Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-08-Speech-3-090"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031008.8.3-090"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, as colleagues have already commented this evening, these are very important reports because lawmaking is arguably the most important part of government and it defines, in many ways, the fundamental character of any system of governance. I have been in and out of this Parliament now for almost 15 years, and throughout that period there have been reports about the subject matter that we are discussing this evening. What I am not sure about is whether, over that period, legislation has improved or worsened. But I am sure that there is much more political interest in, and debate about, this subject now than there was in my earlier days. That, I am sure, is something of a move in the right direction.
Nevertheless, the proof of the pudding is in the eating - as we say in Britain. It is not what the Commission, or the Council, or the Parliament
that matters: it is what we
that counts. What, therefore, are the crucial points?
The first is, of course, democracy. All procedures for government, whether administration or legislation, must be underpinned by the ballot box. Those who take decisions in these areas must be answerable and accountable for what they do. Finally, the systems in which they work must be transparent.
Secondly, all this must take place in the framework of a rule of law. Where abuse occurs, there must be available legal redress administered by an independent judiciary. This can take place in a whole variety of areas: whether there is a failure to transpose, or whether something takes place as a result of improper procedures. To pick up on a point that Mr Medina Ortega made, the areas where self-regulation is in place must in turn operate under the rule of law.
Thirdly, there is that frequently banded-about word ‘subsidiarity’. We should not be doing at European level what should in fact be done at a national level, however exactly you define that.
Fourthly there is proportionality. Any legislation that we draw up must be proportionate to the abuse or the mischief which it is intended to address. In this context, while I commend the proposals of the Mandelkern Report, we must be careful that the impact assessments do not themselves turn into an additional bureaucratic hurdle in the legislative process.
Finally, of course, there is a need for clarity. All I can say is, as an Englishman, that an awful lot of the English that is produced in Brussels is not recognised as such by my fellow countrymen. We should lead by example. Do we actually improve legislation as it passes through this House? I think the truthful answer is that ‘sometimes we do’, when in fact the answer should be ‘always’. We should begin by putting our own house in order."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"do"1
"say"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples