Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-10-25-Speech-1-057"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041025.13.1-057"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Central Bank’s annual report for 2003 is in a new format, one that is clearer and easier to understand, with more details and greater transparency, including on the critical aspects of current policy. The report thus makes the ECB’s policies more accessible to the readers, that is, the public, so we see the ECB as having done a good job of work with the whole thing.
Mr Lipietz’s original report contains some criticisms of the ECB, and with these we do not agree. Let me begin with interest rate policy, one general criticism of which we regard as misplaced. We know that interest rate policy is a balancing act, but, as whole, 2003 saw the ECB continuing to do a good job of keeping things on an even keel; the economy is growing, the euro is stable, and interest rates are low in real terms.
There is a second criticism that we do not endorse, in that we take the view that the ECB’s responsibilities are clearly and well set out, these being, primarily, price stability and moderate rates of inflation. When those are in place, the important conditions for economic growth and employment are created, and, although that is of course not enough, we should not make the ECB responsible for full employment or economic growth; to do so would be to lay far too great a burden on it. These matters are for the national governments to deal with. Mr Trichet pointed out that this is where Budget policy is important, and the national governments have failed to discharge their responsibilities in this respect. We cannot correct that by overburdening the ECB.
We also share the view, expressed by Mr Trichet, that the votes of individual members of the Governing Council should not be published. To do so would politicise the ECB, and would do Europe’s present economic development no good. When we have made a success of putting the Lisbon agenda into practice, then the position will be a different one, and we will be able to discuss the subject again.
While we are in favour of the ECB doing as the Federal Reserve does and publishing a Grey Book every year, we also would like to see the publication, at the due time, of summary minutes without individual votes; the matter should then be left there.
To sum up, we should allow the ECB the freedom to act in the manner laid down in the Maastricht Treaty on European Union. The Lipietz report was successfully rewritten by the adoption, in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, of the amendments tabled on these points, and so we still wonder why the rapporteur has not dissociated himself from it. We regard the report, as it stands, as balanced and good, and in this form we endorse it. We do not believe that it needs to be amended."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples