Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-15-Speech-3-194"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000315.6.3-194"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, may I first of all thank you for the interest you have devoted to the Commission proposal modifying Directive 64/432 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine. I am particularly grateful to Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf for his report on this proposal and to the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for the support given to most of the modifications proposed by the Commission and for the amendments included in the initial committee's report.
I will now make some remarks on the implications of the proposed amendment for the institutional balance. The implementing powers of the Commission are laid down in Article 202, third indent of the EC Treaty in conjunction with the Council Decision 99/468 that I earlier referred to which is the appropriate Council decision laying down the appropriate procedure for comitology. This system aims clearly at defining exactly the respective role of the executive and legislative power in the basic legislative instrument. Consequently, in the basic legislative act it has to be made clear from the outset which implementing measures are based on codecision procedures, that is, Article 152 and which provisions do not have as their direct objective the protection of public health and would therefore not be subject to Parliament's right of scrutiny.
The procedure must be made clear in the basic legislative provision requiring to be amended by comitology. Any wording leaving room for case-by-case negotiation would jeopardise the delicate institutional balance and also seriously undermine transparency. The wording proposed in the new amendment for the regulatory procedure with the right of scrutiny, and I quote: “in the case of the codecision procedure based on Article 251, Article 8 thereof” leads to legal uncertainty and is not in line with the agreed implementation of Council's comitology decision.
I note from the document that Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf has circulated this afternoon where he signals his intention to put forward this amendment at this stage. He says: “I think that it is not necessary to include two almost identical references to the comitology procedure just to make sure that the European Parliament does not ask for rights that it does not have”. Let me assure Parliament that it is not my intention, in setting out these two procedures – Articles 17 and 17a – to ensure that the European Parliament does not ask for rights that it does not have.
I am firmly committed to the procedure of codecision and I am firmly committed to the procedures laid down in comitology. I am firmly committed to the notion that Parliament will have full scrutiny of Commission proposals in circumstances where the legal structures of the European Union, that is the Treaty and the directive, allow for that situation. To deviate from that is to risk challenge in the European Court, which is something that I must avoid. Also I must reply to Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf by saying that the two, as he describes, almost identical references to comitology procedure are not in fact identical. They are quite different and must be dealt with quite separately. However, it is in the interest of all the institutions that the procedures are clearly defined and transparent for everybody.
Furthermore, adopting this amendment would mean further delaying the legislative procedure which could otherwise be concluded after the first reading.
In conclusion I wish to confirm that I accept Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf's Amendments Nos 1 and 2 but not the amendment on the comitology procedure that he has suggested this afternoon. Consequently I cannot accept the amendment of Mrs Auroi either.
To deal with the individual issues which were raised by speakers this afternoon, first of all, in respect of those points made by Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf which I have not already dealt with, he makes reference to the long prose text and that there is an agreement with the Council to be more succinct. You are, of course, quite correct in relation to that. That agreement, however, was reached with the Council subsequent to the initial drafting of this document. That is why it has been drafted in this way. It pre-dates that agreement. It will be automatically amended in the manner envisaged in the agreement with the Council. Therefore the concerns that you have in relation to this matter will be remedied automatically in accordance with that agreement.
You also suggested that if the Commission goes along with your suggestion that there will be a shortened procedure. In response to that, if this particular amendment is withdrawn by Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, having regard to what I have said here this afternoon, then it is also true to say that the procedure will be shortened and this matter can be dealt with on first reading. There is a significant risk that if the matter is proceeded with in this way and if the Council votes in accordance with the proposal put forward by the Commission, the matter will go to second reading, thereby creating further delays.
It has come to my attention as late as today, in consultation with members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, that there is a concern which I was unaware of: of the interaction between Articles 37 and 152. I have made it clear that I am prepared to respond quickly to any invitation that the committee might wish to extend to me to discuss this important constitutional issue of the interaction between Article 37 and Article 152. I say that in circumstances where I also urge Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf to give serious consideration, in the light of what I have just said, to the withdrawal of that particular amendment, having regard to the serious legal difficulties that exist in relation to it.
In response to Mr Hyland and Mrs Doyle, both of whom are concerned about the testing issue, I have taken note of what both of them have said in relation to this and I will make the appropriate inquiries.
Member States encountered serious trade problems when implementing the updated animal health rules for intra-Community trade laid down in Directive 64/432 that came into force on 1 July last year. In order to facilitate the change-over to the new rules the Commission, based on Articles 37 and 152 of the Treaty, proposed amendments to the directive that include transitional measures to solve the most acute trade problems, minor corrections and clarifications in the annexes and a general mandate to the Commission to lay down transitional measures in accordance with the new comitology procedure included in the proposal.
The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Parliament agreed on two amendments tabled by Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf to the Commission proposal. The first amendment requires the Member States to ensure full implementation of the directive and the Member States and the Commission to execute controls on the implementation. The second amendment seeks to restrict the period of application of transitional measures to two years. The Commission can agree to these Amendments Nos 1 and 2 and must therefore oppose the amendment from Mrs Auroi requesting the deletion of any transitional measures.
However, I regret that I am not in a position to accept written Amendment No 3 which Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf put forward last week. It modifies the comitology procedure by proposing for implementing measures relating to Article 37 to introduce a management procedure with the right of scrutiny. This is clearly against Article 2 of the Council Decision 99/468 on comitology which provides for regulatory committees in issues relating to animal health and it seems that perhaps it is not accepted by Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf following detailed discussions with my cabinet that this is the position. But I understand that perhaps Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf may very well have misinterpreted the comitology and that he intends to amend it again during this plenary.
Let me express my surprise and concern about this. I regret that I cannot accept your new amendment which replaces Article 17 and 17a by a single new article comprising the entire comitology procedure. It introduces a regulatory committee with the right of scrutiny for Parliament and I quote from the letter which he sent me: “in the case of a codecision procedure based on Article 251, Article 8 thereof” – that is Article 8 of Council Decision 99/468 on comitology.
I can assure you of the importance that I attach to Parliament's role in the legislative process, in particular relating to comitology in the codecision procedure. The overall aim is to achieve quick and efficient results in order to translate policy into legislative acts. The framework for the comitology procedure is clearly established in the abovementioned Council decision. The right of scrutiny for the Parliament is foreseen for areas relating to codecision, that is Article 8. The amended Directive 64/432 is based on Articles 37 and 152 of the Treaty. The new provision concerning the implementing powers for the Commission to lay down transitional measures may have a direct effect on public health.
This is the reason why the Commission, in this case, proposes Article 17a which refers to a regulatory committee with the right of scrutiny for Parliament. I refer you to Article 3 of the directive in particular which amends Article 16 of the original where it says: “where necessary to facilitate the change-over to the new arrangements provided for in this directive the Commission, acting in accordance with the procedures laid down in Article 17a, may adopt transitional measures applicable for a period of not more than three years”. That is, and I am advised by the legal service, the appropriate way to deal with this.
In any situation where a basic legislative provision envisages amendment by a comitology procedure it must include in the basic provision the actual procedure for the comitology. That is why each individual provision which envisages such an amendment must identify the procedure quite clearly. Therefore, the power that is given to the Commission to further extend the period of time which is contained in Article 3 clearly identifies Article 17a as being the appropriate article to deal with this which incorporates Article 8 of the Council decision of last June, thereby giving Parliament full scrutiny powers in relation to any such proposal.
Where reference is made in the current version of 64/432 to Article 17, this relates to implementing measures concerning animal health, that is based on Article 37 which are of no or, in very few cases, of very remote, public health concern. Therefore these measures should not be subject to the right of scrutiny of Parliament. For example, such implementing measures relate to the approval of procedures and sites for cleansing and disinfection, the format of disease reporting, the approval of assembly centres, the definition of additional guarantees for Member States free of diseases not transmissible to humans such as infectious bovine rhinotracheitis or transmissible gastroenteritis in pigs."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples