Giovanni CROSETTO

Policy topics Giovanni CROSETTO is active on

What Giovanni CROSETTO has said (25)

• 2025-01-31 “P-000439/2025 Answer given by Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission 1. The implementation of urban vehicle access regulations is a matter that falls under national or local competence. However, where local traffic restrictions are introduced, they must be proportionate and non-discriminatory. 2. Considering the national competence, the Commission does not currently see the need to collect data on the subject. 3. While all vehicles are compliant with existing rules at the time of their first registration, evolving environmental and public health challenges justify the need for updated regulations. These measures do not apply retroactively, rather, they apply as of their entry into force to the existing vehicle fleet. When establishing such measures, Member States must ensure that such measures are applied transparently and non-discriminatorily and that they are proportional to the environmental objective sought.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you very much, chairman. Uh, thank you to Commissioner for being here. The Savings and Investment Union is absolutely essential now. There are savings in the eurozone is twice the rate of that in the United States, but only 30% of that saving actually is invested. The rest of it just stays in current accounts when it comes to financing, 70% of the euro zone comes from banking, where only 30% comes from the markets. So we've got a banking system which is very strong and an equity market which is quite weak. And of course, that leads to the consequences which you've mentioned. And then of course, we've got a fragmented, uh, business fabric, and we're seeing companies leave our markets here or stock markets to move to the United States. And these are critical aspects when it comes to the European situation. So I have two questions. First of all, how can we increase investments in equity. So what can you do about that. And the second is that in order to, um, improve the way that portfolios work, could you do something about the excessive regulations and the excessive capital requirements? Thank you.”
  Financial regulation
• “Thank you very much. Chairman, I'd like to start by thanking the rapporteur for the work that he's done, but also for the conviction that he's shown in addressing the revision of this package on securitization. And I'm emphasizing the concept of courage because it is very important to recognize that the proposal was really so negative that it was going to generate a lot of stigma. And I want to start with that. In order to tackle that, you really do need to address the very fundamental proposals by the Commission which seek to make the provisions on securitization more secure and more tightly regulated. The idea is to strengthen the Macroprudential framework, but we'd already gone way beyond the Basel three provisions, with the previous revision which took place in 2017. This is taking us even further down this path and this is an observation, colleagues, which saddens me. I really think we have actually reversed the direction of travel, which was initially envisaged by the Commission and the European institutions. An additional category is supposed to be introduced now, these resilient securitisations. But this is based on a misconceived idea of how the market functions and what the implications are for risk and financial stability. In fact, this is, as I say, misconceived. Industry as a whole has provided evidence based papers showing that the default levels are lower in terms of state bonds than many of the other Securities. Therefore, this is regulation which, together with an excessively rigid prudential framework, is reducing our competitiveness, always in the name of financial stability.”
  Financial regulation
• “(16:56:09 – 17:02:24): Thank you, chair, dear colleagues. Before opening with, a few reflections, let me say that, this is a package that, must be approached with the right level of seriousness and a strong spirit of cooperation while carefully taking into account both the opportunities and the potential risks that such an important revision may entail. We, as ECR Group, express our appreciation for the initiative of the European Commission aimed at simplifying and streamlining key aspect of the union legislative framework within the market integration and supervision package. The market integration and the supervision package, we are discussing today is an important step towards, more integrated, efficient, and competitive financial 3 parts of the package can be distinguished. 1st, the package contains a kind of omnibus for capital markets law where barriers are taken down and the procedures are simplified. 2nd, the package proposes an overall of the supervisory structure on a broad set of mostly significant nonbank financial sector companies towards more powers for ESMA. 3rd, the package introduces adaptations to the regulatory framework for the usage of DLT to facilitate the financial market innovation. With regard to the 1st element of the Omnibus for capital market law, several elements are going in the right direction. We support the objectives of the proposal of breaking down barriers for cross border operations and of the interconnection or interoperability of our capital markets. We also support the simplification on several dimensions, such as simplified authorization procedures for cross borders operations, changing directives to and data management. Greater transparency and interconnection requirements have the potential to spur competition. We do need to remain vigilant that our proposals are proportionate and envisage the competitiveness and robustness of our financial system. On the 2nd element of supervision, stronger powers of ESMA can bring about more supervisory convergence. Several aspect need to be taken into account in this discussion. ESMA will go through a substantial organizational change, so a careful balance will have to be solved to make this a success. It will be important to take a gradual approach to make sure that the current expertise endures in the new supervisory framework. Many lessons can be learned from previous episodes of reforms of the supervisory framework in the financial sector. On the 1 hand, are risks that remain at the national level even if the package is adopted fully. So we will need to find a way to engage the national competent authorities in certain decision making processes. On the other hand, we need to make sure that our proposals do not simply create a duplication of costs. On the 3rd element of financial innovation, the regulatory framework needs to be ready for the future. The EU has played a leading role in the experimentation within DLT. And nowadays, 3rd countries are picking up the technology rapidly. To allow for wider take up in the traditional financial markets, we will need to work on adapting our regulatory framework also to avoid creating permanent parallel regimes where technological neutrality is the key word. However, more detailed analysis highlight certain issues, which, if not adequately managed risk undermining the achieving of the objectives pursued. In this context, it is also necessary that TESMA, in the exercise of the powers conferred upon it, systemically take systematically takes into account the need to strengthen the competitiveness and integration of the union's capital markets. And we, as ECR, believe that the competitiveness should be part of the mandate of all the European institution and not only an empty statement. Let me now briefly finish with the the package on which I am rapporteur that is settlement finality. The shift from a directive to a regulation marks a major step toward a truly European market. It give us, at last, the possibility of a single rule book in an area where legal certainty is not a a secondary issue, but should be the foundation of trust, stability, and cross border activity. Settlement finality may appear highly technical, but its important is profoundly political and economic. When market participants know with certainty when a transfer order enters a system, when it becomes irrevocable, and when a settlement is final, they can operate across borders with greater confidence, lower legal risk, and lower operational cost to foster deep and liquid capital markets. As you know, this is a very comprehensive package, colleagues, with many technical details, many political implication, and we know many national interests. But, we have to be committed to work principally in the European interest. Thank you very much.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Yes, please. Sempre durante. Also, picking up on the June press conference, you referred to the climate of trust in financial markets declining. And this possibly leading to a more restrictive, risk averse financing climate, which could have adverse consequences on consumption. In terms of the ECB studies, there was recently an observation that a recent. Less restrictive monetary policy, with a reduction in the budget of the ECB moving in the opposite direction. So do you not feel that in terms of liquidity, with an already difficult financial situation in the context of decreasing interest rates, that this would not be an appropriate way to proceed?”
  ECB monetary policy
• “Paying cash is a right which we should defend and preserve. Thank you, Commissioner, for stressing this and other colleagues to. Two. Cash is part of our day to day lives. It's part of our culture and you can't replace it through policy. There are other payment systems that we should actually be more concerned about. Digital payments, in fact, are a cause for concern because there are major US providers dominating those markets. Then there are new currencies such as cryptocurrencies and stablecoins that are bringing in all kinds of dangers into our markets, including a dollarization. So there we need to defend traditional European ways of paying such as cash. And we need to be careful as we open up to digital.”
  Means of payment (cash vs digital)
• “Thank you. Chair. I will continue in Italian. Grazie. Thank you for this very important hearing. I think that if we want to create the conditions to move forward with the digital euro, uh, we should focus on, um, uh, Sovereignty and lower costs. Um, well, those are not the biggest contradictions. We should really focus on the weaknesses and particularly the important issue of privacy. Um, the president of the commission recently, we were referred to, uh, to, um, uh, uh, this, um, and, um, it was indicated that American legislation had preserved the financial privacy of Americans. I'd like to ask Mr.. Now, this declaration, what would you respond to in terms of alternatives to stablecoin and how this could create risks for the privacy of citizens using the solution?”
  Digital euro
• “Thank you very much, chair. And good afternoon, Vice President. Well, we think this is a very complex moment for European monetary policy. On the one hand, you've got to face Europe's weak industrial base, particularly in manufacturing. And, the international side, on the other hand, has impacts on consumption and investment. There's a lot of uncertainty at the international level. Markets are dependent on the Federal Reserve's decisions. And we know that central banks need to behave in a manner that respects their credibility. We shouldn't just be thinking about reducing interest rates, but there are also political objectives, such as environmental policy issues. My question is about our annual report on the ECB. There's been a supply shock from external sources, and that was one of the major factors leading to inflation in the eurozone. Monetary policy has an impact on inflation, particularly when it's a question of Demand caused issues. The ECB is continuing to improve its models to better distinguish between demand push or supply pull inflation. I was just going to ask you about this distinction as called for in the Parliament's report.”
  ECB monetary policy
• “Thank you. President. In its strategic guidelines, which were presented last year. The EIB decided to focus on eight political priorities. And the first of those priorities is saying that the financing of the green transition and support for climate action are the number one strategic priority of our time to guarantee sustainable growth. Competitiveness, strategic autonomy and security. So this gives the EIB a clear political and ideological objective. But what's more serious is that the European Parliament is proposing that this role should be consolidated, as that's to say, the EIB is the EU climate Bank. Well, this important institution is there to finance all of the EU's political objectives are not only the objectives set forth by the socialists and the Greens.”
  EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding
• “So this is why the securitization market in Europe has grown and continues to grow, but at a much lower level than abroad. So we should have clearer objectives and better targets in only a number. Some nine of the 27 member states. Is securitization really used as a means of financing? 80% of these issues are focused on only five member states, which is far too few. This is for a number of reasons. It's not just custom in investment, but it's because a number of member states have zero legislation at national level regulating this sector. And here, colleagues, I think we need to speak out. We need to stand up and be counted. I want to put the emphasis on this, this problem, because I think it would be wrong not to do so. This is not a purely financial market. There are many opportunities it represents, not least for the real economy. If the Commission had decided that it was going to work on traditional securitizations, this would have been a different option. It would have enabled us to create new packages of financing, which could have been justified politically and economically, and we could have focused them on the sectors which we think are most sensitive and most essential. These are only some of the reasons why it is so important for us to tackle this question of securitization, and make sure that we do so in a realistic and objective way. Thank you.”
  Financial regulation
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you to the rapporteur as well for the important work that's been done to address the main topics in the activity of the ECB. Turning to this. In the report, the primary objective of the ECB is to keep stability and keep prices stable. And the ECB can say that it has achieved that. And with this main objective, there is a second as well which follows on that. Without prejudice to the price stability, the ECB should support economic policies of the EU. The macroeconomic forecasts tell us that for 2026 and the coming years, the inflation level will be below the 2% target. The energy prices will have the biggest impact on prices and GDP growth will continue. From 1 to 1.5%. So my question, President Lagarde, is what does the ECB expect in terms of the second objective under the Tfeu? What do you expect to do in terms of supporting the Union's economic policies? Because. In the annual report that we're discussing, the ECB needs to take decisions itself to exercise its mandate without interference or political influence. Then on the annual report. References made to the digital Euro project. And I wanted to express my support for that and recognition as well for the important work that has been done by the ECB ECP, and I wanted to conclude by appreciating the work that has been done and on simplification with the recommendations and with the ECB, with the help for smaller banks, which I think really does live up to the expectations that we have of a large central bank like the ECB.”
  ECB monetary policy
• “Thank you very much, president. We're going to support this report on tax measures because we think it's going in the right direction. We've looked at sharable objectives in getting rid of obstacles, for example, to cross-border investment in the EU and also obstacles in completing the single market. So if we can achieve that, we have to provide priority for simplification and getting rid of fiscal norms that go against that. These are all very good ideas. Ladies and gentlemen. So we need to continue to read them and hear about them. But we need to implement them. And we need to make sure that this will help us at this historic time. The European Union has to immediately stop in Overregulating. It's not just a question of simplifying, but getting rid of standards and rules that got us into this situation in the first place. And when it comes to the huge gaps in investments, for example, that exist, we need to catch up with other industrialised nations.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Yes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you. Also in your role as rapporteur, thank you to the shadows and the Secretariat for all the work that's gone in. I do agree with what you said earlier. We do need to send a strong message to the Commission and the Council, and I was very happy to hear at the last shadows meeting that the approach seems to be market orientated and one that will protect our competitiveness. Our proposals. Are aimed at stressing the need to make European capital markets more attractive and accessible and competitive. At the same time, we want to avoid imposing excessive limitations and rules that could make it harder to get loans and reduce competitiveness in the long term. We have to remember that banks represent only about 5% of investment in private equity. Given the prudential treatment of shareholdings according to the supervisory rules, we need to have a market led approach where we calculate the cost benefit of any measure and. We need to ensure that there are also tax incentives to make the capital markets more attractive. We need to reduce compliance costs for companies, and that's why we're very much in favour of the commission's omnibus proposal. On the other hand, the CSR on sustainability reporting would need to be completely reviewed. We need to look at the level one legislation, remembering that European banks have to face higher costs than their international competitors. We need to look at compliance costs and reporting requirements, and how solvency two requirements affect small and medium sized companies. We need to free up capital and create new capacity for granting loans. We need to also support long term investments in strategic sectors. It's important that we should be supporting pension systems that are market orientated. These are some of the key subjects that we would like to see included in the compromises. Thank you very much.”
  Financial regulation
• “As the governors of the Bank of Italy taught us 100 years ago. It's the market that determines how many banks you have in the EU. We have a lot of small banks, and as such, it's national banks and regional banks that dominate over them in the market. Now, unfortunately, our banks can't stand up to American banks because the capitalization of the largest US bank is the equivalent of ten large EU banks. So it's difficult to finance investments. We can't make mistakes here, such as transposing the Basel standards more robustly Lee then is called for. Otherwise, we will never be able to close the competitiveness gap that we have with the rest of the world. Thank you.”
  Financial regulation
• “Thank you very much. President. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have read so much in the Competitiveness Compass. We agree with some of the aspects such as the introduction of technological logical neutrality which is necessary to protect our car industry. However, there's a lack of concrete indications on the targeted measures that would allow the European Commission to go beyond words. Suspending fines in 2025. In the car industry, putting an end to phasing out the combustion engine. We also have to look at the issue of Cbam and the ETS and taxes and tariffs on high emission products. We need less words, Commissioner. We need to get rid of the mistakes, the industrial policy mistakes that we've made and that have brought competitiveness to its knees. The global backdrop is about people speeding forward, and the European Commission doesn't seem to be doing that.”
• “Thank you chair I will continue in Italian good Afternoon Miss Book obviously we have looked at the preparatory report for this meeting and we see that the ECB has engaged in public consultations to look at how it deals with the legacy of nonperforming loans and particularly for smaller institutions and there are plans to introduce gradually such a system by the end of twenty twenty eight. Now you have recognized that there is a big risk of applying to small banks the same rules as those that apply to bigger banking institutions and that would lead to disproportionate results and would also curtail their capacity to compete at both national and international level. This approach or this principle does not take account of the risk profile of the different banks I'm thinking here in particular of cooperatives credit banks which are stable and would not have sufficient reserves and I was ask wanting to ask therefore whether this approach is not something that runs counter to the simplification approach something that you are struggling to actually enact in practice”
  Financial regulation
• “Thank you chair. I will continue in Italian. President Lagarde, very. Nice to see you again. President Lagarde at the ECB press conference at the beginning of June. There were some figures which you've quoted together. Downward recalculation for inflation because of strengthening euro and declining energy prices 1.6%. Percent, but overall inflation has gone down to, uh, from 2.3% in February to 1.9% in May. But we're not so concerned about inflation as growth 0.9% 2025 1.1% 2026. Monetary policy ECB communication no further reference to a less restrictive monetary policy or a loosening of it. Are we truly moving towards a more neutral policy? Given the not particularly encouraging figures on growth? Price stability during a relatively short period? Shouldn't the ECB not be supporting the EU's monetary policy through expansive monetary policy as a consequence.”
  ECB monetary policy
• “Thank you very much, president. Well, with this document, finally, we're showing that we're aware that Europe is falling behind with the risk of becoming irrelevant. That's if we don't take the necessary political action. All too late. We have realized the importance of competitiveness, productivity and economic growth. The importance of investment is not just enough to mobilize large amounts of public money, but we also need to channel it into productive activities. We need to have the right incentives for start ups and scale ups. We need to support innovative, strategic sectors. Despite all of the good intentions. It seems we're having trouble finding concrete solutions to make these proposals real. We're all too attached to the kind of ideology that's brought Europe to this, these dire straits, that the rules that have suffocated our financial dynamism and where investment has been channeled, not where the economy wants, but where the politics would like to see it. So they're important financial instruments like securitization that, along with other measures, could help us to close that huge investment and competitiveness gap that we have with the rest of the world. Thank you very much.”
  Financial regulation
• “Thank you chair. Good afternoon. Commissioner, I would like to ask you some questions about the securitization package. And I start with the general objective stated in the Commission's presentation that is to revive a safer securitization market. So my first question, Commissioner, is do you think that the EU securitization market is not safe because we actually do not see a safety problem in the securitization market. And let me now come to some critical point of the commission proposal. For instance, we see redundant due diligence requests that should not be required, as we see counterproductive sanctions for institutional investors or the further category of resilient transaction that makes the regulatory framework more complex. Or like the new definition of securitization, which again raises the capital requirements. Well, this approach, in our opinion, is going to discourage market players, and they are the first to declare it as we can easily read all their position papers. And so my second question, Commissioner, is, don't you think we should have a more market oriented approach? Thank you very much.”
  Financial regulation
• “Thank you. Chair I will continue in Italian. We are very much in favor of this proposal from the European Commission, in particular the approach to simplifying obligations for businesses. Our proposals certainly follow that direction. The directives ought to be reviewed to further simplify or indeed completely get rid of due diligence obligations which may impact the running of businesses. And in parallel, we feel that it is necessary to review the framework on, um, uh, sustainability requirements for businesses. Businesses should no longer have to provide some of the information currently on the table. Furthermore, data ought not to be published, where there are legal limitations and where the data are not accessible or available. Furthermore, the obligation to publish a separate report ought also to be got rid of. And indeed the consolidated report ought not to be published either. To reduce red tape, we want to see clear aims in the proposal, and we want to reduce the burden of costs on businesses. And Member States ought to be able to further reduce the burdens on small businesses. Due diligence reporting requirements ought to be reduced, and this should apply only to direct trade partners. Indirect trade partners are not to be subject to this as to the financial sectors. Providers ought to be the only ones held to publishing data, and we would like to see a derogation so that. There should be no blocks on critical businesses and sectors for the economy. The Commission's proposal is going in the right direction, but the Parliament should further simplify these directives. Thank you to the Commission and to the rapporteur.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• “Thank you very much. I'll be speaking Italian. Thank you very much Madam Chair. Good afternoon Madam Minister. Well when I read the program of the Danish Presidency and I read the chapter on the financial sector on savings and investment union, of course we share the objective here to improve competitiveness, simplify the rules, simplify the administrative burdens. But I wanted to look at securitization which you've identified as a priority. On behalf of the ECR group we are paying close attention to this important legislative package. The Commission's proposal does not really fit in with the objectives that we all share. What we see is that there are obligations for due diligence which are redundant and unnecessary, for example short term trading operations and this could be a problem. We are thinking particularly about complications to the legislative package which does not give extra stability to the product or to the market. There's a new definition of senior tranches which would require a different capital requirement. We think that we could discourage investors and discourage them from taking part in the market. So we do have big questions about the approach and I'd be interested to know the position of the Presidency.”
  Financial regulation
• “Thank you chair. I will continue in Italian. Welcome back, Mr. Cipollone. We've read the document, uh, for the progress, uh, in the run up to the adoption of digital Euro with a lot of attention, and we know that a lot of efforts are being deployed to look at the requests and user needs for those who would be using the digital euro. We believe that this is very useful because it allows us to understand whether the digital euro is going to respond to the risks that the ECB has identified, or whether it's going to correspond to the real needs of citizens. And, Mr. Cipollone, you raised the issue of monetary sovereignty and the fact that non EU solutions, which represent three quarters of the payments, might jeopardize our strategic independence. Now, many suggest that this vulnerability is not because of an absence of a digital euro, but because there is no alternative European payment service provider. Now your studies, I think, might help you confirm this, but isn't it also because of the privatisation of payments through credit cards. And there is a dominant position of American companies here. And don't you believe that this ties in with the issue of costs that these private payments bring with them, whether these are of European nature or other? And don't you believe that there's a call from citizens to bring about change there? Thank you.”
  Digital euro
• “Thank you Chair, I will continue in Italian my— Question is to Doctor Badley and Doctor Hulbert but first of all I should like to start off by thanking the rapporteur and say that we see a real need to relaunch the securitization market and to free it from overburdensome regulation and that certainly is the wish of most of the financial industry. But I also want to emphasize, as has quite rightly been said, that an increase in the securitization market will have certain financial repercussions and we should look at their impact on the real economy. And I'm looking at corporate securitization which is different to other types as it's already been said which can improve the budget and improve credit risk and also has a potential to free up capital. And I wonder therefore whether you believe that coming back to corporate securitization the conditions are in place for a considerable increase in corporate securitization also for small and medium sized enterprises, so not just talking about big companies. And Chair, I do have another question about the lack of a market as a result of the lack of regulation but just including, I just wanted to know what you thought were the next steps so as to be able to bridge this gap seeing as in many Member States the securitization market per se simply does not exist. Thank you.”
  Financial regulation
• “Hello. I wanted to have a question on the new stablecoin, which is denominated in euro, which is called. It has just been created by ten credit institutions in Europe. Its seat is in Amsterdam. It's supervised by the Dutch central banks. And for 2026, it wants to provide a new digital currency linked to the euro. Now, what is your idea? What would the effect be on the stability of the euro? Are there any risks in general terms, or do you think that this stablecoin in euros would instead strengthen the global role of the euro? I'm speaking about the American strategy, which is called the Myron Doctrine because of the monopoly they have on stablecoins that are denominated in dollars is strengthening the dollar. So we've seen American public debt being financed through this means as well. So at a European level, we don't have a safe European asset. And in conclusion, do you think this gap, the fact that we don't have a safe asset is a risk? Or do you think that the euro anyway can be strengthened thanks to the stablecoin? Thank you.”
  Use of stablecoins
• “Thank you. Chair. We think that this proposal for Investeu is going in the right direction. For too long, we've sacrificed our competitiveness and therefore every step towards simplification is a step in the right direction. We are glad that there's less reporting, there's less burdensome bureaucracy, and we're very pleased to see also everything that changes the investments in these major projects, which are absolutely essential if we think of infrastructure, transport, housing, security and defense. Smes. But also the green transition, because I would like to highlight that Investeu is going in the right direction here, because it also needs to make sure that we're not going, that we're not going into a certain direction, the direction of the Green Deal and the green transition, which is something that isn't good for Europe. And so we need to be able to stop that when we can.”
  Climate efforts