Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-04-Speech-2-198"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060404.22.2-198"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I am glad to have the opportunity today to discuss with you an issue that is of great importance for Europe. I know from my own, very close, contacts with the public over recent months that the issue of ‘Better Lawmaking’, along with everything that is associated with it – perhaps not as a slogan, for many of them do not know what it stands for, but as a principle – is one of the issues of greatest interest to them.
The principles of subsidiarity and of proportionality are fundamental guidelines for action by the institutions in their exercise of EU competences and hence an integral part of better lawmaking.
Subsidiarity and proportionality also play a central role in the choice of legal instruments. In carrying out impact assessments, several alternative courses of action need to be considered, one of which must be the option of acting at a lower level than the EU itself.
Contrariwise, though, the interests of legal clarity and the smooth functioning of the internal market can be better served by regulations than by directives, and that, too, has been referred to today. All in all, it is crucial that, in each individual case, the instrument should be chosen that best enables Europe to achieve what regulation is intended to do, and so, in practice, there is a close connection between impact assessments, which are of considerable value qualitatively speaking, and the effective application of subsidiarity and proportionality.
Both the Council and Parliament are already obliged by the inter-institutional agreement to have extensive recourse to the Commission’s impact assessments in the process of arriving at decisions. These impact assessments by the Commission can therefore also serve as the basis for an active discussion of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Perhaps I might take this opportunity to reiterate that we intend, in order to add depth to this discussion, to organise a conference on subsidiarity in Austria on 18 and 19 April, at which we look forward to valuable contributions from your House.
As was generally stressed today, impact assessments must be produced to the highest possible standards of quality and must then actually be used in the negotiating process; The Austrian Presidency of the Council will be producing what might be termed a handbook for chairmen of Council working groups with the title ‘
’.
We also want to encourage more cooperation between the institutions, particularly in respect of assessing the impact of major amendments proposed by the Council and in the consistent adherence to the agreed
in all three of them, and, with this in mind, we look forward with great interest to the Commission’s impact assessment review, which has been announced for this spring.
Overall, the presidency shares your House’s view that high quality impact assessments are essential components of an improved regulatory framework.
Something else to which reference was made was the involvement of what are termed ‘stakeholders’ in consultation processes, which is vital if there is to be greater transparency. Interested parties must be fully informed about the options for consultation, account must be taken of their views when policies are drawn up, and they must also be given proper feedback.
Let me conclude by adding something about transparency. If the public are to accept the decisions we take, it is important not only that the laws we enact be comprehensible and simple, but also that we do a better job of explaining how these decisions are arrived at. The decision-making process needs to be as transparent as possible for the general public. Our Federal Chancellor said this when presenting the Austrian Council programme, and it is a point I have emphasised on many occasions. The Austrian Presidency of the Council attaches importance to continued progress in transparency. The first steps have been taken by way of the resolutions adopted last December, on the basis of which we are now attempting to give this practical expression and, where possible, to highlight other ways in which greater transparency may be achieved.
As I said at the outset, ‘better lawmaking’ is a project of public relevance and of direct concern to all of us. If it is accomplished successfully, we will, together, have been able to add real value and to again make the benefits of the European Union clearer to its citizens.
As you know, the Commission’s programme for this year is under the heading of ‘unlocking Europe’s full potential’, and rightly too. The Council is convinced that better lawmaking will be crucial in making this possible. It is our intention that lawmaking should support the citizen rather than hampering him, and the same is true – as Mrs McCarthy has already said – of the consumer, but it is most especially the case in business life, where too little has been done to foster the dynamism and creativity of small and medium-sized businesses in particular. Only recently, the European Council indicated its desire to promote small and medium-sized enterprises and provided some impetus in that direction. Studies have shown us that the administrative burden for businesses and members of the public is equivalent to between 2% and 5% of European GNP, and so it is our intention that a marked upturn in competitiveness be brought about by assessing the impact of the administrative burden, simplification, and a reduction in it.
The term ‘better regulation’ is one that has recently been in frequent use, and I certainly agree with Mr Lehne that we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater and that this term is very often used rather loosely, and in such a way as to devalue it, in that it is not always clear what is meant by it. I can say on behalf of the Council that your House’s engagement with this issue in no fewer than four reports today is very much to be welcomed.
The Council presidency continues to regard the Inter-Institutional Agreement on Better Lawmaking, to which reference has already been made today, as the framework for our cooperation. We intend to collaborate with the future Finnish Presidency, with the Commission, and, of course, with your House, in further advancing the agenda for the reform of the regulatory framework.
Let me discuss in greater detail some of the areas that are significant in this context.
I will start with simplification. The simplification of EU regulations is something that has a tangible effect on businesses and the public, and it is for that reason that it will be particularly efficient if it also enables us to gain greater credibility. Commissioner Verheugen’s screening initiative and the current plans for sectoral simplification and further efforts at horizontal simplification put us on the right track. I am also very impressed by the presence of the President and the Vice-President in this House today and by their participation in this debate, for we must encourage further progress down this road, and that is precisely what the Council and the Commission are doing by doing something to bring Europe closer to its citizens. As you know, the Austrian Presidency has to some extent taken ‘bringing Europe closer to its citizens again’ as its watchword, and these initiatives, including those on the part of the Commission, make a substantial contribution to doing that. They also help Europe to be successful in achieving the Lisbon targets. The Presidency of the Council is glad to see that the Commission is not only pursuing the ‘simplification of existing legislation’ by means of a general weeding-out of the
but is also planning to include in this the outcome of the Council’s efforts in this area.
Together with the future Finnish Presidency and the Commission, we are working towards better working methods for simplification and towards maximising the efficiency of the cooperation between the Council, the Commission and Parliament, and so it is also useful that the Commission should, on an annual basis, provide the Council with information on its programme of simplification. We also propose that the simplification dossiers be put near the top of our agendas, and that the Council and Parliament should endeavour, where possible, to adopt simplification dossiers at first reading.
The burden of administration – to which reference has already been made – upon the persons it affects is, of course, directly measurable and affects them directly. We need instruments in the European sphere to do just that. Such instruments exist; now all we have to do is to use them. The Presidency of the Council is currently drafting a paper on the prescription of quantitative targets in this area.
As my third point, I would like to turn to the subject of the choice of legal instruments, for, whatever our efforts towards improving lawmaking, there are a number of important aspects of which we must not lose sight, among them the subsidiarity principle and the principle of proportionality, while at the same time taking care to ensure that the
remains intact. It is not less Europe, but a better Europe, that we would like to see."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"How to Handle Impact Assessments in Council"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples