Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-04-19-Speech-1-069"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100419.16.1-069"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, I would like to start by thanking Mr Szájer for the very high quality report because we in the Commission appreciate very much the support Parliament has indicated for the horizontal approach to the delegated acts.
Regarding the urgency procedure, here we already had some clear examples in the past that there are issues as regards food safety or safety of toys, for instance, that sometimes call for a very urgent procedure and, therefore, we think that we have to find something even more urgent than the early approval proposition made by the rapporteur.
If you would allow me to conclude on the alignment, because this is very important for Parliament, here again we would advocate the pragmatic approach, because this Parliament, together with the Commission, has already done considerable work as regards the alignment of more than 250 basic legislative acts which have been aligned under the pragmatic approach.
Now we think that the priority should lie in the areas in which we have not, until now, aligned to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. I think that we should focus on them. Again, it would be an enormous amount of work, but we are already reflecting on how we can approach it in the most pragmatic and flexible way.
The legislator, of course, is entirely free to regulate all questions related to delegated acts in each basic act, but some guidelines are needed in order to avoid a piecemeal approach.
This was the purpose of the communication the Commission already made in December to indicate to the legislator what would be the preferred course of action for having a good and practical approach to the future legislation.
I would like to underline that the Commission strongly supports the idea of common understanding, or even interinstitutional agreement between the three institutions on the delegated acts, because this will bring the necessary order into the preparation of the legislation.
On the substance, I can just reiterate that the Commission very much welcomes the report. We might disagree on some specific questions but our objectives are the same. We want to see precision, efficiency, transparency and a clear and fair balance of power.
If you would allow me to be a little bit more specific, I will just make some telegraphic comments on some particular parts of the report.
Regarding the limitative nature of Article 290, especially the second paragraph, here we have a slight difference of opinion with regard to the means of control of the legislator over the delegated acts, but we would not like to enter into the legal controversy because what we think is that it is very important to look for the practical solutions as regards specific legislation.
Regarding the duration of the delegation of power, here we very much welcome and support the idea of tacit renewal, as expressed in the report, because we found it very constructive and we can say that some solutions of this nature have already been found in several legislative files.
I have another specific comment on the duration of the right of objection. Here, again, I would say that we are singing from the same hymn sheet because we also largely share the opinion of the rapporteur for the standard formulation of two months, with a possibility of extension for an additional two months, which could be fixed in a common understanding among our three institutions, which, hopefully, we will have in the future. I think we have already seen something like 10 positive examples of how this was applied in the current legislative work."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples