Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-17-Speech-1-040"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011217.3.1-040"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, one of the conclusions in the Laeken Declaration is that citizens feel that deals are often cut behind closed doors and away from democratic scrutiny. That in fact could be an assessment of summits themselves, which are often conducted out of sight and away from public scrutiny until the very end. One easy way of starting to remedy that process would be to ensure that the European Parliament, just like the European Commission, is represented throughout the summit and not asked to leave after the aperitifs. I would, however, like to add my congratulations to the President-in-Office of the Council for his management of the summit. He was absolutely right not to allow the meeting to degenerate into a fight over the seat of agencies but instead to allow the spotlight to fall on the more significant issues.
Firstly, the continuation of the reform of the staff structures and administrative procedures inside the Commission. There is a need for high profile support at a high political level for continuing the work of transforming the Commission into a first-class civil service.
Secondly, the European Parliament itself must reform its own working methods. I believe that we do a good job in terms of our legislative, budgetary and control functions, but no Parliament can work in the dark. By reforming our working methods to make ourselves a livelier and more relevant debating chamber, we can shed a little light on our role as the voice of the people in EU decision-making.
Thirdly, we must make progress on better regulation. I note the Presidency’s conclusions which welcome the report of the Mandelkern Group on the quality of regulatory arrangements and the Commission communication on regulatory simplification and their calls for an action plan for the first half of 2002.
This Parliament, in the report prepared by Sylvia Kaufmann, called for an interinstitutional working group on better regulation. Notwithstanding what was agreed at Laeken, I hope the Spanish Presidency will re-visit this issue and set up a working group with a mandate to arrive at draft interinstitutional agreements and an action plan agreed by all three institutions to be presented at the Seville Council next June.
Let us be clear that the alternative to an agreed plan is a guerilla war where Parliament is left with no alternative but to defend its prerogatives. If that happens, we will have a non-stop dogfight where, proposal by proposal, Parliament will defend its rights as a co-legislator. The Convention has the potential to reform our institutions, to renew our goals and to reconnect Europe with our people, but none of this should have to wait until 2004, the process needs to begin now.
The Laeken Declaration rightly refers to the twin challenges facing the Union. My Group has asked me to concentrate on internal matters, and particularly the issue of governance, but I would like to say just a few words about the external challenge. The Declaration is of course right to say that there must be no weakening in the fight against those who use terror and violence. But for me the real strength of the Declaration lies in its wider recommendation that the European Union takes the fight against poverty and exclusion seriously. I wholeheartedly support the aim of the Declaration to “set globalisation into a moral framework”. As Tony Blair might have put it – "Tough on terrorism but also tough on the causes of terrorism".
Parliament’s key objective at Laeken was to see a Convention launched with a broad-ranging agenda. It is a pity that the leadership of the Convention is not so broad-ranging. Three men of a certain age. For me that sends the wrong signals.
They are each very worthy in their own right but collectively they fail to represent Europe’s rich diversity of talent and in particular: how does this demonstrate the Union’s so-called commitment to gender mainstreaming?
But at least we have the Convention, and it is now up to all of us to play our part in making it work and involving the public of the Union in the debate about the future of Europe.
However, any fruits of the Convention will not be ripened until well after 2004. The Laeken Declaration’s objective of good governance, that is connecting better with citizens, reducing bureaucracy and delivering on our objectives more effectively and efficiently, cannot wait. Laeken must not be seen as an excuse for postponing action on governance but instead create a new impetus for reforms that do not require treaty change.
In particular there are three areas where urgent action is required:"@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples