Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2013-04-18-Speech-4-056-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20130418.4.4-056-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, thank you very much. I do understand that the Commissioner is unavailable since he is on his way to Washington. It seems to be a recurring event that we are unable to hold our debates on questions before the Commissioner, because they are always on a Thursday, and he is always on his way somewhere.
Now, the Six-pack established the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure (MIP) as an important element supporting the reformed Stability and Growth Pact. It extends monitoring to macroeconomic issues, whereas the pack previously focused on debt and deficits. An important element of this new procedure is the scoreboard of indicators that is a diagnostic tool for the Commission.
In November 2012, the Commission added to the original set a new financial sector indicator on the growth rate of financial sector liabilities. Now, in order to avoid misunderstandings, let me stress that an indicator on the financial sector is very welcome. In fact Parliament had asked for one in December 2011.
However, even though I am not suggesting that the chosen indicator is wrong, the simple fact is that there are many options as to the type of indicator to chose. Unfortunately, the Commission has entirely failed to respect the Six-pack, which establishes the understanding that the Commission should present suggestions for comment to the competent committees of the European Parliament and of the Council on plans to establish and adjust the indicators and thresholds.
In this case, clearly the consultation did not take place. In fact, Parliament received the information on the new indicator only days before the publication of the alert mechanism report in November 2012. Adding insult to injury, it appears that the Council had been consulted, albeit at the technical level through the EFC.
So the message seems not to have quite trickled through yet to the relevant Commission services that Parliament has equal rights with the Council here. Also, one would imagine that it is not so difficult to conduct a consultation with Parliament, even if it means an informal submission of a draft to the secretariat. We in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) have proved in the past that we are efficient and that we collaborate in good faith with the Commission and the Council.
In my capacity as Chair of ECON, I attempted to get clarity on this matter by way of an exchange of letters in December and January, following the publication of the new indicator. I failed to get any sensible explanation from the Commission, which could quite simply have admitted the mistake and promised to do better next time. Indeed, to his credit, when similar mistakes have happened with DG MARE, Commissioner Barnier has done exactly that and acted diligently.
But quite to the contrary, the Commission claimed that everything had been done correctly. Against this background, we saw no other option than to follow up on this through this oral question. The oral question is brief and to the point, and we would very much appreciate a straightforward answer.
Can the Commission explain why it failed to consult Parliament when adding an indicator for the stability of the financial sector ahead of the alert mechanism report in 2013? Does the Commission consider the Parliament resolution of 15 December 2011 on the envisaged initial design of a scoreboard for the surveillance of macroeconomic imbalances, in which Parliament requested an indicator for the financial sector to be added, to constitute a consultation as defined by Recital 12 of the MIP regulation?"@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples