Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-16-Speech-2-372"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060516.40.2-372"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Madam President, in leading business circles there is a growing recognition that it is imperative to provide for diversity in management and supervisory boards. Diversity in educational backgrounds, work experience, age, gender and nationalities guarantees more sensitive, alert and creative cooperation than just adding more of the same sort of people.
Replacing one Bundesbanker with another does not promise much diversity and creativity. If it had been a company operating in a fast-changing environment, I would have advised the ECB, when it was drawing up a profile for a new board member, to look at this aspect of diversity. But the ECB is not a company and its policy is kept static; it is apparently deemed that it should eternally remain as it was at its creation.
I will not hide my criticism of this lack of dynamism in the development of monetary policy, although I agree that it is not only the ECB that should be addressed but also the political decision-makers, the Ecofin Council and the governments of Member States, which nowadays do not seem to be very inspired by macroeconomic coordination at European level that complements their common monetary policy.
But in this debate tonight we are not dealing with the policies of the ECB and the eurozone as such, but with the appointment of a new Bundesbanker to the Executive Board. The strict remit of our ECON Committee is to assess the capabilities and competences of the nominated candidates and we do not have much to say in this debate, because the candidate meets the criteria and performed well in the hearing that we had with him.
In my political group, the PSE, we are more interested in discussing the procedure leading to this appointment. Originally we proposed to do that in the report that we are dealing with now and we were disappointed that a majority of the committee did not support it. That was why we abstained in the vote. In the coordinators’ meeting following that committee meeting, we jointly agreed to write a letter to Mr Grasser, as well as starting a more fundamental debate about the nomination procedure, particularly the upgrading and reinforcement of the role of the European Parliament in such nomination procedures.
It is very important for the European Parliament to counterbalance what I see as a strong renationalisation and non-integrationist trend in the way Member States deal with these issues. It is clear where our criticisms are focused: there is apparent evidence that large Member States have ‘reserved seats’. There is a lack of debate about profile and portfolios and this diversity of backgrounds, and a lack of choice. The issue of appointment is taken as an ‘A’ item in the Council debate and the European Parliament has a very limited role.
We hope that if we have the opportunity to present more proposals, the Commission, the Council and the ECB will ready to discuss with us a change in this appointment procedure. But we hope to cooperate very well with any candidate put forward by Mr Radwan."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples