Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-05-Speech-2-030"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020205.3.2-030"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, as various Members have said, the Commission has been engaged in frequent discussions with those closely involved in this issue in Parliament, and the importance which the Commission gives to this important matter is also reflected in the presence of the Commission President here this morning.
Mr Corbett's last remark – apart from the desire to have the declaration put into the Minutes – was on openness and transparency. The Commission has stated this morning and in the letter I sent on 2 October to Mrs Randzio-Plath, chairperson of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, that it is most willing to practise that openness and transparency.
Mr Titford said that the industry would collapse. Methinks this is a poetic exaggeration. I am not under the impression that the industry is about to collapse. Yes, scandals emerge – perhaps less so in the European Union than in other parts of the world – but that is a fact of life. I do not think the proposals made by Mr Prodi this morning will fuel more scandals. They will, in fact, go a long way towards avoiding them, and therefore I cannot agree with the sentiments expressed by Mr Titford.
Finally, I come back to Mr Méndez de Vigo who said that it was a good day for integration. He congratulated Mr von Wogau, and I join him in that. I wish to congratulate Mr von Wogau personally on the fact that at 11 o'clock this morning he will receive a high French decoration, the
. The Commission congratulates him.
I will have the opportunity to reply to further questions later in the debate, so I rest the Commission's case here.
Various Members have referred to angels this morning – either to the sex of angels or to how many could dance on the head of a pin. May I say that it is often in the detail that one encounters the devil. Let us hope that the devil and angels will compensate for one another and that we can achieve a balanced compromise this morning. According to some Members who have spoken this morning, Mr Méndez de Vigo for example, that is indeed the case. He said that this is a good day for integration and offered congratulations to the rapporteur – congratulations which I should like to echo on behalf of the Commission. I should like to thank Mr von Wogau and the Committee on Constitutional Affairs very much for having crafted this compromise. It is only right that the Commission should give expression to those feelings.
Mr von Wogau started by referring to the ambition of the European Union as expressed by the European Council in Lisbon, which is, as is well known, that the European Union should become the most competitive place in the world. The Lamfalussy report should be seen in that context. Mrs Berès also referred to the ambitions expressed in Lisbon. Indeed they form a whole, and I do not need to emphasise our wish to give as much impetus and stimulus as possible to our moves towards greater competitiveness. Once again, this debate and the result which I hope it produces are of importance to the economic well being of the Union.
I do not have to explain what the report of the committee headed by Baron Lamfalussy is about and the way it refers to the comitology procedure for implementing measures or executive proposals. The report by Mr von Wogau enumerated what has been achieved. Mr Corbett has also done so. He referred to the fact that, in the Commission's opinion, Article 202 of the Treaty should be changed in the context of the next intergovernmental conference – and this is the heart of the matter. Parliament has often impressed upon myself and others the need to achieve equality with the Council in the oversight granted to both Parliament and the Council in considering executive proposals. The Commission agrees and also sees the need for equal standing for Parliament vis-à-vis the Council in the whole comitology procedure.
Unfortunately, from the point of view of Parliament – and the Commission recognises its feelings and opinions – this is not possible at the moment. Article 202 is clear: the comitology procedure arrived at in June 1999 is also clear and, as much as the Commission sees the point of view of Parliament and has said so in its own White Paper on governance, it is at present unable to grant Parliament's wishes. The Commission's view as laid down in the White Paper on governance is that Article 202 ought to be changed. However, the Commission itself cannot do that; any such change has to take place in connection with the next intergovernmental conference.
Mr Corbett mentioned that Parliament now has three months to consider the executive measures put forward by the Commission. There is full equality with the Council here, and that is a good thing. He went on to say that Parliament now has the possibility to object in substance. Yes, indeed, the substance concerns us all and Parliament has the inherent right to put forward its positions and its arguments. The Commission has said that it will take the fullest possible account of Parliament's position. That is also what Parliament would want the Commission to do.
Mr Corbett spoke about equivalence – a fine word – but equivalence with whom? Obviously, equivalence with the Council. That is what the whole debate is about and it would not do to deny what is clear to every one. Parliament wants that equivalence with the Council; the Commission is willing to grant it, takes the same view, and has said so in its declaration and in discussions.
Mr Corbett mentioned a sunset clause, which is another example of a weapon available to Parliament to ensure that the Commission takes the utmost account of Parliament's wishes. The sunset clause means that the delegation of executive measures to the Commission lasts for no longer than four years. It may be prolonged on the initiative of the Commission, but it certainly keeps the Commission's nose to the grindstone and is a powerful weapon available to Parliament.
The same applies to another factor, mentioned by Mr von Wogau. In his introductory statement Mr von Wogau said that if the Commission does not carry out its promises – as set out in the declaration made by Mr Prodi – then the next time a directive comes around Parliament knows that it can keep a tight rein on the Commission. The Commission is well aware of that. That is another way in which Parliament can put forward its opinion forcefully and with conviction. The Commission would therefore be well advised to listen carefully and take the utmost account of that opinion."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Légion d'Honneur"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples