19 Statistics
| (27312)
6546/06
COM(06) 539
| Draft Regulation laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 as regards the temporal coverage of price collection in the harmonised index of consumer prices.
|
| Legal base | Article 285(1) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Office for National Statistics
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 31 May 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-xxii (2005-06), para 8 (15 March 2006)
|
| Discussed in Council | 25 April 2006
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared, but further information requested
|
Background
19.1 Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 provided for Harmonised Indices
of Consumer Prices (HICPs) to allow international comparisons
of consumer price inflation. They form the basis of the Monetary
Union Index of Consumer Prices used by the European Central Bank
to monitor inflation. In the UK the HICP is published as the Consumer
Prices Index (CPI).
19.2 At present the temporal coverage (time period
for collection) of HICP price collection varies widely between
Member States, from a single day to a period of several weeks.
This draft Regulation would set minimum standards for price collection,
stipulating that temporal coverage of HICP shall take place over
a period of at least one working week around the centre of the
month.
19.3 When we considered this document we noted that
the Government had serious doubts about the utility of this proposal,
but that it seemed probable that the draft Regulation would be
approved by the Council, given the opposition of only the UK and
Ireland. However, we said that before considering the document
further we wanted to know whether the Government had any concern
as to subsidiarity, whether there was a formal impact assessment
for the proposal and what success the Government had had in pressing
for one. Meanwhile we did not clear the document.[47]
The Minister's letter
19.4 The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (John
Healey) tells us that the question of subsidiarity does not arise
in this case. HICP legislation, such as this proposal, sets minimum
data standards but leaves it to Member States as to how they achieve
them. (And we understand that the basic HICP Regulation, Regulation
(EC) No 2494/95, specifically addresses the question of subsidiarity
in its recitals.)
19.5 As for an impact assessment the Minister draws
our attention to the Commission's financial statement in the document
and notes that the proposal will have minimal impact on business
as the number of prices to be collected remains much the same
— it is only the timing of collection that may change. (And
we understand that draft legislation on statistical matters is
not subject to formal impact assessment, rather it is subject
to assessment in the Statistical Program Committee, in which the
Government is represented.) The Minister reminds us that there
may be implementation costs for the Government, for which it will
be seeking financial support from the Commission.
19.6 The Minister also tells us that in March 2006
the Government voted against the proposal in the Council Working
Group, but that it was approved by a qualified majority. In April
2006 it was adopted as an "A" point by the Council.
Conclusion
19.7 We are grateful for the clarifications on
the points we had raised previously and now clear the document.
19.8 However, we should be grateful to hear further
from the Minister on two points. First, is it the Government's
view that it is acceptable that, unlike all other Commission legislative
proposals, draft legislation on statistical matters, particularly
in the light of paragraphs 40 and 41 of the Conclusions of the
European Council of 15-16 June 2006, should not be subject to
a formal impact assessment?
19.9 Secondly, although we note that the Government
did vote against this proposal at the Working Group stage, we
wish to know why the Government allowed it to be taken as a Council
"A" point. We should like the Minister to explain this
in relation to paragraph (4) of the House's Scrutiny Reserve Resolution
of 17 November 1998. Requiring the proposal to be taken as a substantive
item would have allowed the Government not only to reiterate,
with an adverse vote, its opposition to the proposal, but to insist
that national parliamentary scrutiny be completed before finalisation
of the proposal.
47 See headnote. Back
| 
