Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-09-13-Speech-4-062-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120913.8.4-062-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, may I firstly start by thanking my shadow colleagues who were very helpful throughout this ongoing process of reform that we are attempting to carry out.
It is safe to say that we are not in the enviable position of having the perfect
. Where we need freedom, we find recommendations, green papers and communications, yet where we need action – such as the completion of the single market – efforts are sidelined by delayed implementation and long-awaited follow-up reports. Too often, the added value achieved by taking action at the European level is lessened by heavy-handed obligations or ill-conceived provisions. These may originate at the incubation stage in the Commission and find themselves added during Parliament or Council readings or through gold plating in Member States.
It is today still occasionally remarked to me that any legislation at the European level is automatically bad: either it imposes excessive or unnecessary burdens, or it removes power from national governments or local authorities, or it fulfils any number of other stereotypes used to describe European legislation. I do not believe that this is true. Laws crafted and adopted at the European level help companies across Europe and from beyond to establish themselves in the largest market in the world with some 500 million potential customers.
I am pleased therefore to present my report today, which I view as the latest in a number of steps which Parliament has taken to drive forward the better law-making agenda. Within the report, I have made several key messages become clear. The Commission as initiator of legislation, the Council as colegislator and the Member States as implementers should all take on board initiatives which we ourselves as a Parliament have put forward.
Firstly, concerning subsidiarity, I am very pleased to note that national parliaments have, for the very first time, been able to raise a yellow card procedure, which has hastened the withdrawal by the Commission of the Monti II proposal. It is encouraging that national parliaments have been able to finally take ownership of this avenue for expressing their views, but sadly it remains a difficult path to take successfully. All too often, Brussels is described as a distant and inaccessible bureaucracy, imposing rules from afar. It becomes an easy punchbag in domestic politics, where unwelcome decisions are disowned and cast as Brussels calamities, whilst positive achievements are reclaimed and touted as national triumphs.
As rapporteur now for two reports on better law making, I am keenly aware also of internal problems faced throughout the institutions, for instance, concerning impact assessments. Partiality risks fatally undermining this process. I am constantly frustrated by impact assessments accompanying proposals which are clearly prepared to justify a certain policy choice. We must reject entirely policy-based evidence and insist on evidence-based policy making from the Commission.
Essential in this regard is the Impact Assessment Board within the Commission. This is not sufficiently and robustly independent. We must also do our duty here in Parliament, and my report calls for systematic engagement by committees and MEPs with our new internal Impact Assessment Unit in order to aid the committees’ work of scrutinising proposals. I consider that this, in conjunction with the Commission’s routine presentation in their impact assessment at any initial exchange of views on legislative dossiers, would represent a significant step forward for evidence-based policy making in Parliament.
It is clear that, in cases where European regulations would adversely affect our smallest businesses excessively, legislation should be left to a more local level where national nuisances can be appropriately addressed. We should, however, look to go further, and I am pleased that Parliament is able to affirm its commitments towards extending exemptions beyond micro-entities to small and possibly medium-sized entities where this would be justified.
I see that I have run out of time. I will reserve my remaining comments for the two minutes which I get after the debate has taken place."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples