Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-11-12-Speech-1-215"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071112.22.1-215"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, here we are, talking about comitology again. Basically it is a matter, as you said, of implementing the agreement that we all welcomed as a success when we entered into it in July 2006.
There are two aspects to it: the practical aspect, which I will not go over again, but also its translation to each of the directives and, today, we are concerned with the 26 priority directives. I am speaking in relation to those referred to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. From that point of view, I would like to express our determination that the European Parliament’s position, when it examines these 26 priority directives, should be as coherent as possible. The same comitology agreement needs to be applied to these 26 directives, hence the idea of a parallel approach. However, as we well know, in these negotiations the devil is in the detail, and we met him during these negotiations on three particular points I would like to mention briefly.
The first point concerns something that, within the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – but not only there – has felt like a kind of provocation. On the subject of accounting standards, an area in which the European Parliament exercises its full powers and competencies, the Commission presented a proposal that said that urgency should be applied as an automatic procedure. We did not accept this and fortunately I see that we managed to get the Commission to back down on this point and forced it to give up its demands for systematic urgency, which would have deprived Parliament of an effective right of control in an area where, on the contrary, it has demonstrated its ability to be useful, effective and relevant.
The second point is, of course, the issue of what are known as the ‘sunset clauses’ or revision clauses. The Commission and the Council really wanted these clauses to disappear. They felt that this was an inherent element of the comitology agreement made last year. In a spirit of cooperation, we have ensured that the Commission will be invited to check the efficacy and democratic functioning of the conditions of transmission of implementing powers regularly, every three years. I believe this is a good way to proceed and I see that, in the commitment the Commission agreed to sign through what is now known as a revision clause, it is invited to look at the extent of its competence and justify any changes in legislation or the absence of such changes.
The third area is obviously the issue of scope. What we see is that the Council has not always followed the Commission’s proposals, whether on transparency or prospectuses, the definition of cross-border missions or equivalences.
I do believe, however, that in a spirit of cooperation, including on the part of the Portuguese Presidency, we are reaching a result that should satisfy all the institutions and I am pleased about this."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples