Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-09-24-Speech-3-460"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080924.37.3-460"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, at my stage in life, I do not get very surprised too often, so I am not the least bit surprised at what goes on here in the European Parliament and the views of some people.
I only learned today that my services have not been in constant contact with relevant Members here in the European Parliament in the past month or so. This was news to me, because I thought my officials would have been keeping contact the whole time with the people here who take an interest in this particular subject, but I find out today that did not occur. In my former remarks, I said that I regretted this, and that I had given directions that it should not happen again; we want to cooperate. No more can I do.
Mr Purvis, it is not as though Parliament can delay until any time it likes
mid-October or beyond
but if I want the European Commission to have a say, I have to submit our formal proposals regarding our ideas about governance to the IASF board forthwith. They will not agree with some of them. As Mr John Purvis says, he has been lobbied for the last two days by various actors in this particular scene as to what they want to achieve.
From reading the resolution as it is drafted, there is one definite peculiarity about this, which I think should not go unnoticed, particularly by Mrs Berès who has long been an advocate of greater governance and accountability of this particular IASB body. The peculiarity of the resolution is that it would do exactly what the trustees actually want and reverse what we are trying to do in getting more governance. That is the peculiarity, but the matter of the resolution is entirely a matter for the European Parliament, not a matter for me. I would just make that particular comment in passing, because there are people among the IASB trustees who are not too anxious to accommodate some of the more far-reaching governance arrangements that we are proposing for them. There will be a fair degree of resistance. We are reliant on the existing trustees to take account of our concerns and to improve these governance arrangements as we think fit. We are not in the position, because we only submit these things, to make demands and say it has to be like this, but we have had contacts and they know what we are going to propose. They are not happy with some of what we are going to propose. I am aware of that, but we are trying to get this improved governance.
Not that I am ever surprised by what happens in the political arena, as I have been well over 30 years in this field, but it will be ironic if, after we have got this far over the years in getting our way on two things – namely that the IFRS has become an international standard and that, now, as people here know, the United States is proposing that IFRS be available to US companies (something I predicted would happen about two years ago to the relevant members of the relevant Parliament committee and was more or less laughed at that this would ever occur, and it has) – this body that has been demanding with us and pressing us to get increased governance and accountability from this particular body is, at this particular stage and according to some people, actually going to do quite the opposite. I just think it is a little bit ironic, but I hope I have explained this as best I can.
Can I just say in all of this particular debate, let us just remember one small thing. The IASCF and its underlying constituent body, the IASB, is an independent organisation.
I just want to put the facts on the table. They are totally independent but they have
become the accounts-standard-setting body for the globe because IFRS, which came out of the IASB, has now become the
worldwide accountancy standard. I have to point out that this is an independent body; since we in Europe have adopted IFRS
a decision made before my time by the Commission and to the satisfaction of the European Parliament
we are the largest constituency that has IFRS today. This position may change as the world moves over more to IFRS. We might not then be the largest any more, but we certainly are the largest current user of IFRS.
For some time, with the support of the European Parliament, we have been endeavouring to improve the governance arrangements of the IASCF trustees, noting that they are an independent organisation.
We have made some progress in the past, and the IAS recently announced that they were going to have a review of their own constitution. So we are availing ourselves of that opportunity to make our submission. We have no right to impose our view on the IASCF
this is up to the independent trustees
but we are making it our submission to improve the governance arrangements. I would just point out this basic fact before everybody, as we might say in Ireland, ‘loses the run of themselves’ in this particular area. That is the
and
situation.
The IAS trustees are intending to bring in their new governance arrangements, having considered all the submissions, in early October. The closing date for making our submission has actually passed by a few days. It was to be 20 September, and the date today is 24 September. We waited to submit our final result. We have been in informal consultations with them for some time, so they know, really, what we are going to propose, but we waited for Parliament’s resolution for the courtesy of doing that. So we will have to submit our formal proposals in the next few days.
It is entirely a matter for Parliament as to what you want to do with this particular recommendation. Mr Gauzès has put forward a reasonable approach about taking a few extra days perhaps to work out a protocol about Parliament’s participation in the process which I am endeavouring to set up.
As regards the monitoring board idea, which we announced last November, it is not possible for everybody to be represented on the monitoring board. It will not be acceptable to the trustees of the IASCF, and, if they say absolutely no, then that is that. So we proposed a kind of a way around this by having relevant people, relevant bodies, in this advisory group. I am not hung up on any particular strong views as to how it should be organised or who should be on it. I do not have any views about that."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Inaudible interruption from the floor)"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples