Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-02-Speech-2-033"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011002.2.2-033"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members, I am very pleased with today’s debate, since it has shown that our positions are converging, we agree on most points and, most importantly, we share working methods. I would say we have laid the groundwork so that, together, we can conclude this period of reforms under the present legislation.
Two other points have emerged here: these are points included in the White Paper or connected with it although not actually included in it. They are participation by civil society and the problem of participation by the regions and autonomous local areas. I believe it is essential for the regions and local administrations to play an active role, and in the forthcoming Convention too. If we really define Europe as the Europe of subsidiarity, we must be consistent to some degree at least, and on this I have no reservations at all.
On the problem of consulting with civil society, if we read the White Paper carefully there is no expropriation of Parliamentary, democratically elected bodies. On the contrary, there is a different discourse: whereas now civil society is consulted privately and indirectly, we are proposing that such consultation should be transparent and in the open, so that everyone can see where particular ideas and positions arose or where certain suggestions come from. This, to me, is a step forward. I understand I may have created concern because, when faced with such clear evidence of a process, Parliament may say, ‘But that is our job!’ I can assure you that we have the opposite objective: we must consult civil society because it is useful for us and it is useful for you, but consulting means consulting; it is absolutely unacceptable that this should be seen as an alternative form of decision-making that could be confused with or compared to that of Parliament. I say this quite clearly because you will never have heard the Commission proposing, for instance, to bring civil society into the Convention in a role involving decision-making aspects. I do think, however, that transparent, clear consultation is a step forward that we really should take.
I repeat: it has never been our intention to attribute an institutional or constitutional role to consultations with civil society, even though we are concerned to understand what is happening within that society, and thus to keep our eyes open and ears tuned, ever alert to whatever is happening. In a certain sense it is like the suggestion made by Mr Perry to attend the Committee on Petitions, in order to keep our eyes open.
In any case, please remember that the Commission’s proposal has two objectives: first, a more parliamentary democracy; and secondly, a more efficient democracy. In the discussion on the relationship with Parliament, the call-back problem lies in this context. We want a more parliamentary democracy in which the role of Parliament is clear and precise, but also more efficient, one in which the executive role is not continually called into debate by procedures. I believe this could be clarified with the proposal of working together on these issues over the coming months. This may be beneficial and lead to progress in future in our way of working, under existing legislation for the time being, in expectation of the great institutional reform process which should start after the Laeken Summit.
A common concern has also emerged which, even though it was not part of today’s debate, is closely associated with it: a common concern for a Europe that should speak with a single voice and interpret people’s growing anxieties about the institutions. These anxieties affect not only our Member States but also the enlargement States, where there is a growing problem of distrust towards the European institutions.
In this respect, many criticisms have been raised concerning the plurality of the voices of Europe, a plurality which Europe took to Washington after the tragedy. Let us not confuse this with plurality of presence. The content was absolutely identical: in Washington we spoke with a single voice, and after the discussions we left President Bush with the European position, which was a highly operational position, with specific areas for collaboration in justice and internal affairs and the financial problem of money recycling, fields in which we proposed lines of action on which Europe should come together.
I believe part of the citizens’ anxieties derive from the complexity of our working procedures and the fact that they are hard to understand, problems that the White Paper attempts to address – partially, at least – through enhancements to the democratic system and transparency and through greater efficiency and speed in decision-making, while fully respecting or rather increasing the prerogatives of Parliament.
I confirm, then, at the end of this short debate, that we intend to arrive at a clarification of our respective functions, but no one questions the role of the European Parliament and the Council in holding political control over the Commission’s executive work. Not only do we acknowledge this control but – I recall what Mr Corbett said in the last speech – we believe this control is absolutely essential.
I also confirm – and here I must confess that the misunderstanding arose from a mistake by the Commission, something it expressed poorly – that the Commission does not intend to take any decision, either prior to Laeken or at any other time, without first listening to Parliament. We had insisted on the need for decisions to be made quickly, but in every case we must first consult Parliament fully.
Anyway, today we have made some progress. Mrs Kauffmann and others have made some extremely useful suggestions. The idea of organising a joint Parliament-Council-Commission working party to establish a code of institutional behaviour in the framework of the existing rules is a path I think we should explore. We need to be clear about this aim; that is, we must set up a procedure to streamline the decision-making process, because, I repeat, it is slow and poorly understood. The new procedure must make it unnecessary to systematically resort to committee procedures without detracting at all from the powers of Parliament and the Council, but rather enhancing their political responsibility. The Commission is willing to examine this path. With all honesty and without any ulterior motive, I wonder whether the Council will be willing to do so; we, in any case, are. For this to happen, I ask Parliament to be politically determined and insist on this approach. This discussion also prepares for the debate on the future of Europe, which is to be organised by the Convention. If we start out now in the directions outlined here, I believe it will help us later to find the institutionally most appropriate solutions.
Today there was one point of formal divergence that we should discuss in the area we have described, which is the procedure termed ‘call-back’. I believe the current committee system is a distortion of democracy, which is why we have looked at it critically. It mixes legislative and executive functions, without there being any real political control. The call-back proposal apparently improves the situation, but in fact it makes the system more confusing because it makes it more difficult to separate our functions and see the difference between them. I think this is an area we should focus on in a future meeting of the bodies we have proposed, in order to clear up this point: we must work together for a system in which the Commission executes and the European Parliament and the Council exercise political control before measures are adopted. If there is always this possibility of call-back, Parliament will obviously end up taking on a strictly executive function. I repeat: let us work on it, because not only am I being perfectly sincere but it is absolutely clear in my mind that this is an extremely delicate point of democratic control.
We should use the same methodology with the agency problem. The Commission believes that in some cases they are necessary, but we must not multiply them
. We should turn to them only when there are highly complex technical roles and they have an autonomy of their own. We agree with you that democratic control over these agencies is needed, control that should take three forms: when the agency is set up, and Parliament plays a fundamental part in this decision together with the Council; when its budget is checked, and it is Parliament that checks it; and when a check is made on the workings of the Commission, which is the body responsible for these agencies. This, then, is the Commission’s position."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples