Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-04-Speech-2-211"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060404.22.2-211"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to tell Mr Barroso that what was decided today on energy shows that where there is a will there is a way, and so it is our ‘will’ that you find a ‘way’ in a greater number of cases, particularly in the areas of environmental, consumer and health policies. That, however, is an obvious message.
Mr Winkler, I was sorry to notice that you did not say a word on the subject of the implementation of the law, even though this subject concerns the Member States most of all. I also believe it would be interesting to hear the Council’s views on the possibility of reopening the talks on the part of the better regulation agreement dealing with the implementation of the law, which failed miserably before.
In addition, on the matter of impact assessments, I do not hide my concerns, since this topic is becoming a kind of myth, a magic formula that in itself ought to make legislation better by basing it on scientific, impartial sources. I personally am sceptical on this point. Indeed, I am concerned that this topic is taking on too much importance, primarily because some of the proposals contained in the reports – particularly Mrs McCarthy’s but not only hers – introduce some bureaucratic elements that would be really complicated to administer, above all for the Commission. That seed of doubt has made my group realise how lucky we are that we have postponed the vote, because that will give us a chance to review the situation in order to reach an agreement.
In addition, those items that everyone is talking about that have been considered crucial in an impact assessment, including administrative costs, too much red tape and excessive costs for businesses, whether real or presumed, are in themselves a political choice. I shall give you an example, Mr Barroso and Mr Verheugen: a letter from UNICE was all it took to drastically cut back the air quality strategy, despite a EUR 2 million impact assessment that said that the costs to consider were not only the costs to businesses but also the costs to people’s health. In the end, therefore, even impact assessments are political choices, and as a result I would ask you not to make them such a priority and so completely overstated compared with the other aspects of the law.
I wish to say a final word about the issue of co-regulation and self-regulation. I should like the Commission to carry out a study to determine how well these procedures have worked because, according to our studies, they have not worked properly. The ability of businesses and companies to comply with these self-regulation agreements has been considered rather unsatisfactory by the companies themselves."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples