Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-01-Speech-1-084"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-09-01"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Adequacy of banks' own funds (Basel II)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030901.6.1-084"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-09-01-Speech-1-0852
lpv:speaker	lp:Helmuth Markov2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-21--2004-07-19)3 treasurer; EUL/NGL (1999-10-13--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Slovenia Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 unknown; Partei des Demokratischen Sozialismus (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; ECON (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it goes without saying that precise assessment of risks when giving credit is of crucial importance to the stability of the banking system, and so, whilst supporting the Basel II agreement’s objective of strengthening the banks’ hand in evaluating risks, we nevertheless have a number of critical observations to make. For a start, the Basel Agreement should primarily be directed at internationally active banks, which could represent a risk to the stability of the financial system worldwide. In many Member States, small local banks play an important role. There is a need to ensure that the costs imposed on these institutions by new supervisory rules remain manageable and do not lead to credit becoming more expensive. This is where the Commission has chosen a more flexible basis than did the Basel Committee, but it remains an unsatisfactory one. Secondly, nothing has been done to dispel the fears that this compromise will worsen the situation as regards the financing of small and medium-sized enterprises. The million-euro threshold is to be raised in order to prevent the cost of credit granted by small banks becoming too expensive for SMEs. It is quite incomprehensible that no detailed analysis has been presented at European level of how the new equity capital rules will affect the conditions under which SMEs raise finance. It is for that reason that we must support the rapporteur’s demand for such a study of SMEs to be presented before the proposed new directive enters into force and for its findings to be taken into account; failing that, the development motor that SMEs represent in their regions may be throttled. Thirdly, what appears highly problematic about the new equity capital regime is its effect on macroeconomic stability, as it will very probably result in procyclicality. When the economy is in a downturn, it is normal for there to be greater credit risks, so that the banks can limit their lending, hamper investment activity and consequently accentuate the downturn. This is where I believe changes need to be made to the rules, or else this needs to be examined in greater detail. The fourth point is one to which the rapporteur has already alluded. The comitology procedure that has been chosen reflects only inadequately Parliament’s concerns, as, at the end of the day, it is not clear which issues are of political principle and which are technical in nature, so that Parliament could, under certain circumstances, be prevented from making amendments at a later stage. We should therefore endorse and support the demand for a formal right of recall."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph