Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-16-Speech-3-270"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000216.15.3-270"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the approval of this agreement with the Commission on procedures for implementing the Council decision on comitology marks the end of a saga which has kept Parliament busy for two years, along with a few enthusiasts scattered among the various institutions of the Union, whom many people do not hesitate to call masochists.
Until 1993, the way the Commission exercised its executive powers, and in particular the mysterious and even suspect committee arrangements, was creating conflict and mistrust between the institutions, and threatening to have serious consequences on the legislative procedure. That is why, in accordance with Declaration No 31, annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Union institutions have undertaken a complex task of negotiation and consultation, resulting in the new Council decision, which revises the old system quite substantially, although we are not entirely satisfied with it. In particular, the decision outlines a form of parliamentary control whereby Parliament can sound the alarm if an implementing measure, deriving from an act adopted under the codecision procedure, oversteps the implementing powers delegated to the Commission.
During the protracted interinstitutional negotiations – which saw Parliament actively involved, thanks to the work of the rapporteur, Adelaide Aglietta – it was understood that the European Parliament and Commission would conclude an interinstitutional agreement on the procedures for implementing certain aspects of the new decision. On the one hand, certain points which the Council did not intend to incorporate into the decision were to be made explicit and, on the other, the system for providing information about implementing measures and monitoring them was to be organised more precisely.
During the trialogue held on 6 October 1999 in Strasbourg, the Presidents of the European Parliament and the Commission approved the idea of concluding this agreement soon. We believe we have respected that commitment, and indeed this was made relatively easy by the climate of trust and mutual respect evident throughout the negotiations with the Commission.
Essentially, the agreement deals with two points: one is the right of the European Parliament to be informed, which is the
for the genuine exercise of its right to intervene pursuant to Article 8 of the decision. Hitherto, such information had been supplied on paper and unsystematically, and was of no use to our services; and indeed this was often the fault of Parliament itself. From now on, the information will be provided by means of an electronic system called CIRCA, to which the European Parliament will have access. This represents a real innovation, not only for us, but also – I am sure – for the Commission.
The other point is that Article 8 of the Council decision does not specify either the method by which the European Parliament is to sound the alarm, or the time limit within which it must exercise its restricted power of control. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the agreement confirm that, as a general rule, the European Parliament will adopt its resolution, stating its reasons, at a plenary sitting and has one month to exercise its right of intervention before the Commission adopts the draft implementing measure. But we all realise that it is not always possible to wait a month before implementing a measure. Therefore, the agreement contains explicit provisions on urgent procedure, including possible action by the committee responsible.
I want to end by stressing that we cannot assess whether this is a good agreement or not, we must wait and see how it works in practice. The European Parliament needs to acquire the resources, which it currently lacks, to ensure efficient monitoring of implementing measures, and the Commission must accept that some of its practices need reorganising to provide proper information to Parliament and ensure that control can be effective.
Finally, it needs to be borne in mind that – whatever happens – the real solution to the problems of comitology for the European Parliament is still to change the procedure for implementing legislation laid down in the Treaties, and gradually to dismantle the committees whose existence represents an anomaly that severely restricts the Commission’s executive power and may prejudice the European Parliament’s legislative powers."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples