Statement of the General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL A.Kyprianou on the state guarantees bill
AKEL C.C. Press Office, 18th May 2020
At today’s political party leaders meeting at the Presidential Palace, we listened very carefully to the positions of the President of the Republic and the Minister of Finance, regarding the government’s positions on the bills under discussion in the House of Representatives and especially on the state guarantees bill.
From the beginning, I’d like to make it clear that this debate isn’t only taking place in Cyprus. It is being discussed at a pan-European level and there are two contrasting philosophies. On the one hand, there is the philosophy stating that we should proceed with state guarantees. This philosophy, which is embraced by right-wing governments across the EU, is also shared by the Nikos Anastasiades government in Cyprus. And then there is the philosophy which various governments are embracing in important EU member states, which states that businesses – and more specifically small and medium-sized enterprises – should be supported by the state. And for sure some of them possibly with state guarantees through the banks.
AKEL had clarified its position from the very beginning of this debate. We stressed that the state should support very small businesses with subsidies, so that they can cope with the problems they are facing. We were saying that the government should grant loans to small and medium-sized businesses on the basis of specific criteria, through an organization. This role could be played by the Housing Financing Agency, on the precondition that it would be strengthened so that it could fulfill its responsibilities. AKEL also stressed that in the case of large enterprises, they could be granted loans by banks through state guarantees, which would be provided by the state.
Although several meetings of the Finance Committee took place, it wasn’t possible to arrive at a conclusion. We understand that we have reached a point where the government is saying “that’s what I have to propose, I am not going to make any changes in the bill”. As far as we are concerned, we will take our decisions based on the content of the bill as it will be formulated, when we have it before us in our Party’s collective bodies.
However, I would like to clarify some things, for which public statements are being made which have nothing to do with reality.
First, as far as AKEL is concerned, no bilateral consultation took place whatsoever after 23rd April, when the meeting took place at the Presidential Palace, until 8th May, when the relevant bill was submitted to the House of Representatives. It is clear that the government did not seek any consent, but instead sought to secure a parliamentary majority.
We categorically reject the accusation that the parliamentary parties are supposedly delaying the discussion and the expression of our position on the specific bill. The government tabled the bill in March. It subsequently withdrew it on 31st March. The government has a huge mechanism at its disposal and it has come back to table its proposal in the House of Representatives on 8th May. That is to say, approximately 40 days after it withdrew the bill.
A Parliament that respects itself must study the bill, formulate its opinion, have a discussion on it between the political parties, and then discuss and express a position on it. It doesn’t make sense for the government, which has a huge mechanism at its disposal, to ask for 40 days to prepare the bill, but for us (the political parties) we are being called on to state our position on the bill immediately.
The last thing I want to say is that we have demanded that the government provide us with all the figures on the state’s financial needs. We have questioned the figures presented to the Parliamentary Finance Committee and at the meeting between the leaders of the political parties, without obtaining any convincing answers. We therefore want, even belatedly, the government to give us in writing what the financial needs of the state are.
Finally, I would like to say that our position is that direct support from the state to small and medium-sized enterprises must be disconnected from the state guarantees bill. These are two different issues and political parties should be given the opportunity to express their position on these two different bills separately.
