Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-03-Speech-1-123"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070903.17.1-123"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am most grateful for the broad consensus which has emerged in this debate, but I would like to clarify a few points. First of all, better regulation is not the same as deregulation. I must refute that very firmly. This is not a Deregulation Commission: as I have said, European integration is based on the law, not on the abolition of law. Better regulation is precisely what the name says: it aims to improve regulation, and to make it more modern, simpler, more transparent and above all more responsive to the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We often subject them to the same burdens as major corporations, and that is unfair.
Even if an impact assessment reveals that a new proposal will entail costs for the economy or for citizens, this does not necessarily mean that the measure will be shelved, for there are some things which are more important than costs. When it is a matter of protecting our environment, combating climate change, reducing our dependency on fossil fuels or promoting the health of our citizens, it is not about costs. In such cases, we have to do what is necessary. Nonetheless, the Commission feels obliged to fully inform Parliament about the social, environmental and economic consequences of any new proposal. That is why impact assessment is so important.
We will look very carefully at the proposals which have been made here. The most important point which has been made several times in this debate is something which I fully endorse: all this can only be successful if it is a community project. It will not succeed if we view it as a conflict between the institutions. It will only work if all three institutions – Parliament, the Council and the Commission – jointly support it and make it their priority. That is the only way for this endeavour to succeed.
In particular, I would like to confirm what Mrs Frassoni has said: it is not about lowering standards. If you look at the many initiatives proposed by the Commission so far, you will see that there is not a single case in which the Commission has proposed lowering a standard or weakening the level of European integration that has been achieved. The aim is only ever to achieve the objectives which you – the European Parliament – regard as politically necessary, but to do so by simpler, more up-to-date and cheaper means. I would like to make that very clear.
There seems to be a great deal of confusion surrounding the statistics. I am really quite surprised. Let me try and clarify. As regards simplification, this is an ongoing programme which is being constantly enhanced. The Commission is currently working on 143 simplification initiatives of which around half have already been adopted; 67 initiatives have already been adopted. These initiatives naturally cover a large number of basic acts with subsequent regulation. So if we say that we have 143 simplification initiatives, this means that several thousand acts are affected. Here, the aim is what I have described: to review the existing legislation and determine whether it is still appropriate for today. It is quite clear, after all, that after around 50 years of European integration, this has to be done.
On the issue of costs, it is a rather different matter. Mr Helmer's frequent repetition of his assertions does not make them correct. I assume that he is not here, but I would like to make that clear once and for all. Administrative burdens for companies are defined as costs incurred by European companies as a result of their record-keeping, and statistical and information obligations, and as a result of European, national or regional legislation. They amount to 3.5% of Europe's gross national product in total, although this covers all three levels: European, national and regional. We already have a breakdown of where these costs arise: around 35% of them are directly attributable to European legislation, 15% come from the transposition of European legislation into national law, and the rest – 50% – arise purely at national level.
It is of course quite incorrect to assert, as Mr Helmer does, that the EU costs the economy EUR 350 billion and the internal market does not bring that many benefits, so the cost of EU regulation exceeds the benefits of the single market. With respect, that is sleight of hand and is targeted at people's ignorance; it ignores the fact, for example, that if we did not have EU law, we would still have national law, even in the United Kingdom, and indeed in particularly large quantities, as we know. It would certainly be more expensive.
Let me give you one example of how much scope for massive simplification and savings potential is afforded by European legislation. In Europe we had 1 400 different pieces of technical legislation on wireless systems in 27 countries. That means that a company in the United Kingdom which produced specific wireless systems had to be familiar with 1 400 items of national legislation. In line with the Commission's proposal, this Parliament adopted legislation which simplified these 1 400 provisions and turned them into one single item of legislation. You could work out the precise savings that this entailed for companies, but the overall message is clear.
The 25% reduction is absolutely achievable. With the proposal, we have supplied you with the 10 fast-track actions to show you that, technically speaking, it is fairly straightforward. All you have to do is look through the existing regulations to see which statistical, information and record-keeping obligations exist and whether we actually still need them to this extent, based on current practice. In many cases, we find that they are not needed at all to the same extent, or that modern information and communications technologies are making it all very much easier.
We will achieve this 25%, and this will lead to a productivity gain for the European economy of 1.5% of GNP. This naturally has a macroeconomic dimension, for there are not many economic programmes in the European Union which have a positive economic effect of 1.5%. I would just like to say in passing that if everything goes well, we will also achieve a very high growth effect if the new transatlantic cooperation – removal of trade barriers in transatlantic trade – is brought to a successful conclusion.
We felt that it was important to provide you with this clarification so that we know what we are talking about. I underscore everything that has been said here in regard to impact assessment. This is the be-all and end-all and the Commission's rule is this: no new proposal without a comprehensive impact assessment, and no new proposal without an impact assessment which has been scrutinised by the Impact Assessment Board. If this rule is occasionally infringed, the European Parliament has the absolute right, in my view – indeed, if not a duty – to draw critical attention to it. Without impact assessment, the legislator is not in a position to assess the practical outcomes of its action."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples