Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-27-Speech-2-186"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050927.19.2-186"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, my answer to the first question is that we will, of course, be happy to take up any suggestions, including those being made in this sitting. I am able to inform you that I have invited the Member States, the business associations, the consumers’ groups, the trade unions and all members of the European public to submit their own proposals to us, and these have been coming in in their hundreds, many of them very detailed and very precise. What this tells me is that this project really does enjoy widespread support.
In response to Mrs Frassoni’s question, I would like to say that this is something I have tried to explain. It strikes me as being an issue of political trust. As I have said, and as I will emphasise once again, the object of the exercise is not to alter the quality of the
in any particular section. The initiative is not intended to deregulate in the sense in which the radical ideologues of the free market use the term, but to simplify the existing system of legislation, making it more transparent and more user-friendly. In saying this, I am saying, as I have already said in your hearing on numerous occasions, that the European model actually consists in balancing growth and employment, social cohesion and sustainable development, and that is something of which we are not, of course, going to let go. Mrs Frassoni can take my word for it: nothing like what she fears will actually happen, and none of the standards we have already achieved will be made less rigorous.
To Mrs Grossetête, I can say that Parliament’s rights of participation will of course be retained. I think that one of the consequences of the simplification project will even be that Parliament will be able to avail itself of rights in ways that it could not have done originally, as we will be resubmitting acts that were adopted at a time when there was as yet no codecision in the areas to which they apply. I believe that what we do will enhance Parliament’s rights of codecision, and the Commission is of course willing to report to all the committees on what happens.
The whole question of the impact assessment is a difficult one, and one that I did have something to say about. For its own part, the Commission has decided that it will no longer be making proposals before a comprehensive assessment of the costs resulting from them has been carried out. Although that is an internal procedure within the Commission, we will present you with the results from it at the same time as we forward proposals to you. Speaking personally, I take the very definite view that a further impact assessment will of course be needed if the legislator does what it is there to do and makes substantial changes to the Commission proposal. That, though, is a decision for you yourselves to take, for it is you, and not the Commission, that are the legislative body; if you say that you can adopt an act even without an impact assessment, then that is your decision and your responsibility. I would, however, advise that we should, together, look for a way in which we can come up with a generally acceptable method of assessing the impact of legislation. I think we can actually be very proud of the fact that the impact assessment developed by the Commission has an extremely good reputation internationally, and, while I do not believe that you will find anything better anywhere in the public sphere, there is still room for improvement, and that is something we can work on together. I do indeed agree with Mrs Grossetête that we do not necessarily need less lawmaking, but that lawmaking does need to be better in future.
Let me reiterate that we are talking here about two different things. One is the great project of simplification, which will indeed result in a marked reduction in the volume – mark well, the quantity, rather than the quality – of the
. The actual result of the other project, the new method whereby we draft legislation, will be a significant increase in its quality, and you, the Members of the European Parliament, being the people who make the laws, will be enabled to arrive at a very precise account of the costs and benefits of every individual decision."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples