Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-04-Speech-2-196"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060404.22.2-196"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, as Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection I very much welcome this joint debate on better regulation and the opportunity to discuss with the Council and the Commission how we can improve the regulatory experience for consumers, citizens and businesses that are at the sharp end of making sense of implementing EU laws. The confidence and trust of citizens, consumers and business in the EU itself is linked to their experience and perception of EU laws and the impact they have on their daily lives.
I want to focus on improving better regulation for the internal market and ensuring that we achieve a sense of purpose in our law-making for consumers in the internal market. The internal market accounts for almost one third of the Community
. Good-quality, effective and simple legislation in the internal market should open up opportunities for cross-border trade and give consumers increased choice, while protecting environmental, social and consumer rights. At the same time, getting legislation right in the internal market is critical to achieving the Lisbon goals of jobs, growth and competitiveness.
I believe that the internal market will benefit most from a joint and coordinated approach by all three institutions to improving the entire regulatory cycle. That means that we also need to think of the consequences of the midnight deals and compromises that we make, and consider whether they are going to confuse or clarify laws for end users. That starts, in my view, with good, clear drafting of laws, high-quality impact assessments and effective, comprehensive and transparent stakeholder consultation. The Member States too must take their responsibilities seriously and ensure good and correct implementation of internal market laws. They must resist the temptation often to gold-plate or add on national requirements. Although transposition rates are improving, as shown in the internal market scoreboards, there is still room for much improvement. That is why we are asking for a fast-track infringement procedure for test cases in the internal market. We need to learn from the failures and mistakes of EU laws. That is why we would like to see both
and, in particular
impact assessments or evaluations of where we went wrong. Has this legislation achieved its objective or, on the contrary, has it led to distortion and fragmentation of the internal market?
Some believe that the impact assessments should be handed over to an external body. I do not share that approach, as I believe that the internal market laws should be the responsibility of Commission officials as part of the discipline of effective policy-making. However, the Internal Market Committee insists that all legislative proposals be accompanied by a quality impact assessment, a summary and a better regulation checklist on internal market proposals.
Of course alternative regulation is a subject of much scepticism. While the interinstitutional agreement provides for this non-legislative option, we insist with respect to internal market laws that Parliament is both informed of and consulted on such alternative approaches. They are justified by impact assessments. Equally, we must have redress for the consumer and sanctions if these alternative regulations fail to deliver benefits for the consumer in the internal market.
I want to stress the work of the Internal Market Committee as an active partner in the better regulation process. I know that Commissioners often say that Parliament does not take its role seriously. We were the first committee to commission our own impact assessment, under Mr Whitehead’s chairmanship, for amendments on the Toubon report on nominal quantities for pre-packed products. On the pyrotechnics proposal we are conducting an impact assessment on amendments proposed by our rapporteur. We will look at a cost/benefit analysis of his amendments to that proposal. We are conducting a hearing on the impact of public procurement laws on the internal market. EU public procurement accounts for 16% of EU GDP, yet the 1992 package of laws, as demonstrated in a number of ECJ cases, has not achieved the desired opening of the market.
Let us be clear. It is the consumer, the citizen and businesses that pay the price when laws are not effective. Bad drafting leads to legal uncertainty, poor or confused transposition and at the end of the line is a confused businessman or consumer who loses confidence in the internal market. The ECJ, after years of deliberation, becomes the arbiter of better legislation. That is not the right way forward.
Finally, I want to quote the cases of SOLVIT, which I believe is an excellent initiative of the Commission. A qualified doctor tried for a number of years to register as a doctor in Spain. He spent a large sum of money on legal fees, had lost confidence in the internal market, yet the SOLVIT system intervened and helped him within ten weeks to get registration in Spain as a doctor. That doctor said: ‘SOLVIT has restored my confidence in the internal market’.
So, the reality is that good laws that are well drafted, easy to implement, easy to enforce and police, are the key to restoring confidence in the internal market. I hope that today’s debate is the beginning of a process of close cooperation, sharing best practice between the institutions in a close partnership of equals, to build and restore that confidence that the doctor I mentioned was asking us to achieve for him as a consumer in the internal market."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples