Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-09-13-Speech-2-523-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110913.41.2-523-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I will begin with the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, for whom I am the rapporteur, and then move on to the Sargentini report, for which I am the shadow rapporteur.
The opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection relates to the Karim report. In Rotterdam, where I live, I am in regular contact with a number of retailers’ associations. They act as a sounding board for me. Every time I come across legislative proposals that might have consequences for the self-employed, I talk to them. Thus, for example, I want to find out from them if the proposals currently under discussion in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs are feasible. The proposals concern substances that can be sold in shops but that could also be used for terrorist purposes. I ask questions such as ‘How can a retailer recognise these substances?’ and ‘How can they check the validity of permits that clients may soon require in order to be able to purchase these substances?’ It is an example of a kind of informal SME test.
Of course, the Commission does carry out formal SME tests in the form of impact assessments, but it gives SMEs far too little influence in the preceding phase. This is the case in the expert groups, for example, as the costs that the self-employed incur to participate are not compensated for. The questionnaires, too, are still a concern, as the Commission is making them too complicated, while it is unclear to the self-employed what exactly happens to their contributions.
To the rapporteur, Mr Karim, I offer my sincere thanks for taking up the proposal that we brought forward in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, namely, the adoption of a mandatory SME test for this House once legislative proposals have been adopted in Parliament’s committees, and before the vote in plenary. I hope that, after this excellent report is adopted, the Bureau quickly picks up the proposal and that we can put this procedure into place.
I will turn now to the Sargentini report on access to documents. I receive complaints on a daily basis about how difficult it is to find reliable information about the goings-on in Brussels. The search functions on the European institutions’ websites never give you the answer to your question and, in any case, the websites are organised based on the structure of the institutions, not based on the questions that resonate with the public.
Furthermore, it is scarcely believable that, in 2011, the Commission is more reticent in the provision of information in connection with its proposals than it was in 2001. I am, furthermore, really angry with the Commissioner that, time and again, the Commission refuses to answer our questions about the composition and activities of the expert groups. Even a debate in plenary last time where we asked oral questions, and which Mr Šefčovič was not able to attend in person and so sent Mr Karas to deputise, did not give rise to clarity. We did not get an answer to a single question. This blemishes our democracy directly.
The Council, too, refuses to allow citizens a look into the decision-making process. While, as a result of the euro crisis, everyone is talking about Europe at the moment, the citizens are getting no information about how things are really being done during the negotiations about the euro. As Ms Sargentini said already, it is only through the occasional posting on Twitter that I get to read about the negotiations and trialogues. Furthermore, these remain a kind of black box.
To my mind, the European Parliament should refuse to participate in back-room politics and should make the documents public. Negotiations can best take place in the open, or else there should at the very least be a requirement to provide an update on the state of play after each round of negotiations. All of these elements are also taken up in the Sargentini report, and I hope that that, too, will be adopted with consensus."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples