Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-09-Speech-4-007"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100909.2.4-007"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, pursuant to the principle of subsidiarity, we make Union law where it is needed. This legislation must be correctly implemented in the legal systems of Member States, and it must be clear, transparent and understandable to the citizens. In practice, however, things are not that simple. European law is often described as confused, imprecise, and as leaving too much open to interpretation.
The general delays related to the transposition of law gave rise to Article 260 of the Treaty of Lisbon, a provision which enables the European Commission to punish Member States for failing to implement Union law properly or within the set time. In relation to this, it was with great interest that I listened to the idea of the ‘smart regulation’, which Mr Barroso presented in his political guidelines last year. While encouraging the Commission to put the ‘smart regulation’ agenda into effect, and taking the opportunity of the Commission’s representative being with us today, I would like to ask what is happening with this? How is the Commission acting upon this idea? I hope it was not just a trendy technocratic slogan. Something else which Mr Barroso promised was
assessments. I agree that it is necessary to follow very closely what happens to Union legislation after it has been adopted. Is it implemented correctly, and if not, what is the reason for the delays in correct implementation? Is the new legislation something the citizens can understand? If European legislation does not have a beneficial effect on the economy, the environment and society, all of our work loses its meaning. Which explains the next question for the Commission: what is happening with
assessments? How are they different from existing mechanisms used for monitoring the implementation of legislation? A further matter is that of the impact assessment which accompanies the proposal for every new law.
Parliament has repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that the Commission, when proposing new legislative acts, must carry out a detailed analysis of their implementation, based on credible data.
In the report, I have looked at the problem of impact assessments from two points of view: firstly, the content, or which consequences of the proposed legislative acts the Commission should examine. I appeal, here, to the Commission to attach particular importance to exploring the social effects of its initiatives. Answers to such questions as what effect a particular legislative proposal would have on the European labour market and on employment in particular age groups and sectors are particularly important in the context of the economic crisis. I think this aspect has not, as yet, been the subject of sufficient analysis. On the other hand, I would like to address the question of the independence of impact assessments, which is directly related to the problem of better lawmaking.
In the report, I highlight the need to guarantee full independence and suitable resources to the body which monitors the quality of impact assessments, and which, as you know, was established in response to Parliament’s demands. I am thinking, here, of the Impact Assessment Board, which is composed of the highest officials of the Commission and reports to the President of the Commission.
At the same time, I am very cautious in my approach to the question of engaging external experts to conduct impact assessments, because Parliament is not, in fact, in a position to confirm their independence. In the report, I also address the Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens. Public opinion too often associates the European Union with complicated and unnecessary bureaucracy. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the Commission plans to reduce these burdens by as much as 33% by 2012. However, I have heard reports that in certain cases the exemption of businesses from administrative obligations has led to a reduction in standards, for example in relation to safety at work. Therefore, I appeal to the Commission to look at the problem from a global perspective. Cuts in administrative costs must not be made at the cost of a reduction in social standards in the European Union.
In the report, I also address the work of the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens, which is headed by Mr Stäuber. I think the work of the High Level Group to date has been very effective, and I welcome the news that its terms of reference are to be extended to 2013. I hope Parliament will be kept informed about how the group evaluates the realisation of the Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens at European Union level.
Finally, I would like to address questions related to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, and in particular what the strengthening of contacts with national parliaments and the realisation of citizens’ initiatives will be like in practice. I hope cooperation between parliaments will extend not only to questions related to monitoring the principle of subsidiarity, but will also contribute to better transposition of European legislation. As for the citizens’ initiative, I think millions of citizens are waiting to hear Parliament’s position on this matter. I know that the Committee on Constitutional Affairs is working intensively on this, and I hope the first reading of this document will take place before the end of the year. Now I am hoping for some fruitful discussion."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples