Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-02-Speech-2-009"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011002.2.2-009"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on 4 September, I presented to this House the White Paper on Reform of European Governance. Some Members gave me their immediate reactions then, and the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market have started to analyse our proposals. Today’s debate is therefore taking place within the context of a wider discussion that is already well under way. I would like to make a few preliminary remarks in order to clear up some misunderstandings that have emerged during this debate – and I will, of course, be happy to reply to any further comments you may wish to make during this morning’s discussion.
The White Paper contends that the Commission should be responsible for implementing policy. It questions the need for the current system of regulatory and management committees. The prospect of enlargement makes it all the more urgent to review our commitology.
However, the paper also states very clearly that the terms and limits of the Commission’s executive role must be laid down in the new legislation that you will discuss on the basis of the Commission’s final proposal. It also states that we need a simple legal mechanism to allow Council and Parliament, on an equal footing, to monitor and control the actions of the Executive. We are already giving thought to how this mechanism might work, but at this stage, before proposing anything, we want to listen.
We are expecting a major contribution from the Member States’ advisory committees as well as from this House.
In the White Paper, the Commission has also committed itself to improving its consulting procedures when drawing up policy proposals. Some have suggested that this would undermine the role of Parliament. I sincerely believe this is not the case, and it is certainly not our intention.
Quite clearly, we have never proposed – and we never will propose – that Parliament or other democratically elected institutions be replaced by the voluntary civil associations we call ‘non-governmental organisations’.
These associations play an important role in raising public awareness and integrating our society, and we therefore wish to enjoy a useful relationship with them. This relationship, which, I repeat, has absolutely no connection with the role of democratically elected institutions, is, at the moment, unclear and lacking in transparency.
We therefore need to bring some order to current practice. In particular, we need guidelines that make it transparent and more structured than now. We also need guidelines on how to use expert advice in formulating public policies. All this will improve the way in which the Commission exercises its right of initiative.
What we want, then, is a more structured and comprehensible system for interacting both with democratically elected local authorities and – in a quite distinct way – with civil society. This will ensure our consultation practices are more open and efficient than at present.
In any case, the Treaty will remain unchanged, all the decisions will continue to be taken by the appropriate institutions in accordance with the current democratic rules. The White Paper thus opens the way for an inter-institutional dialogue on how all the institutions can improve their consultation. We do not consider our proposals to be final and we are open to alternative suggestions, provided they are intended to achieve the same results.
I also understand there is some anxiety about the new forms of regulation proposed in the White Paper. Some people fear they might weaken the role of Parliament. A closer look at the White Paper should, however, convince you that, like you, the Commission is determined not to diminish but to increase Parliament’s role. That is precisely why the White Paper proposes new forms of regulation such as self-regulation, among principles and practices that ensure democratic control.
As you know, the overriding aim of the White Paper on Reform of European Governance is to renew and reinvigorate the institutional triangle, which operates according to the Community method under the present Treaty. This complements and reinforces the Commission’s and my own ongoing commitment to institutional changes that will strengthen the role of the European Parliament. Indeed, the Commission has always maintained that this House, which directly represents the people of Europe, should play a central role in the institutional triangle, on an equal footing with the Council, representing the Member States, and the Commission, which represents the European public interest.
The creation of regulatory agencies – which can only take technical decisions on a case-by-case basis – will, of course, need a legislative act. Parliament will thus be fully involved in drawing up the rules and the necessary guarantees for adopting such an act.
We therefore have to find the right balance between the need to lay down essential elements and objectives in European legislation and the need to remain flexible and able to react to rapid social and economic change.
So the White Paper proposes, for the first time, to involve Parliament in the complex process of introducing the open method of coordination. These forms of inter-governmental cooperation on matters that lie on the fringes of Community law must, of necessity, follow a logic that is compatible with the way the institutional triangle works.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the main challenge facing the Union today is political.
The Laeken Summit is approaching, and it should give us a roadmap towards the next IGC. Governance is already a part of that debate. Changing the way the institutions work (which is the subject of the White Paper) and changing the institutions themselves (which is the subject of the future proposals to amend the Treaty) are obviously two different issues which are, however, closely related.
That is why I have said that the debate on the options set out in the White Paper on Reform of European Governance is the first phase in the debate on the future of the Union.
This phase – which will take place within the current legal framework and thus within the restraints this entails – must not be reduced to a mere academic discussion. It must lead to specific proposals for action. This is the way to give the citizens of Europe greater confidence in the way the EU works. This is essential. We urgently need to win back the trust of our fellow-citizens by applying the present rules correctly and efficiently. If we do this, we shall have greater legitimacy when it comes to asking for the necessary Treaty changes later on.
However, swift action does not mean rushing. We need the kind of mature reflection that is characteristic of this House. Clearly, therefore, I do not intend to make proposals until you have drawn up your opinions on the subject.
The Commission realises that the renewal process the White Paper has begun can be brought to a successful conclusion only if the European Parliament and the Council find the political will to start changing the way we work under the existing Treaty through a collaborative effort.
I would therefore welcome dialogue of different sorts between the European institutions, if necessary by setting up a joint working group Commission, Parliament and Council working group to look in greater detail at our proposals on governance.
The Commission also supports the work of the Court of Justice to ensure that the European Union is based on the rule of law and respect for human rights. We have been pursuing this commitment constantly and consistently. It remains our objective to strengthen the legitimacy of this House and thus to consolidate representative democracy.
I would like to thank you, most sincerely, in advance for your commitment and support.
It was this same desire to consolidate representative democracy and to ensure that it functions correctly and efficiently that inspired our White Paper on Reform of European Governance.
In the past few weeks, a number of people have criticised that part of our proposals that seeks to clarify the distinction between the legislative and executive functions. These criticisms are, it seems to me, the result of a misunderstanding. I have, for example, heard it said that the Commission is asking for a ‘blank cheque’ so that it can perform its executive tasks without the legitimate scrutiny of Parliament. This is simply not true, as is clear from the White Paper itself. What the Commission is suggesting, in fact, is that Parliament, the Council and the Commission should all take a step backwards and start concentrating once again on their institutional tasks.
The Commission, for its part, should table fewer proposals and target them better, concentrating on its executive function. The Council should play its legislative role and not become an executive. Parliament has primary responsibilities in monitoring the way policies are implemented and with regard to the Community budget. It is thus much more than simply the co-legislator.
The White Paper’s proposals are, therefore, ambitious. Their aim is to ensure that the existing rules are fully applied at last, and to give Parliament an equal role with the Council. This goes far beyond the power to ‘call back’ responsibility for executive decisions, on which some Members of this House have focused much attention.
The ‘call-back’ option is too limited, in that it merely allows Parliament to partially change the current system – which, we all know, is seriously deficient – but without making good the deficiencies.
As the White Paper shows, what we really need is a structural change that clarifies who is responsible for putting policy into practice. This is vital if we are to know who is to be held answerable for policy implementation. After all, the principle of accountability is an essential part of the way democratic institutions operate."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples