Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-26-Speech-4-024"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061026.3.4-024"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, might I perhaps say a word or two, since a number of issues have been broached?
A number of other points have been mentioned. I will not return to the matter of hedge funds raised by Mrs van den Burg, in particular. As to the question of whether or not we are sufficiently transparent and open as regards communication, I reiterate that we do not take decisions alone behind closed doors. The Commissioner and the President of the Eurogroup, Jean-Claude Juncker, are invited to all meetings of the Governing Council. They are also invited every fortnight to our discussions and deliberations, so that they can be as close as possible to the decisions taken. I myself have the privilege of appearing before the Eurogroup every month. So there are three opportunities each month to exchange views and gain as full as possible an understanding of how the decision-making process really works. It seems to me that, from that standpoint, we have the most highly-organised system of contacts anywhere in the world. It is not new; it was the tradition of the Bundesbank, the Banque de France and a number of central banks. Let us not underestimate its significance. Some of the remarks made fail to take this into account.
As regards the transparency of our concept of monetary policy, we are in a position where we say that our primary goal is price stability, because that is what the Treaty stipulates. We give an arithmetical definition of price stability as inflation rates of below and close to 2%. Everyone is aware of this. We have a two-pillar strategy that is very clear. In that respect, we are much more transparent and precise. We provide a greater yardstick with which to measure our performance than other sister central banks do. I do not want to address myself to any of them in particular, but across the Atlantic there is a sister central bank which, for very good reasons of its own, has a different approach to the definition of price stability, with regard to the clarity of that goal. From that standpoint we are very transparent. The entire world knows that we are transparent and it is one of the reasons why inflation expectations are anchored in line with our definition of price stability, which is a fundamental result.
Mr President, I should like to reply briefly to a number of MEPs. The fact that we are credible and that our predictions concerning inflation correspond to our definition of price stability offer the European economy a particularly favourable financial environment.
I would ask those Members who have criticised our monetary policy, accusing it of being too orthodox, simply to remember what the rates of interest for the medium- and long-term markets in their countries were before the introduction of the euro. In reality, inflation predictions assumed a rate of inflation much higher than that which we ourselves are now able to guarantee to Europeans. It should be noted that low inflation represents, above all, a crucial factor for the poorest sections of our societies, preserving as it does their purchasing power. I noted, moreover, that many Members were asking us to remain very vigilant in this respect. I am, therefore, deeply convinced that there exists a very simple relationship between our primary objective, as assigned by the Treaty, and Article 105.
Meeting our primary objective is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of our being able to move in the direction desired by everyone in this Chamber, that being, of course, the direction of growth and employment. Price stability is a necessary condition for sustainable growth and for the creation of lasting employment.
If I have time I shall make two or three other remarks. Regarding the 500-euro note, I do not agree at all with the remark that was made suggesting that we would actively assist money-laundering. As you know, large denomination notes were a strong tradition in many of the countries forming part of the euro area and we decided not to change the various traditions drastically. So the note is used in some countries, but not in others. It remains an option and we decided not to eliminate that option for those countries and economies that were used to it.
I believe I have covered all the other questions that were raised. However, Mr Whittaker mentioned the ‘one-size-fits-all’ angle. Europe is a vast continental economy and, from 1 January next year when Slovenia joins, the euro zone will have 315 million citizens. This compares with 300 million in the United States and thus represents an economy of the same order of magnitude. When you measure the dispersion, the standard deviation of growth and of inflation at the level of various states of various different sizes, you will see that it is roughly the same for both economies. This is not widely known, but is worth pointing out, since it appears to be a characteristic of a vast continental economy.
This does not mean that we have to cater for persistent differences, and it is one of the things that we have discussed, particularly in the Eurogroup. We need to reflect on this question, but again, it would probably be wrong to forget that an element of dispersion is always associated with the size of the economy concerned.
Mr President, I think I have covered most of the questions put, but it goes without saying that I remain at Parliament’s disposal.
I should like first of all to thank the honourable Members. I have indeed been very alert to the precise nature of the remarks, observations and recommendations made to us.
On the subject of independence, I should like to say, on behalf of all the members of the Executive Board and the Governing Council, how important it is to hear so very many MEPs state how crucial it is for the European Central Bank to be independent. I must confess that we should certainly not have been able to give the European economy its particular monetary and financial environment without the credibility conferred on us by this principle of independence recognised by your Parliament, by the whole world and by all market participants, wherever in the world they might be. The Bank’s independence is stated in the Treaty, it is a recognised fact and it is one of Europe’s basic assets.
I should like once again to thank all the MEPs who expressed themselves so clearly on this point.
Let me now deal with some of the other points raised, which are certainly important in the eyes of a number of Members of Parliament. I have to say that the question of the appointment of the members of the Executive Board is one that should be addressed to the executive branches, particularly the Council, because they are responsible for such matters. We are appointed according to the Treaty provisions and, as you know, not only does Parliament give its assessment of the quality of the various persons concerned, but so do we in the Governing Council. I know that Parliament would like to have not only an advisory role but also responsibility for the decision itself. I respect that sentiment. I realise that the ECB has to let Parliament and the Council discuss the matter, provided full independence and absence of politicisation are totally assured, for, clearly, if the institution were to suffer from politicisation, it would not be able to deliver what it has to deliver, namely, price stability, something which also depends on it enjoying sound credibility, so that inflation expectations can be firmly anchored.
As regards the various remarks on the dialogue between Parliament and the ECB, in my opinion this dialogue has improved in terms of both frequency and interaction and I will take good note of all the remarks made here, including those concerning the governance of our possible Target2 Securities system. On that issue, which is dear to your heart, Mr Radwan, and to that of other Members of Parliament, I would say that our aspiration – and it is really a work in progress – was to maximise the benefits of European integration following the successful introduction of the euro, since it is clear that the availability of a single settlement engine for securities denominated in euros would undoubtedly represent progress.
The second objective would be to maximise settlement efficiency and that would probably require cash and securities to be settled on the same IT platform, according to what is known technically as an ‘integrated model’.
The third issue, which is important from our own perspective, is how to maximise the Central Bank’s control over the bank accounts opened in our own book. We take a very strong line on this, believing that solutions which avoid forcing central banks to outsource the management of their accounts would not be good ones.
These are the three main reasons why we are working on this matter, through a dialogue with the market, which is very important, and, of course, with Parliament."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples