to Member States, such as setting the age of retirement. She insisted on the need for common rules that should guarantee the portability of pensions and, therefore, ensure the free circulation of workers.

Calendar Vote in ECON: 25 January 2011.

Opinions: INTA, ECON, EMPL, ENVI, ITRE, TRAN, REGI, CULT, JURI, LIBE, PETI Consideration of draft opinion and

A Single Market for Europeans ECON/7/04611, 2010/2278(INI), COM(2010)0608[2] Responsible: IMCO Mr Correia De Campos (S&D, PT)

Opinions: INTA, ECON, EMPL, ENVI, ITRE, TRAN, REGI, CULT, JURI, LIBE, PETI Consideration of draft opinion

Mr Fejo (PPE, PT), rapporteur for the first report, considered that a functioning and integrated internal market was key for businesses and consumers, and consequently for EU growth and competitiveness in a globalised world. To this end, he welcomed the initiative to align the Small Business Act with the EU 2020 strategy and the coordination of national tax policies and a new VAT strategy which aimed to increase growth and reduce the burden.

Mr García-Margallo Y Marfil (PPE, ES), rapporteur for the second report, welcomed the initiative and the fact that it included a review of Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision, and the launch of a green paper on corporate governance. He called on the Commission to add the completion of the Single Euro Payments Area to its proposals, and to stabilise financial markets urgently. He also called for improved access to capital markets for SMEs. He urged the Commission to evaluate the distortions produced by state aids granted during the crisis, and welcomed the proposals aimed at introducing a common consolidated corporate tax base. Finally, he urged use of the EU budget to increase credits granted by the EIB in partnership with the banking and private sectors, and the creation of a project bond scheme in order to finance European projects. He stressed that such bonds were different from euro bonds which were intended

to finance public debt.

Mr Hoang Ngoc (S&D, FR), while highlighting the role of SMEs in the internal market, stressed the fact that they are mainly dependant on bigger companies which should therefore be discouraged from relocating outside the EU in order to preserve SMEs. Concerning taxation, he criticised the distortion caused by differing corporate tax rates between Member States.

Ms Goulard (ALDE, FR) stressed the need for linking and finding the right balance between supervision and economic governance issues. Mr Giegold (Greens, DE), also considered that taxation should be given more emphasis within the report and asked for the financial aspects of the social and solidarity economy to be strengthened.

Mr Fejo briefly took the floor and recalled the limited length allowed for an initiative report, which, therefore, could not describe too many aspects in detail. Mr Margallo agreed with Ms Goulard that the report should link in with financial supervision. Moreover, according to him, the report should concentrate on specific aspects in order to avoid a too general approach, without opting for a clear path (he gave the example of economic governance, which, according to him, was spread over too many issues, such as the European semester, Euro bonds, standing mechanism for financial facilities).

  • - 
    Deadline for amendments:21 January 2011;

consideration of amendments: 7 February 2011 Vote in ECON: 14 February 2011.

  • 4. 
    Date of the next meeting

Monday 24 January 2011, 15:00 - 18:30 Tuesday, 25 January 2011, 09:00 - 12:30.

__________________________

2.

Originele weergave

afbeelding document
 
 

3.

Meer informatie