Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-16-Speech-1-049"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021216.5.1-049"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, on behalf of my group I congratulate Mr Bourlanges on the remarkable degree of consensus he has managed to build in the committee around the main proposals in his report.
It is a difficult subject. As Mr Amato said, there is nothing quite as complex as simplification. In trying to address the issue of simplifying our hierarchy of acts in the European Union, Mr Bourlanges has taken a very complex, difficult subject and tried to bring a certain rationality to it.
For our part, we support his dual approach of, firstly, trying to rationalise the hierarchy by broadly defining three categories of acts: constitutional acts, legislative acts and implementing measures. There are obviously subcategories – we cannot simplify too much, unfortunately – but nonetheless there are these three main groupings. The other prong of his approach concerns the terminology or vocabulary, for instance regulations should in future be called 'laws' and directives in future should be called 'framework laws'. That seems sensible and would make our acts much more comprehensible to the public.
I come to a point which is of particular importance, and which Mr Bourlanges touched on towards the end of his comments. It is this category of implementing act where we delegate the right to adopt certain types of act to the Commission. There is already a problem of terminology about what we call these acts, but nonetheless when we, as Parliament, and the Council, as a legislative authority, delegate powers to the Commission, currently exercised in the context of the comitology system, we need some fundamental change, some further steps forward on what has been agreed so far.
Mr Bourlanges has indicated what we agreed in the committee, indeed amending his own original draft report, but coming to a text which will have a broad majority in this Parliament. The position we agreed was that yes, we as a Parliament, are willing – with the Council – to delegate such implementing powers, provided that we have the opportunity to call them back where necessary. It is not that we want to immerse ourselves in all the technical details of implementing measures. It is not that we want to substitute ourselves for the executive, but we need the guarantee that we can call back the powers if we do not like the way they are being exercised by the Commission.
We have proposed that if either the Council by a qualified majority, or Parliament by a majority of its Members – in other words, not a narrow majority on a Thursday afternoon of 29 to 36 – decides to call back an implementing measure, then the Commission must either withdraw the measure, or their original measure will be subject to the full legislative procedure under codecision to confirm, amend or repeal the act in question.
This is a simple system, one that would enable us to delegate far more than we do now, but it will also ensure democracy and transparency. I commend it to the House."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples