Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-24-Speech-3-104"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011024.5.3-104"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck, I would also like to say that, with regard to the dysfunctions in the Council, the Commission widely supports the analysis presented in this excellent report. Personally, I am not surprised by the quality of this analysis, given the experience and expertise that Mr Poos has gained over many long years and which he is now putting to use at the European Parliament. I would like to say that, having begun by voicing our overall appreciation of the report, the Commission also supports the reforms that you put forward for the Council. Transforming the Council into a structured and efficient body is in the interests of the whole European Union.
Your report takes up many of the suggestions and comments that we at the Commission have expressed in the past, and particularly in our recently published White Paper on European Governance. These options for reform are all the more interesting since they can be made – as you have said – without altering the current Treaty.
With reference to the Council, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would obviously like to say that, from my point of view, each of our institutions is autonomous and has primary responsibility for its own reforms. We know very well, however, that each of the institutions is concerned with how they all function. It is in this spirit and within these boundaries that I would like to give you the European Commission’s impression of the other institution, in other words, the Council of Ministers.
Admittedly, within the framework of the debate on the future of the European Union, we must carry out an in-depth examination of the institutional set-up, the role of each institution and the amendments that need to be made to the Treaty so that our Union has a genuine institutional framework that is both more democratic and more effective. That is why I think, Mr Poos, that your report is an extremely important element, which will spark off the wide-ranging debate about to open on the institutional framework of the EU, its effectiveness and its democratic legitimacy. Nonetheless, the debate on the most fundamental reforms in the run-up to 2004 cannot be an excuse for refusing to immediately adopt the reforms that the Council can already implement in the existing Treaty. Furthermore, one of the objectives set out in the White Paper is to ensure the Council functions as efficiently as possible. Apart from the different views that might be expressed on one point of detail or another, there is some convergence on the analysis of the dysfunctions that we have found – and of the reforms that need to be carried out. This convergence is evident in the report that you are presenting, Mr Poos, in the White Paper and also – as Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck stated – in the Trumpf-Piris report, which was drawn up by the General Secretariat of the Council itself. The operational conclusions of this report were widely approved at Helsinki by the European Council and were also widely implemented in the Council’s internal rules of procedure.
It falls within the remit and it is the duty of each institution – I would like to reiterate this – to continually examine whether that institution is working efficiently. The Commission wanted to do this by adopting the White Paper and proposing the administrative reform drawn up by my colleague, Neil Kinnock. I believe that the Council will have to do this one day, as will the European Parliament, and the Commission will do all it can to support these two institutions in this undertaking. In this respect, I would like to reiterate that the Gothenburg European Council has already asked the Secretary-General of the Council to submit detailed proposals on this issue for the meeting at Laeken.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to emphasise – without going into the details of each proposal in your report, Mr Poos, that all we need is political will to successfully complete this assessment and improvement work. Obviously, this must be shown by the Member States governments as well as by the institutions themselves.
There are at least two points that deserve particular attention. On the one hand, the concept of the legislative Council and, on the other, the role of the General Affairs Council. We are well aware, ladies and gentlemen, that the Poos report defines the three functions of the Council, which are to legislate, to take decisions regarding government and to coordinate policies. Consequently it is very clear – and the Commission supports this – that the Council must be organised differently so that it operates within the framework of one or another of these three functions. Therefore, the legislative Council should basically work in complete transparency, with open debates and public votes. Admittedly, the number of sectoral Councils may be too high, but it is primarily the lack of coordination between these sectoral Councils, which means that, unlike the European Parliament, in which the Assembly takes the final decision, the Council arm of the legislator has much more difficulty in coordinating its various decisions.
This situation calls for particular consideration of how determined we are – as you mentioned in the report – to encourage consensus between Parliament and the Council from the first-reading stage within the codecision procedure. Mr Poos, although the Commission fully supports the determination to bring about swift agreements, we must ensure that they do not have a negative effect on the coherence of texts that the Commission proposes. Under the Treaties, the Commission has the exclusive right of initiative and the responsibility of protecting the common interest. The Commission therefore hopes that the determination of Parliament and the Council to bring about consensus at first reading ensures that the Commission will be fully involved in all aspects regarding substance and procedure, in order to guarantee this coherence in the texts adopted."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples