Debatter

Torsdagen den 13 december 2018 - Strasbourg

9.1. Beslut om att inleda interinstitutionella förhandlingar: Minsta förlusttäckning för nödlidande exponeringa (A8-0440/2018 - Esther de Lange, Roberto Gualtieri) (omröstning)

– Vor der Abstimmung:

  Sven Giegold (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, we have carefully assessed the draft negotiation position of the Parliament and listened to the statement of the ECON chair before, however we are convinced that the draft negotiation position of the Parliament is not good enough. It is not enough to get the risks in the balance sheets of European banks under control, and it is not enough to prevent indebted consumers and small enterprises from being abused by unregulated credit purchases. The stock of non-performing loans is bigger today than it was before the last financial crisis. Nevertheless, the new rules for the provisioning of bad loans will only apply to newly issued loans, and only for this partial solution the European Parliament’s position is weaker than of the Council and weaker than of the European Commission. But tough minimum requirements for credit provisioning for non-performing loans are necessary so that taxpayers do not have to rescue struggling banks again in the next economic downturn.

Lastly, those who now demand weaker rules on these loans are risking that the banking union cannot be completed. Even worse, there are no binding rules so far for the credit purchases, and this means that BlackRock, Blackstone and many other credit purchases can continue driving people who are indebted from their homes, and this is why we think this negotiation position is not good enough and we ask colleagues to send the committee back to the drawing desk in order to have strong rules on consumer protection and strong rules on our banks.

(Applause)

  Roberto Gualtieri, Rapporteur. – Mr President, actually what colleague Giegold is saying is not true. This is a balanced compromise – basically identical to the position unanimously voted by the Council, being welcomed by the Commission – and this ensures actually a very prudent calendar provisioning for NPLs, while avoiding the risk that too rigid provisions and the one that you are asking for would negatively affect consumer SMEs. Honestly, I find your arguments totally contradictory. You make propaganda about the consumers, but what you would like to do, is exactly what would bring people with the mortgages, SMEs, into the hands of hedge funds – American hedge funds. So, it’s totally contradictory, what you are saying.

(Applause)

And second, the reason the reason why the Greens are making this objection is basically political, because we reached a balanced compromise with the EPP and you didn’t like that and I’m proud to do that because I have many different views with the EPP, but I’m proud that in this House we are able also to find common ground and to find together good legislation. This makes Europe stronger, not weaker, and that’s why I think we have to endorse this compromise.

(Applause)