Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-04-Speech-2-196"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060404.22.2-196"6
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, as Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection I very much welcome this joint debate on better regulation and the opportunity to discuss with the Council and the Commission how we can improve the regulatory experience for consumers, citizens and businesses that are at the sharp end of making sense of implementing EU laws. The confidence and trust of citizens, consumers and business in the EU itself is linked to their experience and perception of EU laws and the impact they have on their daily lives.
I want to focus on improving better regulation for the internal market and ensuring that we achieve a sense of purpose in our law-making for consumers in the internal market. The internal market accounts for almost one third of the Community
. Good-quality, effective and simple legislation in the internal market should open up opportunities for cross-border trade and give consumers increased choice, while protecting environmental, social and consumer rights. At the same time, getting legislation right in the internal market is critical to achieving the Lisbon goals of jobs, growth and competitiveness.
I believe that the internal market will benefit most from a joint and coordinated approach by all three institutions to improving the entire regulatory cycle. That means that we also need to think of the consequences of the midnight deals and compromises that we make, and consider whether they are going to confuse or clarify laws for end users. That starts, in my view, with good, clear drafting of laws, high-quality impact assessments and effective, comprehensive and transparent stakeholder consultation. The Member States too must take their responsibilities seriously and ensure good and correct implementation of internal market laws. They must resist the temptation often to gold-plate or add on national requirements. Although transposition rates are improving, as shown in the internal market scoreboards, there is still room for much improvement. That is why we are asking for a fast-track infringement procedure for test cases in the internal market. We need to learn from the failures and mistakes of EU laws. That is why we would like to see both
and, in particular
impact assessments or evaluations of where we went wrong. Has this legislation achieved its objective or, on the contrary, has it led to distortion and fragmentation of the internal market?
Some believe that the impact assessments should be handed over to an external body. I do not share that approach, as I believe that the internal market laws should be the responsibility of Commission officials as part of the discipline of effective policy-making. However, the Internal Market Committee insists that all legislative proposals be accompanied by a quality impact assessment, a summary and a better regulation checklist on internal market proposals.
Of course alternative regulation is a subject of much scepticism. While the interinstitutional agreement provides for this non-legislative option, we insist with respect to internal market laws that Parliament is both informed of and consulted on such alternative approaches. They are justified by impact assessments. Equally, we must have redress for the consumer and sanctions if these alternative regulations fail to deliver benefits for the consumer in the internal market.
I want to stress the work of the Internal Market Committee as an active partner in the better regulation process. I know that Commissioners often say that Parliament does not take its role seriously. We were the first committee to commission our own impact assessment, under Mr Whitehead’s chairmanship, for amendments on the Toubon report on nominal quantities for pre-packed products. On the pyrotechnics proposal we are conducting an impact assessment on amendments proposed by our rapporteur. We will look at a cost/benefit analysis of his amendments to that proposal. We are conducting a hearing on the impact of public procurement laws on the internal market. EU public procurement accounts for 16% of EU GDP, yet the 1992 package of laws, as demonstrated in a number of ECJ cases, has not achieved the desired opening of the market.
Let us be clear. It is the consumer, the citizen and businesses that pay the price when laws are not effective. Bad drafting leads to legal uncertainty, poor or confused transposition and at the end of the line is a confused businessman or consumer who loses confidence in the internal market. The ECJ, after years of deliberation, becomes the arbiter of better legislation. That is not the right way forward.
Finally, I want to quote the cases of SOLVIT, which I believe is an excellent initiative of the Commission. A qualified doctor tried for a number of years to register as a doctor in Spain. He spent a large sum of money on legal fees, had lost confidence in the internal market, yet the SOLVIT system intervened and helped him within ten weeks to get registration in Spain as a doctor. That doctor said: ‘SOLVIT has restored my confidence in the internal market’.
So, the reality is that good laws that are well drafted, easy to implement, easy to enforce and police, are the key to restoring confidence in the internal market. I hope that today’s debate is the beginning of a process of close cooperation, sharing best practice between the institutions in a close partnership of equals, to build and restore that confidence that the doctor I mentioned was asking us to achieve for him as a consumer in the internal market."@en4
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, as Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection I very much welcome this joint debate on better regulation and the opportunity to discuss with the Council and the Commission how we can improve the regulatory experience for consumers, citizens and businesses that are at the sharp end of making sense of implementing EU laws. The confidence and trust of citizens, consumers and business in the EU itself is linked to their experience and perception of EU laws and the impact they have on their daily lives.
I want to focus on improving better regulation for the internal market and ensuring that we achieve a sense of purpose in our law-making for consumers in the internal market. The internal market accounts for almost one third of the Community
. Good-quality, effective and simple legislation in the internal market should open up opportunities for cross-border trade and give consumers increased choice, while protecting environmental, social and consumer rights. At the same time, getting legislation right in the internal market is critical to achieving the Lisbon goals of jobs, growth and competitiveness.
I believe that the internal market will benefit most from a joint and coordinated approach by all three institutions to improving the entire regulatory cycle. That means that we also need to think of the consequences of the midnight deals and compromises that we make, and consider whether they are going to confuse or clarify laws for end users. That starts, in my view, with good, clear drafting of laws, high-quality impact assessments and effective, comprehensive and transparent stakeholder consultation. The Member States too must take their responsibilities seriously and ensure good and correct implementation of internal market laws. They must resist the temptation often to gold-plate or add on national requirements. Although transposition rates are improving, as shown in the internal market scoreboards, there is still room for much improvement. That is why we are asking for a fast-track infringement procedure for test cases in the internal market. We need to learn from the failures and mistakes of EU laws. That is why we would like to see both
and, in particular
impact assessments or evaluations of where we went wrong. Has this legislation achieved its objective or, on the contrary, has it led to distortion and fragmentation of the internal market?
Some believe that the impact assessments should be handed over to an external body. I do not share that approach, as I believe that the internal market laws should be the responsibility of Commission officials as part of the discipline of effective policy-making. However, the Internal Market Committee insists that all legislative proposals be accompanied by a quality impact assessment, a summary and a better regulation checklist on internal market proposals.
Of course alternative regulation is a subject of much scepticism. While the interinstitutional agreement provides for this non-legislative option, we insist with respect to internal market laws that Parliament is both informed of and consulted on such alternative approaches. They are justified by impact assessments. Equally, we must have redress for the consumer and sanctions if these alternative regulations fail to deliver benefits for the consumer in the internal market.
I want to stress the work of the Internal Market Committee as an active partner in the better regulation process. I know that Commissioners often say that Parliament does not take its role seriously. We were the first committee to commission our own impact assessment, under Mr Whitehead’s chairmanship, for amendments on the Toubon report on nominal quantities for pre-packed products. On the pyrotechnics proposal we are conducting an impact assessment on amendments proposed by our rapporteur. We will look at a cost/benefit analysis of his amendments to that proposal. We are conducting a hearing on the impact of public procurement laws on the internal market. EU public procurement accounts for 16% of EU GDP, yet the 1992 package of laws, as demonstrated in a number of ECJ cases, has not achieved the desired opening of the market.
Let us be clear. It is the consumer, the citizen and businesses that pay the price when laws are not effective. Bad drafting leads to legal uncertainty, poor or confused transposition and at the end of the line is a confused businessman or consumer who loses confidence in the internal market. The ECJ, after years of deliberation, becomes the arbiter of better legislation. That is not the right way forward.
Finally, I want to quote the cases of SOLVIT, which I believe is an excellent initiative of the Commission. A qualified doctor tried for a number of years to register as a doctor in Spain. He spent a large sum of money on legal fees, had lost confidence in the internal market, yet the SOLVIT system intervened and helped him within ten weeks to get registration in Spain as a doctor. That doctor said: ‘SOLVIT has restored my confidence in the internal market’.
So, the reality is that good laws that are well drafted, easy to implement, easy to enforce and police, are the key to restoring confidence in the internal market. I hope that today’s debate is the beginning of a process of close cooperation, sharing best practice between the institutions in a close partnership of equals, to build and restore that confidence that the doctor I mentioned was asking us to achieve for him as a consumer in the internal market."@cs1
"Hr. formand, som formand for Udvalget om det Indre Marked og Forbrugerbeskyttelse bifalder jeg stærkt denne forhandling under ét om bedre lovgivning og muligheden for med Rådet og Kommissionen at diskutere, hvordan vi kan forbedre den lovgivningsmæssige oplevelse for forbrugere, borgere og virksomheder, som er dem, der skal forstå gennemførelsen af EU-lovgivningen. Borgernes, forbrugernes og virksomhedernes tillid til og tro på EU selv hænger sammen med deres oplevelse og opfattelse af EU-lovene og disses indvirkning på deres dagligdag.
Jeg vil fokusere på at skabe bedre lovgivning for det indre marked og sikre, at vi får et mål med vores lovgivning for forbrugerne på det indre marked. Det indre marked tegner sig for næsten en tredjedel af EU's regelværk. Effektiv og enkel lovgivning af god kvalitet på det indre marked bør åbne mulighed for grænseoverskridende handel og give forbrugerne mere at vælge imellem, samtidig med at miljøet og de sociale og forbrugermæssige rettigheder tilgodeses. Samtidig må vi bringe lovgivningen på det indre marked i orden, hvis vi skal nå Lissabon-målene om beskæftigelse, vækst og konkurrenceevne.
Jeg mener, at det indre marked vil have størst fordel af en fælles og koordineret hensigt fra de tre institutioners side om at forbedre hele reguleringscyklussen. Det betyder, at vi også må tænke på følgerne af de midnatsaftaler og kompromiser, vi indgår, og overveje, om de vil komplicere eller tydeliggøre bestemmelserne for slutbrugerne. Begyndelsen på det er efter min mening udarbejdelse af gode og klare bestemmelser, konsekvensanalyser af høj kvalitet og effektiv, omfattende og gennemsigtig høring af interessenter. Medlemsstaterne skal også tage deres ansvar alvorligt og sikre god og korrekt gennemførelse af lovgivningen for det indre marked. De skal modstå fristelsen til ofte at forgylde eller tilføje nationale krav. Selv om gennemførelsesprocenterne bliver bedre, hvilket fremgår af resultattavlerne for det indre marked, kan der stadig ske væsentlige forbedringer. Det er årsagen til, at vi anmoder om en forenklet procedure for overtrædelser, der kan anvendes på prøvesager inden for det indre marked. Vi må lære af EU-bestemmelsers fiaskoer og fejltagelser. Det er årsagen til, at vi gerne vil have både
og især
konsekvensanalyser eller evalueringer af, hvor det gik galt. Har vi nået målet med denne lovgivning, eller har den tværtimod ført til forvridning og fragmentering af det indre marked?
Nogle mener, at konsekvensanalyserne burde overlades til et eksternt organ. Det er jeg ikke enig i, for jeg mener, at lovgivningen for det indre marked bør være Kommissionens tjenestemænds ansvar som et led i effektiv udarbejdelse af politikker. Udvalget om det Indre Marked insisterer imidlertid på, at alle lovgivningsforslag skal ledsages af en konsekvensanalyse af høj kvalitet, et sammendrag og en tjekliste for bedre lovgivning for forslag om det indre marked.
Der næres naturligvis stor skepsis over for alternativ regulering. Selv om den interinstitutionelle aftale indeholder bestemmelser om denne ikke-lovgivningsmæssige mulighed, insisterer vi på, at Parlamentet i forbindelse med lovgivning for det indre marked både informeres og høres om den slags alternative tilgange. De berettiges af konsekvensanalyser. Vi må også have klagemuligheder for forbrugerne og sanktioner, hvis disse alternative reguleringer ikke er til fordel for forbrugerne på det indre marked.
Jeg vil gerne understrege, at Udvalget om det Indre marked er en aktiv partner i processen for bedre lovgivning. Jeg ved, at kommissærerne ofte siger, at Parlamentet ikke tager sin rolle alvorligt. Vi var det første udvalg til at bestille vores egen konsekvensanalyse, under hr. Whiteheads formandskab, om ændringsforslag til Toubon-betænkningen om nominelle mængder for færdigpakkede produkter. I forbindelse med fyrværkeriforslaget gennemfører vi en konsekvensanalyse af de ændringsforslag, som vores ordfører har stillet. Vi vil se på en cost-benefit-analyse af hans forslag. Vi gennemfører en høring om indvirkningen af lovgivning for offentlige indkøb på det indre marked. EU's offentlige indkøb tegner sig for 16 % af EU's BNP, men 1992-lovgivningspakken har, som det er ses af en række sager ved EF-Domstolen, ikke skabt den ønskede åbning af markedet.
Der kan ikke herske tvivl om, at det er forbrugerne, borgerne og virksomhederne, der betaler prisen, når bestemmelser ikke er effektive. Dårlig udarbejdelse fører til svækket retssikkerhed, ringe eller ukorrekt gennemførelse og i den sidste ende en forvirret erhvervsdrivende eller forbruger, som mister tilliden til det indre marked. EF-Domstolen bliver efter flere års domsforhandling dommeren over bedre lovgivning. Det er ikke vejen frem.
Til sidst vil jeg nævne SOLVIT, som efter min mening er et glimrende initiativ fra Kommissionens side. En autoriseret læge forsøgte for nogle år siden at blive registreret som læge i Spanien. Han brugte mange penge på advokathonorarer, havde mistet tilliden til det indre marked, men så skred SOLVIT-systemet ind og hjalp ham, så han i løbet af 10 uger blev registreret som læge i Spanien. Den læge sagde: "SOLVIT har genoprettet min tillid til det indre marked".
Sandheden er altså den, at gode love, der er ordentligt udarbejdede, lette at gennemføre og lette at håndhæve og kontrollere, er nøglen til at genoprette tilliden til det indre marked. Jeg håber, at debatten i dag er indledningen på en proces med snævert samarbejde og udveksling af oplysninger om bedste praksis mellem institutionerne i tæt partnerskab mellem ligestillede i indsatsen for at genoprette den tillid, som den læge, jeg nævnte, bad os om at opnå for ham som forbruger på det indre marked."@da2
".
Herr Präsident! Als Vorsitzende des Ausschusses für Binnenmarkt und Verbraucherschutz begrüße ich diese gemeinsame Aussprache zur besseren Rechtsetzung sowie die Möglichkeit, mit Rat und Kommission zu erörtern, wie wir die Erfahrungen der Verbraucher, Bürger und Unternehmen auf dem Gebiet der Regulierung verbessern können, denn schließlich sind sie direkt von der Umsetzung der EU-Gesetze betroffen und müssen damit klarkommen. Das Vertrauen der Bürger, Verbraucher und Unternehmen in die EU hängt von ihren Erfahrungen mit den EU-Rechtsvorschriften und ihrer diesbezüglichen Wahrnehmung sowie den Auswirkungen der Vorschriften auf ihren Alltag ab.
Ich möchte mich darauf konzentrieren, wie wir die Rechtsetzung für den Binnenmarkt verbessern und gewährleisten können, dass wir bei unserer Rechtsetzung die Belange der Verbraucher am Binnenmarkt im Auge haben. Der Binnenmarkt macht fast ein Drittel des gemeinsamen Besitzstandes aus. Gute, effektive und einfache Rechtsvorschriften für den Binnenmarkt sollten Möglichkeiten für den grenzüberschreitenden Handel eröffnen und Verbrauchern mehr Wahlmöglichkeiten bieten. Gleichzeitig sollten sie dem Schutz der Umwelt sowie sozialer Rechte und der Rechte der Verbraucher dienen. Der Erlass der für den Binnenmarkt am besten geeigneten Gesetze ist zudem für die Erfüllung der Beschäftigungs-, Wachstums- und Wettbewerbsziele von Lissabon von entscheidender Bedeutung.
Meines Erachtens wird der Binnenmarkt vor allem von einem gemeinsamen und koordinierten Ansatz aller drei Institutionen bei der Verbesserung des gesamten Rechtsetzungszyklus profitieren. Das bedeutet, dass wir uns auch der Konsequenzen unserer mitternächtlichen Deals und Kompromisse bewusst sein und bedenken müssen, ob die Vorschriften für den Nutzer dadurch einfacher oder verwirrender werden. Das beginnt meiner Ansicht nach bereits beim klaren und guten Entwurf von Gesetzen und umfasst Folgenabschätzungen in hoher Qualität sowie die effektive, umfassende und transparente Konsultation von Betroffenen. Auch die Mitgliedstaaten müssen ihre Verantwortung ernst nehmen und dafür sorgen, dass Binnenmarktvorschriften gut und korrekt umgesetzt werden. Sie sollten nicht der Versuchung erliegen, Rechtsvorschriften der EU durch zusätzliche nationale Anforderungen zu verschärfen. Obwohl sich die Umsetzungsquoten verbessern, wie aus dem Binnenmarktanzeiger hervorgeht, bleibt noch sehr viel zu tun. Deshalb bitten wir um die Einführung eines zügigen Vertragsverletzungsverfahrens für Testfälle im Bereich des Binnenmarktes. Wir müssen aus Versäumnissen und Fehlern in Bezug auf die EU-Rechtsetzung lernen. Deshalb sind wir auch sowohl an Ex-ante- als auch vor allem Ex-post-Bewertungen und -Evaluierungen unserer Fehler und Versäumnisse interessiert. Wir müssen wissen, ob eine Regelung ihr Ziel erreicht oder möglicherweise zu Verzerrungen oder einer Zersplitterung des Binnenmarktes geführt hat.
Einige Kollegen sind der Ansicht, dass die Folgenabschätzung durch ein externes Gremium durchgeführt werden sollte. Ich bin anderer Ansicht. Ich glaube, die Binnenmarktvorschriften sollten in die Zuständigkeit der Kommissionsbeamten fallen und Teil der effektiven politischen Entscheidungsfindung sein. Der Binnenmarktausschuss besteht jedoch darauf, dass sämtlichen Legislativvorschlägen eine Qualitäts-Folgenabschätzung, eine Zusammenfassung sowie eine Checkliste zur besseren Rechtsetzung für Binnenmarktvorschläge beizufügen ist.
Viele Kollegen stehen der alternativen Regulierung sehr skeptisch gegenüber. Obwohl die Interinstitutionelle Vereinbarung diese nicht legislative Möglichkeit vorsieht, bestehen wir im Falle von Binnenmarktvorschriften darauf, dass das Parlament über alternative Ansätze dieser Art informiert und dazu konsultiert wird. Ihnen liegen Folgenabschätzungen zugrunde. Gleichzeitig müssen wir Rechtshilfe und Sanktionen für den Verbraucher gewährleisten, falls der erwartete Nutzen für den Verbraucher auf dem Binnenmarkt ausbleibt.
Ich möchte nachdrücklich auf den Beitrag des Binnenmarktausschusses als aktiver Partner beim Prozess der besseren Rechtsetzung verweisen. Ich weiß, dass die Kommissionsmitglieder dem Parlament häufig vorwerfen, es nehme seine Aufgaben nicht ernst. Wir waren der erste Ausschuss, der – unter dem Vorsitz von Herrn Whitehead – eine eigene Folgenabschätzung zu den Änderungsanträgen zum Bericht Toubon über Nennfüllmengen für Erzeugnisse in Fertigpackungen in Auftrag gegeben hat. Zum Pyrotechnik-Vorschlag führen wir eine Folgenabschätzung zu den von unserem Berichterstatter vorgeschlagenen Änderungsanträgen durch. Wir werden eine Kosten/Nutzen-Analyse seiner Änderungsanträge zu diesem Vorschlag prüfen. Wir führen eine Anhörung zu den Auswirkungen der Vorschriften für das öffentliche Auftragswesen auf den Binnenmarkt durch. Das öffentliche Auftragswesen der Union repräsentiert 16 % des BIP der EU, trotzdem hatte das Gesetzespaket aus dem Jahre 1992 nicht die erhoffte Öffnung des Marktes zur Folge, wie eine Reihe von Fällen des Europäischen Gerichtshofes zeigt.
Eines muss klipp und klar festgestellt werden. Die Zeche für wirkungslose Gesetze zahlen die Verbraucher, die Bürger und die Unternehmen. Mängel bei der Ausarbeitung führen zu Rechtsunsicherheit und zu Fehlern und Unklarheiten bei der Umsetzung und letztlich zu Verwirrung beim Geschäftsmann oder Verbraucher, der das Vertrauen in den Binnenmarkt verliert. Nach jahrelangen Diskussionen hat der Europäische Gerichtshof das letzte Wort in puncto bessere Rechtsetzung. Das ist nicht der richtige Weg.
Abschließend ein Wort zu SOLVIT. Dieses Online-Netzwerk zur Problemlösung stellt meines Erachtens eine ausgezeichnete Initiative der Kommission dar. Es gab da den Fall eines entsprechend qualifizierten Arztes, der jahrelang versuchte, sich als Arzt in Spanien registrieren zu lassen. Er hatte bereits sehr viel Geld für Anwälte ausgegeben und das Vertrauen in den Binnenmarkt verloren. Doch SOLVIT schaltete sich ein und half ihm innerhalb von zehn Wochen, sich in Spanien als Arzt anzumelden. Der Arzt sagte: „SOLVIT hat mein Vertrauen in den Binnenmarkt wiederhergestellt.“
Folglich ist es so, dass gute Gesetze, die gut ausgearbeitet wurden, leicht um- und durchzusetzen sowie zu überwachen sind, die Voraussetzung für die Wiederherstellung des Vertrauens in den Binnenmarkt darstellen. Ich hoffe, dass die heutige Aussprache den Anfang einer engen Zusammenarbeit bilden wird, die gekennzeichnet ist vom Austausch vorbildlicher Verfahrensweisen der als gleichberechtigte Partner eng kooperierenden Institutionen, um das Vertrauen her- bzw. wiederherzustellen, um das uns der von mir erwähnte Arzt als Verbraucher auf dem Binnenmarkt gebeten hat."@de9
"Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ως πρόεδρος της Επιτροπής Εσωτερικής Αγοράς και Προστασίας των Καταναλωτών χαιρετίζω θερμά αυτήν την κοινή συζήτηση για τη βελτίωση της νομοθεσίας και την ευκαιρία να συζητήσουμε με το Συμβούλιο και την Επιτροπή πώς μπορούμε να βελτιώσουμε τη συμμετοχή στις διαδικασίες ρύθμισης των καταναλωτών, των πολιτών και των επιχειρήσεων που προσπαθούν να κατανοήσουν την εφαρμογή του ευρωπαϊκού δικαίου. Η εμπιστοσύνη των πολιτών, των καταναλωτών και των επιχειρήσεων στην ίδια την ΕΕ συνδέεται με την εμπειρία και τον τρόπο με τον οποίο αντιλαμβάνονται τους νόμους της ΕΕ και τον αντίκτυπο που αυτοί έχουν στην καθημερινή ζωή τους.
Θέλω να επικεντρωθώ στη βελτίωση της νομοθεσίας για την εσωτερική αγορά και τη διασφάλιση ότι θα επιτύχουμε τα νομοθετήματα που θεσπίζουμε να έχουν νόημα για τους καταναλωτές στην εσωτερική αγορά. Στην εσωτερική αγορά αναλογεί περίπου το ένα τρίτο του κοινοτικού κεκτημένου. Η καλής ποιότητας, αποτελεσματική και απλή νομοθεσία για την εσωτερική αγορά θα δημιουργήσει ευκαιρίες διασυνοριακού εμπορίου και θα προσφέρει στους καταναλωτές μεγαλύτερες επιλογές, ενώ παράλληλα θα προστατεύσει τα περιβαλλοντικά, κοινωνικά δικαιώματα και τα δικαιώματα των καταναλωτών. Συγχρόνως, η σωστή νομοθεσία για την εσωτερική αγορά είναι κρίσιμης σημασίας για την επίτευξη των στόχων της Λισαβόνας όσον αφορά τις θέσεις εργασίας, την ανάπτυξη και την ανταγωνιστικότητα.
Φρονώ ότι η εσωτερική αγορά θα ωφεληθεί τα μέγιστα από μια κοινή και συντονισμένη προσέγγιση και των τριών θεσμικών οργάνων για τη βελτίωση ολόκληρου του νομοθετικού κύκλου. Αυτό σημαίνει ότι πρέπει επίσης να αναλογιστούμε τις συνέπειες των μεταμεσονύκτιων συμφωνιών και συμβιβασμών που κάνουμε και να εξετάσουμε αν πρόκειται να δημιουργήσουν σύγχυση ή να αποσαφηνίσουν τους νόμους για τους τελικούς χρήστες. Αυτό ξεκινά, κατά τη γνώμη μου, με καλή, σαφή σύνταξη των νόμων, υψηλής ποιότητας εκτιμήσεις επιπτώσεων και αποτελεσματική, συνεκτική και διαφανή διαβούλευση με όλα τα ενδιαφερόμενα μέρη. Και τα κράτη μέλη πρέπει να αναλάβουν σοβαρά τις ευθύνες τους και να διασφαλίσουν καλή και σωστή εφαρμογή της νομοθεσίας για την εσωτερική αγορά. Πρέπει να αντισταθούν στον πειρασμό να προσθέτουν εθνικές απαιτήσεις. Παρότι οι δείκτες μεταφοράς βελτιώνονται, όπως φαίνεται στους πίνακες αποτελεσμάτων της εσωτερικής αγοράς, υπάρχει ακόμα περιθώριο μεγάλης βελτίωσης. Για αυτόν τον λόγο, ζητάμε να κινείται γρήγορα η διαδικασία επί παραβάσει για δοκιμαστικές εφαρμογές στην εσωτερική αγορά. Πρέπει να διδαχθούμε από τις αποτυχίες και τα λάθη της ευρωπαϊκής νομοθεσίας. Γι’ αυτό θα θέλαμε να δούμε εκτιμήσεις επιπτώσεων ή αξιολογήσεις για το τι κάναμε λάθος τόσο εκ των προτέρων όσο και, ιδιαίτερα, εκ των υστέρων. Πέτυχε αυτή η νομοθεσία τον στόχο της ή, αντιθέτως, οδήγησε σε στρέβλωση και κατακερματισμό της εσωτερικής αγοράς;
Ορισμένοι φρονούν ότι οι εκτιμήσεις επιπτώσεων θα πρέπει να γίνονται από εξωτερικό φορέα. Δεν συμμερίζομαι αυτήν την προσέγγιση, καθώς πιστεύω ότι η νομοθεσία της εσωτερικής αγοράς θα πρέπει να εμπίπτει στην ευθύνη των αξιωματούχων της Επιτροπής ως μέρος του αντικειμένου της αποτελεσματικής χάραξης πολιτικής. Ωστόσο, η Επιτροπή Εσωτερικής Αγοράς επιμένει ότι κάθε νομοθετική πρόταση πρέπει να συνοδεύεται από αξιολόγηση του αντικτύπου ποιότητας.
Φυσικά, οι εναλλακτικές μέθοδοι ρύθμισης δημιουργούν μεγάλες επιφυλάξεις. Παρότι η διοργανική συμφωνία προβλέπει αυτήν τη μη νομοθετική επιλογή, επιμένουμε ότι, όσον αφορά τη νομοθεσία περί εσωτερικής αγοράς, το Κοινοβούλιο θα πρέπει να ενημερώνεται και να ζητείται η γνώμη του για τέτοιες εναλλακτικές προσεγγίσεις. Οι εκτιμήσεις επιπτώσεων τις δικαιολογούν. Ομοίως, πρέπει να έχουμε ένδικα μέσα για τους καταναλωτές και κυρώσεις αν αυτές οι εναλλακτικές μέθοδοι ρύθμισης αποτύχουν να αποδώσουν οφέλη για τον καταναλωτή στην εσωτερική αγορά.
Θέλω να τονίσω την εργασία της Επιτροπής Εσωτερικής Αγοράς ως ενεργός εταίρος στη διαδικασία της βελτίωσης της νομοθεσίας. Γνωρίζω ότι οι Επίτροποι λένε συχνά πως το Κοινοβούλιο δεν παίρνει στα σοβαρά τον ρόλο του. Υπήρξαμε η πρώτη επιτροπή που παρήγγειλε τη δική της εκτίμηση επιπτώσεων, υπό την προεδρία του κ. Whitehead, για τροπολογίες επί της έκθεσης Toubon σχετικά με τις ονομαστικές ποσότητες των προϊόντων σε προσυσκευασία. Εκπονούμε εκτίμηση επιπτώσεων όσον αφορά τις τροπολογίες που προτείνει ο εισηγητής μας στην πρόταση για την πυροτεχνία. Θα εξετάσουμε την ανάλυση κόστους/οφέλους των τροπολογιών του επί της πρότασης αυτής. Διεξάγουμε ακρόαση σχετικά με τις επιπτώσεις της νομοθεσίας περί σύναψης δημοσίων συμβάσεων στην εσωτερική αγορά. Στις δημόσιες συμβάσεις της ΕΕ αναλογεί το 16% του ΑΕγχΠ της ΕΕ, ωστόσο η νομοθετική δέσμη του 1992, όπως αποδείχθηκε σε μια σειρά υποθέσεων του ΔΕΚ, δεν πέτυχε το επιθυμητό άνοιγμα της αγοράς.
Ας είμαστε σαφείς. Το τίμημα όταν οι νόμοι δεν είναι αποτελεσματικοί το πληρώνει ο καταναλωτής, ο πολίτης και οι επιχειρήσεις. Η κακή σύνταξη οδηγεί σε νομική αβεβαιότητα, κακή ή συγκεχυμένη μεταφορά και στην άλλη άκρη υπάρχει ένας μπερδεμένος επιχειρηματίας ή καταναλωτής ο οποίος χάνει την εμπιστοσύνη του στην εσωτερική αγορά. Το ΔΕΚ, μετά από χρόνια διαβούλευσης, ασκεί διαιτησία για καλύτερη νομοθεσία. Αυτός δεν είναι ο σωστός δρόμος.
Τέλος, θέλω να αναφέρω τις περιπτώσεις του SOLVIT, που πιστεύω ότι αποτελεί εξαιρετική πρωτοβουλία της Επιτροπής. Ένας γιατρός προσπαθούσε επί χρόνια να εγγραφεί ως γιατρός στην Ισπανία. Δαπάνησε μεγάλο χρηματικό ποσό σε αμοιβές νομικών, είχε χάσει την εμπιστοσύνη του στην εσωτερική αγορά, αλλά παρενέβη το σύστημα SOLVIT και τον βοήθησε να εγγραφεί στην Ισπανία ως γιατρός μέσα σε δέκα εβδομάδες. Όπως είπε ο ίδιος ο γιατρός: «Το SOLVIT με έκανε να ανακτήσω την εμπιστοσύνη μου στην εσωτερική αγορά».
Επομένως, η πραγματικότητα είναι ότι καλοί νόμοι οι οποίοι εκπονούνται σωστά, είναι εύκολοι στην εφαρμογή, εύκολοι στην επιβολή και τον έλεγχο, αποτελούν το κλειδί για την ανάκτηση της εμπιστοσύνης στην εσωτερική αγορά. Ελπίζω ότι η σημερινή συζήτηση αποτελεί την απαρχή μιας διαδικασίας στενής συνεργασίας και ανταλλαγής βέλτιστων πρακτικών μεταξύ των θεσμικών οργάνων σε μια στενή εταιρική σχέση μεταξύ ίσων, ώστε να οικοδομηθεί και να ανακτηθεί η εμπιστοσύνη την οποία ζητούσε από εμάς ο γιατρός που ανέφερα ως καταναλωτής στην εσωτερική αγορά."@el10
"Señor Presidente, como presidenta de la Comisión de Mercado Interior y Protección del Consumidor, acojo con gran satisfacción este debate conjunto sobre «legislar mejor» y la oportunidad de debatir con el Consejo y la Comisión la manera de mejorar la experiencia reguladora para consumidores, ciudadanos y empresas, que son los que realmente entienden de la aplicación de la normativa de la UE. La confianza de los ciudadanos, los consumidores y las empresas en la UE está ligada a su experiencia y a su percepción de la legislación de la UE y al impacto que esta tiene en sus vidas cotidianas.
Quiero centrarme en la mejora de la legislación sobre el mercado interior y en la necesidad de proceder con buen sentido en nuestra labor legislativa a favor de los consumidores en el mercado interior. El mercado interior representa casi un tercio del acervo comunitario. Una legislación de calidad, eficaz y simple en el mercado interior debería crear oportunidades para el comercio transfronterizo y dar a los consumidores mayores posibilidades de elección, protegiendo al mismo tiempo los derechos en materia ambiental, social y de consumo. Por otra parte, la adecuación de la regulación en el mercado interior es un factor crítico a la hora de lograr los objetivos de Lisboa sobre empleo, crecimiento y competitividad.
Creo que el mercado interior se beneficiará de un enfoque común y coordinado de las tres instituciones de la mejora del ciclo legislativo en su conjunto. Eso significa que tenemos que pensar también en las consecuencias de los acuerdos y compromisos que alcancemos a medianoche y pensar si las leyes resultantes van a ser más confusas o más claras para los usuarios finales. Creo que eso empieza por unas leyes bien redactadas y claras, evaluaciones de impacto de alta calidad y una consulta efectiva, exhaustiva y transparente a los interesados. Los Estados miembros tienen que tomarse también en serio sus responsabilidades y asegurar una aplicación efectiva y correcta de la legislación sobre el mercado interior. Deben resistirse a la tentación de incorporar o adosar exigencias nacionales a las disposiciones legislativas de la UE. Aunque las tasas de transposición mejoran, como demuestran los indicadores del mercado interior, todavía pueden mejorar mucho más. Por eso pedimos un procedimiento de infracción por la vía rápida para casos relevantes en el mercado interior. Tenemos que aprender de los fallos y errores de la legislación europea. Por eso queremos introducir un sistema de evaluación tanto
como sobre todo
de nuestros errores. ¿Ha conseguido esta legislación su objetivo o, por el contrario, ha ocasionado una distorsión y fragmentación del mercado interior?
Algunos creen que las evaluaciones de impacto deben encomendarse a un organismo externo. Yo no comparto esa idea, porque creo que la legislación en materia de mercado interior debe ser responsabilidad de los funcionarios de la Comisión en el marco de la disciplina de una legislación efectiva. No obstante, la Comisión de Mercado Interior insiste en que todas las propuestas legislativas vayan acompañadas de una evaluación de impacto de calidad, un resumen y un lista de comprobación sobre «legislar mejor» de las propuestas relativas al mercado interior.
Por supuesto, la regulación alternativa suscita un gran escepticismo. Aunque el Acuerdo Interinstitucional contempla esta opción no legislativa, insistimos en que, cuando se trate de leyes del mercado interior, el Parlamento sea informado y consultado sobre esos enfoques alternativos. Se justifican a la luz de evaluaciones de impacto. Igualmente, tenemos que prever la compensación de los consumidores y la aplicación de sanciones en el caso de que estas regulaciones alternativas no beneficien al consumidor en el mercado interior.
Quiero insistir en la labor de la Comisión de Mercado Interior como parte activa del proceso de «legislar mejor». Sé que los Comisarios dicen a menudo que el Parlamento no se toma en serio su función. Nosotros fuimos la primera comisión que encargó su propia evaluación de impacto, bajo la presidencia del señor Whitehead, en relación con las enmiendas al informe Toubon sobre las cantidades nominales para productos preenvasados. Respecto a la propuesta relativa a la pirotecnia, estamos realizando una evaluación de impacto de las enmiendas propuestas por nuestro ponente. Tendremos en cuenta el análisis de coste-beneficio de sus enmiendas a esa propuesta. Estamos organizando una audiencia sobre el impacto de las leyes de contratación pública en el mercado interior. La contratación pública en la UE representa hasta el 16 % del PIB de la UE, aunque el paquete de leyes de 1992, según se demuestra en una serie de casos del TJCE, no ha conseguido la deseada apertura del mercado.
Seamos claros. Son los consumidores, los ciudadanos y las empresas quienes salen perdiendo cuando las leyes no surten efecto. La mala elaboración produce inseguridad jurídica y una transposición deficiente o confusa, y al final nos encontramos con empresarios o consumidores confundidos que pierden su confianza en el mercado interior. El TJCE, después de años de deliberación, se convierte al final en el árbitro de la mejora de la legislación. Este no es el camino adecuado.
Por último, quiero citar los casos de SOLVIT, que me parece una excelente iniciativa de la Comisión. Un médico cualificado llevaba años tratando de registrarse como médico en España. Cuando ya se había gastado mucho dinero en abogados y había dejado de confiar en el mercado interior, el sistema SOLVIT intervino y le ayudó en un plazo de diez semanas a conseguir que fuera registrado como médico en España. Ese médico dijo: «SOLVIT ha restablecido mi confianza en el mercado interior.»
Así pues, la realidad es que unas leyes buenas que están bien elaboradas, son fáciles de aplicar y fáciles de hacer cumplir y controlar, son un factor fundamental para restablecer la confianza en el mercado interior. Espero que el debate de hoy marque el comienzo de un proceso de estrecha cooperación, de intercambio de las mejores prácticas entre las instituciones en una estrecha alianza entre iguales, para construir y restablecer la confianza que el médico antes citado nos pidió que consiguiéramos para él como consumidor en el mercado interior."@es20
"Mr President, as Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection I very much welcome this joint debate on better regulation and the opportunity to discuss with the Council and the Commission how we can improve the regulatory experience for consumers, citizens and businesses that are at the sharp end of making sense of implementing EU laws. The confidence and trust of citizens, consumers and business in the EU itself is linked to their experience and perception of EU laws and the impact they have on their daily lives.
I want to focus on improving better regulation for the internal market and ensuring that we achieve a sense of purpose in our law-making for consumers in the internal market. The internal market accounts for almost one third of the Community
. Good-quality, effective and simple legislation in the internal market should open up opportunities for cross-border trade and give consumers increased choice, while protecting environmental, social and consumer rights. At the same time, getting legislation right in the internal market is critical to achieving the Lisbon goals of jobs, growth and competitiveness.
I believe that the internal market will benefit most from a joint and coordinated approach by all three institutions to improving the entire regulatory cycle. That means that we also need to think of the consequences of the midnight deals and compromises that we make, and consider whether they are going to confuse or clarify laws for end users. That starts, in my view, with good, clear drafting of laws, high-quality impact assessments and effective, comprehensive and transparent stakeholder consultation. The Member States too must take their responsibilities seriously and ensure good and correct implementation of internal market laws. They must resist the temptation often to gold-plate or add on national requirements. Although transposition rates are improving, as shown in the internal market scoreboards, there is still room for much improvement. That is why we are asking for a fast-track infringement procedure for test cases in the internal market. We need to learn from the failures and mistakes of EU laws. That is why we would like to see both
and, in particular
impact assessments or evaluations of where we went wrong. Has this legislation achieved its objective or, on the contrary, has it led to distortion and fragmentation of the internal market?
Some believe that the impact assessments should be handed over to an external body. I do not share that approach, as I believe that the internal market laws should be the responsibility of Commission officials as part of the discipline of effective policy-making. However, the Internal Market Committee insists that all legislative proposals be accompanied by a quality impact assessment, a summary and a better regulation checklist on internal market proposals.
Of course alternative regulation is a subject of much scepticism. While the interinstitutional agreement provides for this non-legislative option, we insist with respect to internal market laws that Parliament is both informed of and consulted on such alternative approaches. They are justified by impact assessments. Equally, we must have redress for the consumer and sanctions if these alternative regulations fail to deliver benefits for the consumer in the internal market.
I want to stress the work of the Internal Market Committee as an active partner in the better regulation process. I know that Commissioners often say that Parliament does not take its role seriously. We were the first committee to commission our own impact assessment, under Mr Whitehead’s chairmanship, for amendments on the Toubon report on nominal quantities for pre-packed products. On the pyrotechnics proposal we are conducting an impact assessment on amendments proposed by our rapporteur. We will look at a cost/benefit analysis of his amendments to that proposal. We are conducting a hearing on the impact of public procurement laws on the internal market. EU public procurement accounts for 16% of EU GDP, yet the 1992 package of laws, as demonstrated in a number of ECJ cases, has not achieved the desired opening of the market.
Let us be clear. It is the consumer, the citizen and businesses that pay the price when laws are not effective. Bad drafting leads to legal uncertainty, poor or confused transposition and at the end of the line is a confused businessman or consumer who loses confidence in the internal market. The ECJ, after years of deliberation, becomes the arbiter of better legislation. That is not the right way forward.
Finally, I want to quote the cases of SOLVIT, which I believe is an excellent initiative of the Commission. A qualified doctor tried for a number of years to register as a doctor in Spain. He spent a large sum of money on legal fees, had lost confidence in the internal market, yet the SOLVIT system intervened and helped him within ten weeks to get registration in Spain as a doctor. That doctor said: ‘SOLVIT has restored my confidence in the internal market’.
So, the reality is that good laws that are well drafted, easy to implement, easy to enforce and police, are the key to restoring confidence in the internal market. I hope that today’s debate is the beginning of a process of close cooperation, sharing best practice between the institutions in a close partnership of equals, to build and restore that confidence that the doctor I mentioned was asking us to achieve for him as a consumer in the internal market."@et5
"Arvoisa puhemies, sisämarkkina- ja kuluttajansuojavaliokunnan puheenjohtajana suhtaudun erittäin myönteisesti tähän parempaa sääntelyä koskevaan yhteiskeskusteluun ja tilaisuuteen keskustella neuvoston ja komission kanssa siitä, miten voimme parantaa kuluttajien, kansalaisten ja elinkeinoelämän kokemuksia sääntelystä. Juuri näiden ryhmien on käytännössä ymmärrettävä EU:n lainsäädännön täytäntöönpanon merkitys. Kansalaisten, kuluttajien ja elinkeinoelämän luottamus EU:ta kohtaan kytkeytyy heidän kokemuksiinsa ja käsityksiinsä EU:n lainsäädännöstä sekä sen vaikutuksista heidän päivittäiseen elämäänsä.
Kiinnitän huomiota paremman sisämarkkinasääntelyn kehittämiseen ja kuluttajia koskevan sisämarkkinasääntelyn tarkoituksenmukaisuuden varmistamiseen. Noin kolmasosa yhteisön säännöstöstä koskee sisämarkkinoita. Laadukkaan, tehokkaan ja selkeän sisämarkkinalainsäädännön on tarjottava mahdollisuuksia rajat ylittävään kauppaan ja lisättävä kuluttajien valinnanmahdollisuuksia. Samalla sillä on turvattava ympäristöön liittyvät, sosiaaliset ja kuluttajan oikeudet. Lisäksi järkevä sisämarkkinalainsäädäntö vaikuttaa ratkaisevasti työllisyyttä, kasvua ja kilpailukykyä koskevien Lissabonin tavoitteiden saavuttamiseen.
Olen vakaasti sitä mieltä, että sisämarkkinat hyötyvät eniten kolmen toimielimen yhteisistä ja koordinoiduista toimista koko sääntelyprosessin kehittämiseksi. Siksi meidän on myös pohdittava tekemiemme arveluttavien sopimusten ja kompromissien seurauksia sekä harkittava, hämärtävätkö vai selkeyttävätkö ne lakeja kohderyhmän kannalta. Tämän lähtökohtana on mielestäni hyvä ja selkeä lainlaadinta, korkealaatuinen vaikutustenarviointi sekä tehokas, kattava ja avoin sidosryhmien kuuleminen. Myös jäsenvaltioiden on suhtauduttava velvoitteisiinsa vakavasti ja varmistettava sisämarkkinalainsäädännön järkevä ja moitteeton täytäntöönpano. Niiden on vastustettava kiusausta tehdä lakeihin lievennyksiä tai lisäyksiä kansallisilla ehdoilla. Vaikka sisämarkkinoiden tulostaulut osoittavat, että säädösten saattamisessa osaksi kansallista lainsäädäntöä on edistytty, parantamisen varaa on vielä paljon. Siksi vaadimme nopeutettua rikkomismenettelyä sisämarkkinoiden avaintapauksia varten. Meidän on otettava opiksi EU:n lainsäädännön puutteista ja virheistä. Siksi toivomme sekä vaikutusten ennakko- että varsinkin jälkiarviointia tai arviota tekemistämme virheistä. Onko tämä lainsäädäntö saavuttanut sille asetetut tavoitteet vai päinvastoin vääristänyt ja pirstonut sisämarkkinoita?
Joidenkin mielestä vaikutustenarviointi pitäisi antaa ulkopuolisen elimen tehtäväksi. En ole samaa mieltä, sillä mielestäni sisämarkkinalainsäädäntö kuuluu komission virkamiesten vastuulle tehokkaan päätöksentekokäytännön mukaisesti. Sisämarkkinavaliokunta edellyttää kuitenkin, että kaikkiin lainsäädäntöehdotuksiin liitetään korkealaatuinen vaikutustenarviointi, tiivistelmä ja sisämarkkinaehdotuksia koskeva paremman lainsäädännön tarkistusluettelo.
Tietenkin vaihtoehtoiseen sääntelyyn suhtaudutaan hyvin epäluuloisesti. Vaikka toimielinten sopimuksessa sallitaankin muiden kuin oikeudellisten välineiden käyttö, vaadimme, että parlamentille ilmoitetaan ja että sitä kuullaan tällaisista sisämarkkinalainsäädäntöön liittyvistä vaihtoehtoisista toimista. Ne ovat perusteltuja vaikutustenarviointien takia. Jos vaihtoehtoisesta sääntelystä ei ole kuluttajalle hyötyä sisämarkkinoilla, hänen on voitava hakea korvausta. Sen lisäksi tarvitaan seuraamusjärjestelmä.
Korostan, että sisämarkkinavaliokunta osallistuu aktiivisesti sääntelyn parantamista koskevaan prosessiin. Tiedän komission jäsenten sanovan usein, ettei parlamentti suhtaudu tehtäväänsä vakavasti. Olimme kuitenkin ensimmäinen valiokunta, joka teetti jäsen Whiteheadin puheenjohtajakaudella oman vaikutustenarvioinnin niistä tarkistuksista, joita tehtiin valmispakkauksiin pakattujen tuotteiden nimellismääriä koskevaan Toubonin mietintöön. Parhaillaan teemme vaikutustenarviointia niistä tarkistuksista, joita esittelijämme on tehnyt pyrotekniikkaa koskevaan ehdotukseen. Aiomme tarkastella esittelijän kyseiseen ehdotukseen tekemien tarkistusten kustannus-hyötyanalyysia. Meillä on vireillä kuulemismenettely julkisia hankintoja koskevan lainsäädännön vaikutuksesta sisämarkkinoihin. EU:n julkisten hankintojen osuus EU:n BKT:sta on 16 prosenttia, mutta kuten muutamat Euroopan yhteisöjen tuomioistuimen käsittelemät tapaukset osoittavat, vuoden 1992 lainsäädäntöpaketilla ei ole onnistuttu avaamaan markkinoita toivotulla tavalla.
Sanottakoon suoraan, että kuluttajat, kansalaiset ja elinkeinoelämä maksavat hinnan tehottomasta lainsäädännöstä. Kehnosti laaditut lait ovat syynä oikeudelliseen epävarmuuteen ja puutteelliseen tai sekavaan täytäntöönpanoon, joka viime kädessä saa hämmentyneen yrittäjän tai kuluttajan menettämään luottamuksensa sisämarkkinoihin. Vuosien harkinnan jälkeen Euroopan yhteisöjen tuomioistuin tekee parempaa lainsäädäntöä koskevat ratkaisut. Tällä tavalla asiat eivät edisty haluttuun suuntaan.
Lopuksi haluan mainita tapauksen, joka liittyy sisämarkkinoiden ongelmanratkaisuverkkoon SOLVITiin, joka on mielestäni erinomainen komission aloite. Eräs pätevä lääkäri yritti vuosien ajan rekisteröityä lääkäriksi Espanjassa. Hän käytti suuren rahasumman asianajopalkkioihin ja oli menettänyt luottamuksensa sisämarkkinoihin, mutta SOLVIT-järjestelmä puuttui asiaan ja auttoi häntä kymmenen viikon sisällä rekisteröitymään lääkäriksi Espanjaan. Kyseinen lääkäri totesi, että SOLVIT palautti hänen luottamuksensa sisämarkkinoihin.
Käytännössä luottamus sisämarkkinoihin palautetaan siis järkevillä ja asianmukaisesti laadituilla säädöksillä, jotka on helppo panna täytäntöön ja joiden noudattamista on helppo valvoa ja seurata. Toivon, että tämänpäiväinen keskustelu käynnistää tiiviin yhteistyöprosessin, jossa toimielimet jakavat tasavertaisen kumppanuuden ehdoilla parhaita käytäntöjä. Yhteistyön tavoitteena on muodostaa ja palauttaa se luottamus, jonka saavuttamisessa mainitsemani lääkäri pyysi meiltä apua sisämarkkinoilla toimivana kuluttajana."@fi7
".
Monsieur le Président, en tant que présidente de la commission du marché intérieur et de la protection des consommateurs, je salue de tout cœur cette discussion commune sur le thème «Mieux légiférer» ainsi que l’opportunité de débattre, avec le Conseil et la Commission, de la manière d’améliorer l’expérience de réglementation pour les consommateurs, les citoyens et les entreprises, qui sont en première ligne lorsqu’il s’agit de donner un sens à la mise en œuvre de la législation européenne. La confiance de ces trois groupes dans l’Union elle-même est liée à leur expérience et à leur perception de la législation communautaire et à l’impact qu’ont ces dernières sur leur vie quotidienne.
Je voudrais me concentrer sur l’amélioration de la réglementation au niveau du marché intérieur et sur l’assurance que notre processus législatif à destination des consommateurs de ce marché intérieur soit porteur d’un objectif. Le marché intérieur compte pour près d’un tiers de l’acquis communautaire. Une législation simple, efficace et de qualité concernant le marché intérieur devrait ouvrir des possibilités d’échanges transfrontaliers et donner un plus grand choix aux consommateurs, tout en protégeant les droits environnementaux et sociaux et ceux des consommateurs. Dans le même temps, il est essentiel de rectifier la législation relative au marché intérieur si nous voulons atteindre les objectifs de Lisbonne en matière d’emploi, de croissance et de compétitivité.
Je pense que le marché intérieur bénéficiera considérablement d’une approche commune et coordonnée de la part des trois institutions en faveur de l’amélioration de tout le cycle de réglementation. Cela signifie qu’il nous faut également réfléchir aux conséquences des accords et des compromis de dernière heure que nous concluons et nous demander si ceux-ci rendront la législation plus claire ou plus confuse pour l’utilisateur final. Une telle démarche commence, selon moi, par une rédaction claire et judicieuse des actes législatifs, par des analyses d’impact de qualité et une consultation effective, exhaustive et transparente des différents acteurs. Les États membres doivent également prendre leurs responsabilités avec sérieux et garantir la bonne application de la législation relative au marché intérieur. Ils doivent résister à la tentation fréquente de surenchérir ou d’ajouter une couche de plaqué or sur les dispositions nationales. Si les taux de transposition affichent une meilleure santé, comme l’indiquent les tableaux d’affichage du marché intérieur, de sérieuses améliorations sont encore possibles. C’est pourquoi nous appelons de nos vœux une procédure rapide d’infraction pour les cas pilotes au sein du marché intérieur. Nous devons apprendre des échecs et des erreurs de la législation européenne. C’est la raison pour laquelle nous souhaiterions des analyses d’impact ex ante et, surtout, ex post des points sur lesquels nous nous sommes fourvoyés. Telle législation a-t-elle atteint ses objectifs ou, à l’inverse, a-t-elle entraîné une distorsion et une fragmentation du marché intérieur?
Certains pensent que les analyses d’impact devraient être transférées à un organisme extérieur. Je ne partage pas ce point de vue, car j’estime que la législation relative au marché du travail doit être du ressort des responsables de la Commission, en vertu du principe d’efficacité de la prise de décisions politiques. La commission du marché intérieur insiste cependant pour que toutes les propositions législatives s’accompagnent d’une analyse d’impact de qualité, d’un résumé et d’une liste d’améliorations de la réglementation pour les propositions relatives au marché intérieur.
Naturellement, la réglementation alternative soulève une bonne dose de scepticisme. Si l’accord interinstitutionnel autorise cette option non législative, nous insistons, concernant la législation relative au marché intérieur, pour que le Parlement soit à la fois informé et consulté lors de tout recours à de telles approches alternatives. Celles-ci se justifient par les analyses d’impact. De même, nous avons besoin de recours pour le consommateur et de sanctions lorsque ces règlements alternatifs n’apportent aucun avantage à ce dernier dans le marché intérieur.
Je tiens à souligner le travail de la commission du marché intérieur en tant que partenaire actif du processus d’amélioration de la législation. Les commissaires, je le sais, affirment souvent que le Parlement ne prend pas son rôle au sérieux. Nous avons été la première commission à demander notre propre analyse d’impact sous la présidence de M. Whitehead, concernant les amendements relatifs au rapport Toubon sur les quantités nominales de produits en préemballages. Concernant la proposition sur les équipements pyrotechniques, nous menons une analyse d’impact sur les amendements proposés par notre rapporteur. Nous nous pencherons sur une analyse coûts/bénéfices des amendements qu’il apportera à cette proposition. Nous réalisons un audit relatif à l’impact de la législation sur la passation de marchés publics pour le marché intérieur. Les marchés publics de l’UE représentent 16% du PIB de l’Union. Cependant, le paquet législatif de 1992 n’a pas permis d’atteindre l’ouverture souhaitée du marché, comme en témoignent plusieurs affaires de la Cour de justice européenne.
Soyons clairs: ce sont le consommateur, le citoyen et l’entreprise qui paient les conséquences d’une mauvaise législation. Une mauvaise rédaction entraîne une incertitude juridique, une transposition boiteuse ou confuse et, au final, on retrouve un entrepreneur ou un consommateur perturbé qui perd sa confiance dans le marché intérieur. Après plusieurs années de délibération, la CJE devient l’arbitre d’une meilleure législation. Ce n’est pas la bonne manière de progresser.
Enfin, je tiens à mentionner le cas de SOLVIT, qui constitue selon moi une excellente initiative de la Commission. Un médecin qualifié a tenté pendant plusieurs années de se faire enregistrer comme médecin en Espagne. Il a dépensé des sommes considérables en frais de justice et avait perdu toute confiance dans le marché intérieur. Le système SOLVIT est cependant intervenu et l’a aidé, en dix semaines, à obtenir son enregistrement en Espagne en tant que médecin. Il a alors affirmé: «Grâce à SOLVIT, j’ai retrouvé ma confiance dans le marché intérieur.»
La réalité est donc que les lois de qualité qui sont bien rédigées, faciles à mettre en œuvre, à appliquer et à contrôler sont la clé qui permettra de rétablir la confiance dans le marché intérieur. J’espère que le débat d’aujourd’hui marquera le début d’un long processus d’étroite coopération et d’échanges de meilleures pratiques entre les institutions dans le cadre d’un partenariat d’égal à égal, dans le but d’édifier et de rétablir la confiance que le médecin précité nous demandait de lui ramener, en sa qualité de consommateur du marché intérieur."@fr8
"Mr President, as Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection I very much welcome this joint debate on better regulation and the opportunity to discuss with the Council and the Commission how we can improve the regulatory experience for consumers, citizens and businesses that are at the sharp end of making sense of implementing EU laws. The confidence and trust of citizens, consumers and business in the EU itself is linked to their experience and perception of EU laws and the impact they have on their daily lives.
I want to focus on improving better regulation for the internal market and ensuring that we achieve a sense of purpose in our law-making for consumers in the internal market. The internal market accounts for almost one third of the Community
. Good-quality, effective and simple legislation in the internal market should open up opportunities for cross-border trade and give consumers increased choice, while protecting environmental, social and consumer rights. At the same time, getting legislation right in the internal market is critical to achieving the Lisbon goals of jobs, growth and competitiveness.
I believe that the internal market will benefit most from a joint and coordinated approach by all three institutions to improving the entire regulatory cycle. That means that we also need to think of the consequences of the midnight deals and compromises that we make, and consider whether they are going to confuse or clarify laws for end users. That starts, in my view, with good, clear drafting of laws, high-quality impact assessments and effective, comprehensive and transparent stakeholder consultation. The Member States too must take their responsibilities seriously and ensure good and correct implementation of internal market laws. They must resist the temptation often to gold-plate or add on national requirements. Although transposition rates are improving, as shown in the internal market scoreboards, there is still room for much improvement. That is why we are asking for a fast-track infringement procedure for test cases in the internal market. We need to learn from the failures and mistakes of EU laws. That is why we would like to see both
and, in particular
impact assessments or evaluations of where we went wrong. Has this legislation achieved its objective or, on the contrary, has it led to distortion and fragmentation of the internal market?
Some believe that the impact assessments should be handed over to an external body. I do not share that approach, as I believe that the internal market laws should be the responsibility of Commission officials as part of the discipline of effective policy-making. However, the Internal Market Committee insists that all legislative proposals be accompanied by a quality impact assessment, a summary and a better regulation checklist on internal market proposals.
Of course alternative regulation is a subject of much scepticism. While the interinstitutional agreement provides for this non-legislative option, we insist with respect to internal market laws that Parliament is both informed of and consulted on such alternative approaches. They are justified by impact assessments. Equally, we must have redress for the consumer and sanctions if these alternative regulations fail to deliver benefits for the consumer in the internal market.
I want to stress the work of the Internal Market Committee as an active partner in the better regulation process. I know that Commissioners often say that Parliament does not take its role seriously. We were the first committee to commission our own impact assessment, under Mr Whitehead’s chairmanship, for amendments on the Toubon report on nominal quantities for pre-packed products. On the pyrotechnics proposal we are conducting an impact assessment on amendments proposed by our rapporteur. We will look at a cost/benefit analysis of his amendments to that proposal. We are conducting a hearing on the impact of public procurement laws on the internal market. EU public procurement accounts for 16% of EU GDP, yet the 1992 package of laws, as demonstrated in a number of ECJ cases, has not achieved the desired opening of the market.
Let us be clear. It is the consumer, the citizen and businesses that pay the price when laws are not effective. Bad drafting leads to legal uncertainty, poor or confused transposition and at the end of the line is a confused businessman or consumer who loses confidence in the internal market. The ECJ, after years of deliberation, becomes the arbiter of better legislation. That is not the right way forward.
Finally, I want to quote the cases of SOLVIT, which I believe is an excellent initiative of the Commission. A qualified doctor tried for a number of years to register as a doctor in Spain. He spent a large sum of money on legal fees, had lost confidence in the internal market, yet the SOLVIT system intervened and helped him within ten weeks to get registration in Spain as a doctor. That doctor said: ‘SOLVIT has restored my confidence in the internal market’.
So, the reality is that good laws that are well drafted, easy to implement, easy to enforce and police, are the key to restoring confidence in the internal market. I hope that today’s debate is the beginning of a process of close cooperation, sharing best practice between the institutions in a close partnership of equals, to build and restore that confidence that the doctor I mentioned was asking us to achieve for him as a consumer in the internal market."@hu11
"Signor Presidente, come presidente della commissione per il mercato interno e la protezione dei consumatori accolgo con grande favore la presente discussione congiunta sul miglioramento della regolamentazione e l’opportunità di discutere con il Consiglio e la Commissione come possiamo rafforzare l’esperienza riguardante la regolamentazione per i consumatori, i cittadini e le imprese, che hanno il difficile compito di capire l’attuazione del diritto dell’Unione europea. La fiducia e la speranza che cittadini, consumatori e imprese ripongono nell’Unione stessa sono legate alla loro esperienza e percezione della legislazione comunitaria e all’impatto di quest’ultima sulla loro vita quotidiana.
Voglio concentrarmi sul miglioramento della regolamentazione per il mercato interno e sull’obiettivo di garantire una legislazione incisiva per i consumatori nel mercato interno. Il mercato interno incide per quasi un terzo dell’
comunitario. Una legislazione di qualità, efficace e semplice nel mercato interno dovrebbe creare nuove opportunità per il commercio transfrontaliero e offrire più ampie possibilità di scelta, proteggendo, nel contempo, i diritti dei consumatori, nonché i diritti sociali e ambientali. Allo stesso tempo, rendere migliore la legislazione nel mercato interno è essenziale per conseguire gli obiettivi di Lisbona in termini di occupazione, crescita e competitività.
Credo che il mercato interno beneficerà soprattutto di un approccio comune e coordinato da parte delle tre Istituzioni al miglioramento dell’intero processo legislativo. Questo significa che dobbiamo pensare anche alle conseguenze degli accordi occulti e dei compromessi che concludiamo e verificare se renderanno le leggi più confuse o più chiare per gli utenti finali. Un’impostazione che comincia, a mio parere, con una formulazione chiara e adeguata delle leggi, con valutazioni dell’impatto di alta qualità e con la consultazione efficace, completa e trasparente delle parti interessate. Anche gli Stati membri devono prendere seriamente le loro responsabilità e garantire una buona e corretta attuazione delle leggi in materia di mercato interno. Devono resistere alla tentazione di ampliare o abbellire la legislazione UE con ulteriori requisiti nazionali. Anche se i tassi di recepimento stanno migliorando, come dimostrano i dati riferiti al mercato interno, vi è ancora spazio per molti passi avanti. Per questo motivo chiediamo una procedura di infrazione rapida per i metodi di prova del mercato interno. Dobbiamo imparare dai fallimenti e dagli errori della legislazione comunitaria. Perciò chiediamo valutazioni dell’impatto sia
sia, in particolare
vale a dire una valutazione dei nostri errori. Questa legislazione ha conseguito il suo obiettivo o al contrario ha condotto alla distorsione e alla frammentazione del mercato interno?
Alcuni ritengono che le valutazioni d’impatto dovrebbero essere affidate a un organismo esterno. Io non condivido tale approccio, poiché credo che le leggi del mercato interno dovrebbero essere responsabilità dei funzionari della Commissione nell’ambito della disciplina di un’efficace formulazione delle politiche. Comunque, la commissione per il mercato interno insiste che tutte le proposte legislative siano accompagnate da una valutazione d’impatto di qualità, da una sintesi e da una lista di controllo in termini di migliore regolamentazione sulle proposte relative al mercato interno.
Naturalmente la regolamentazione alternativa è oggetto di molto scetticismo. Sebbene l’accordo interistituzionale preveda questa opzione non legislativa, noi insistiamo riguardo alle leggi sul mercato interno affinché il Parlamento sia informato e consultato su tali approcci alternativi, giustificati da valutazioni di impatto. Ugualmente, dobbiamo avere una compensazione per il consumatore e sanzioni nel caso in cui questi regolamenti alternativi non apportino benefici per il consumatore nel mercato interno.
Voglio sottolineare il lavoro della commissione per il mercato interno come parte attiva nel processo di miglioramento della regolamentazione. So che spesso i Commissari dicono che il Parlamento non prende sul serio il suo ruolo. La nostra è stata la prima commissione parlamentare a richiedere una propria valutazione d’impatto, sotto la presidenza dell’onorevole Whitehead, per gli emendamenti alla relazione Toubon sulle quantità nominali per i prodotti preconfezionati. Sulla proposta relativa alla pirotecnica stiamo conducendo una valutazione d’impatto sugli emendamenti proposti dal nostro relatore. Esamineremo un’analisi dei costi e dei benefici dei suoi emendamenti a tale proposta. Stiamo conducendo un’audizione sull’impatto delle leggi in materia di appalti pubblici sul mercato interno. I pubblici appalti incidono nell’Unione europea per il 16 per cento del PIL, eppure il pacchetto di leggi del 1992, come dimostrato in una serie di cause della Corte di giustizia, non ha realizzato l’apertura del mercato desiderata.
Siamo chiari. Sono i consumatori, i cittadini e le imprese a farne le spese quando le leggi non sono efficaci. Una formulazione inadeguata conduce all’incertezza giuridica, a un recepimento lacunoso o incoerente e la conseguenza di tutto questo è che un uomo d’affari o un consumatore confuso perdono fiducia nel mercato interno. La Corte di giustizia, dopo anni di riflessione, diventa l’arbitro della migliore legislazione. Questo non è il modo corretto di procedere.
Voglio infine citare i casi di SOLVIT, che considero un’iniziativa eccellente della Commissione. Un medico qualificato aveva tentato per anni di registrarsi come medico in Spagna e aveva sostenuto ingenti spese legali, perdendo la fiducia nel mercato interno. Tuttavia, è intervenuto il sistema SOLVIT, che lo aiutò in dieci settimane a ottenere la registrazione come medico in Spagna. Il professionista ha dichiarato: “SOLVIT ha riconquistato la mia fiducia nel mercato interno”.
Quindi, la realtà è che la chiave per ripristinare la fiducia nel mercato interno è costituita da leggi valide, ben formulate, facili da attuare, facili da applicare e da controllare. Spero che la discussione odierna sia l’inizio di un processo di stretta cooperazione, con la condivisione delle migliori prassi tra le Istituzioni, in una collaborazione tra pari, per costruire e ripristinare la fiducia che quel medico ci chiedeva di realizzare per lui come consumatore nel mercato interno."@it12
"Mr President, as Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection I very much welcome this joint debate on better regulation and the opportunity to discuss with the Council and the Commission how we can improve the regulatory experience for consumers, citizens and businesses that are at the sharp end of making sense of implementing EU laws. The confidence and trust of citizens, consumers and business in the EU itself is linked to their experience and perception of EU laws and the impact they have on their daily lives.
I want to focus on improving better regulation for the internal market and ensuring that we achieve a sense of purpose in our law-making for consumers in the internal market. The internal market accounts for almost one third of the Community
. Good-quality, effective and simple legislation in the internal market should open up opportunities for cross-border trade and give consumers increased choice, while protecting environmental, social and consumer rights. At the same time, getting legislation right in the internal market is critical to achieving the Lisbon goals of jobs, growth and competitiveness.
I believe that the internal market will benefit most from a joint and coordinated approach by all three institutions to improving the entire regulatory cycle. That means that we also need to think of the consequences of the midnight deals and compromises that we make, and consider whether they are going to confuse or clarify laws for end users. That starts, in my view, with good, clear drafting of laws, high-quality impact assessments and effective, comprehensive and transparent stakeholder consultation. The Member States too must take their responsibilities seriously and ensure good and correct implementation of internal market laws. They must resist the temptation often to gold-plate or add on national requirements. Although transposition rates are improving, as shown in the internal market scoreboards, there is still room for much improvement. That is why we are asking for a fast-track infringement procedure for test cases in the internal market. We need to learn from the failures and mistakes of EU laws. That is why we would like to see both
and, in particular
impact assessments or evaluations of where we went wrong. Has this legislation achieved its objective or, on the contrary, has it led to distortion and fragmentation of the internal market?
Some believe that the impact assessments should be handed over to an external body. I do not share that approach, as I believe that the internal market laws should be the responsibility of Commission officials as part of the discipline of effective policy-making. However, the Internal Market Committee insists that all legislative proposals be accompanied by a quality impact assessment, a summary and a better regulation checklist on internal market proposals.
Of course alternative regulation is a subject of much scepticism. While the interinstitutional agreement provides for this non-legislative option, we insist with respect to internal market laws that Parliament is both informed of and consulted on such alternative approaches. They are justified by impact assessments. Equally, we must have redress for the consumer and sanctions if these alternative regulations fail to deliver benefits for the consumer in the internal market.
I want to stress the work of the Internal Market Committee as an active partner in the better regulation process. I know that Commissioners often say that Parliament does not take its role seriously. We were the first committee to commission our own impact assessment, under Mr Whitehead’s chairmanship, for amendments on the Toubon report on nominal quantities for pre-packed products. On the pyrotechnics proposal we are conducting an impact assessment on amendments proposed by our rapporteur. We will look at a cost/benefit analysis of his amendments to that proposal. We are conducting a hearing on the impact of public procurement laws on the internal market. EU public procurement accounts for 16% of EU GDP, yet the 1992 package of laws, as demonstrated in a number of ECJ cases, has not achieved the desired opening of the market.
Let us be clear. It is the consumer, the citizen and businesses that pay the price when laws are not effective. Bad drafting leads to legal uncertainty, poor or confused transposition and at the end of the line is a confused businessman or consumer who loses confidence in the internal market. The ECJ, after years of deliberation, becomes the arbiter of better legislation. That is not the right way forward.
Finally, I want to quote the cases of SOLVIT, which I believe is an excellent initiative of the Commission. A qualified doctor tried for a number of years to register as a doctor in Spain. He spent a large sum of money on legal fees, had lost confidence in the internal market, yet the SOLVIT system intervened and helped him within ten weeks to get registration in Spain as a doctor. That doctor said: ‘SOLVIT has restored my confidence in the internal market’.
So, the reality is that good laws that are well drafted, easy to implement, easy to enforce and police, are the key to restoring confidence in the internal market. I hope that today’s debate is the beginning of a process of close cooperation, sharing best practice between the institutions in a close partnership of equals, to build and restore that confidence that the doctor I mentioned was asking us to achieve for him as a consumer in the internal market."@lt14
"Mr President, as Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection I very much welcome this joint debate on better regulation and the opportunity to discuss with the Council and the Commission how we can improve the regulatory experience for consumers, citizens and businesses that are at the sharp end of making sense of implementing EU laws. The confidence and trust of citizens, consumers and business in the EU itself is linked to their experience and perception of EU laws and the impact they have on their daily lives.
I want to focus on improving better regulation for the internal market and ensuring that we achieve a sense of purpose in our law-making for consumers in the internal market. The internal market accounts for almost one third of the Community
. Good-quality, effective and simple legislation in the internal market should open up opportunities for cross-border trade and give consumers increased choice, while protecting environmental, social and consumer rights. At the same time, getting legislation right in the internal market is critical to achieving the Lisbon goals of jobs, growth and competitiveness.
I believe that the internal market will benefit most from a joint and coordinated approach by all three institutions to improving the entire regulatory cycle. That means that we also need to think of the consequences of the midnight deals and compromises that we make, and consider whether they are going to confuse or clarify laws for end users. That starts, in my view, with good, clear drafting of laws, high-quality impact assessments and effective, comprehensive and transparent stakeholder consultation. The Member States too must take their responsibilities seriously and ensure good and correct implementation of internal market laws. They must resist the temptation often to gold-plate or add on national requirements. Although transposition rates are improving, as shown in the internal market scoreboards, there is still room for much improvement. That is why we are asking for a fast-track infringement procedure for test cases in the internal market. We need to learn from the failures and mistakes of EU laws. That is why we would like to see both
and, in particular
impact assessments or evaluations of where we went wrong. Has this legislation achieved its objective or, on the contrary, has it led to distortion and fragmentation of the internal market?
Some believe that the impact assessments should be handed over to an external body. I do not share that approach, as I believe that the internal market laws should be the responsibility of Commission officials as part of the discipline of effective policy-making. However, the Internal Market Committee insists that all legislative proposals be accompanied by a quality impact assessment, a summary and a better regulation checklist on internal market proposals.
Of course alternative regulation is a subject of much scepticism. While the interinstitutional agreement provides for this non-legislative option, we insist with respect to internal market laws that Parliament is both informed of and consulted on such alternative approaches. They are justified by impact assessments. Equally, we must have redress for the consumer and sanctions if these alternative regulations fail to deliver benefits for the consumer in the internal market.
I want to stress the work of the Internal Market Committee as an active partner in the better regulation process. I know that Commissioners often say that Parliament does not take its role seriously. We were the first committee to commission our own impact assessment, under Mr Whitehead’s chairmanship, for amendments on the Toubon report on nominal quantities for pre-packed products. On the pyrotechnics proposal we are conducting an impact assessment on amendments proposed by our rapporteur. We will look at a cost/benefit analysis of his amendments to that proposal. We are conducting a hearing on the impact of public procurement laws on the internal market. EU public procurement accounts for 16% of EU GDP, yet the 1992 package of laws, as demonstrated in a number of ECJ cases, has not achieved the desired opening of the market.
Let us be clear. It is the consumer, the citizen and businesses that pay the price when laws are not effective. Bad drafting leads to legal uncertainty, poor or confused transposition and at the end of the line is a confused businessman or consumer who loses confidence in the internal market. The ECJ, after years of deliberation, becomes the arbiter of better legislation. That is not the right way forward.
Finally, I want to quote the cases of SOLVIT, which I believe is an excellent initiative of the Commission. A qualified doctor tried for a number of years to register as a doctor in Spain. He spent a large sum of money on legal fees, had lost confidence in the internal market, yet the SOLVIT system intervened and helped him within ten weeks to get registration in Spain as a doctor. That doctor said: ‘SOLVIT has restored my confidence in the internal market’.
So, the reality is that good laws that are well drafted, easy to implement, easy to enforce and police, are the key to restoring confidence in the internal market. I hope that today’s debate is the beginning of a process of close cooperation, sharing best practice between the institutions in a close partnership of equals, to build and restore that confidence that the doctor I mentioned was asking us to achieve for him as a consumer in the internal market."@lv13
"Mr President, as Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection I very much welcome this joint debate on better regulation and the opportunity to discuss with the Council and the Commission how we can improve the regulatory experience for consumers, citizens and businesses that are at the sharp end of making sense of implementing EU laws. The confidence and trust of citizens, consumers and business in the EU itself is linked to their experience and perception of EU laws and the impact they have on their daily lives.
I want to focus on improving better regulation for the internal market and ensuring that we achieve a sense of purpose in our law-making for consumers in the internal market. The internal market accounts for almost one third of the Community
. Good-quality, effective and simple legislation in the internal market should open up opportunities for cross-border trade and give consumers increased choice, while protecting environmental, social and consumer rights. At the same time, getting legislation right in the internal market is critical to achieving the Lisbon goals of jobs, growth and competitiveness.
I believe that the internal market will benefit most from a joint and coordinated approach by all three institutions to improving the entire regulatory cycle. That means that we also need to think of the consequences of the midnight deals and compromises that we make, and consider whether they are going to confuse or clarify laws for end users. That starts, in my view, with good, clear drafting of laws, high-quality impact assessments and effective, comprehensive and transparent stakeholder consultation. The Member States too must take their responsibilities seriously and ensure good and correct implementation of internal market laws. They must resist the temptation often to gold-plate or add on national requirements. Although transposition rates are improving, as shown in the internal market scoreboards, there is still room for much improvement. That is why we are asking for a fast-track infringement procedure for test cases in the internal market. We need to learn from the failures and mistakes of EU laws. That is why we would like to see both
and, in particular
impact assessments or evaluations of where we went wrong. Has this legislation achieved its objective or, on the contrary, has it led to distortion and fragmentation of the internal market?
Some believe that the impact assessments should be handed over to an external body. I do not share that approach, as I believe that the internal market laws should be the responsibility of Commission officials as part of the discipline of effective policy-making. However, the Internal Market Committee insists that all legislative proposals be accompanied by a quality impact assessment, a summary and a better regulation checklist on internal market proposals.
Of course alternative regulation is a subject of much scepticism. While the interinstitutional agreement provides for this non-legislative option, we insist with respect to internal market laws that Parliament is both informed of and consulted on such alternative approaches. They are justified by impact assessments. Equally, we must have redress for the consumer and sanctions if these alternative regulations fail to deliver benefits for the consumer in the internal market.
I want to stress the work of the Internal Market Committee as an active partner in the better regulation process. I know that Commissioners often say that Parliament does not take its role seriously. We were the first committee to commission our own impact assessment, under Mr Whitehead’s chairmanship, for amendments on the Toubon report on nominal quantities for pre-packed products. On the pyrotechnics proposal we are conducting an impact assessment on amendments proposed by our rapporteur. We will look at a cost/benefit analysis of his amendments to that proposal. We are conducting a hearing on the impact of public procurement laws on the internal market. EU public procurement accounts for 16% of EU GDP, yet the 1992 package of laws, as demonstrated in a number of ECJ cases, has not achieved the desired opening of the market.
Let us be clear. It is the consumer, the citizen and businesses that pay the price when laws are not effective. Bad drafting leads to legal uncertainty, poor or confused transposition and at the end of the line is a confused businessman or consumer who loses confidence in the internal market. The ECJ, after years of deliberation, becomes the arbiter of better legislation. That is not the right way forward.
Finally, I want to quote the cases of SOLVIT, which I believe is an excellent initiative of the Commission. A qualified doctor tried for a number of years to register as a doctor in Spain. He spent a large sum of money on legal fees, had lost confidence in the internal market, yet the SOLVIT system intervened and helped him within ten weeks to get registration in Spain as a doctor. That doctor said: ‘SOLVIT has restored my confidence in the internal market’.
So, the reality is that good laws that are well drafted, easy to implement, easy to enforce and police, are the key to restoring confidence in the internal market. I hope that today’s debate is the beginning of a process of close cooperation, sharing best practice between the institutions in a close partnership of equals, to build and restore that confidence that the doctor I mentioned was asking us to achieve for him as a consumer in the internal market."@mt15
".
Mijnheer de Voorzitter, als voorzitter van de Commissie interne markt en consumentenbescherming ben ik zeer blij met dit gemeenschappelijke debat over betere wetgeving en de kans om met de Raad en de Commissie te bespreken hoe we het raakvlak tussen de regelgeving enerzijds en de consumenten, burgers en bedrijven die het meest met de tenuitvoerlegging van EU-wetten te maken hebben anderzijds, kunnen verbeteren. Het geloof en het vertrouwen van burgers, consumenten en bedrijven in de EU is afhankelijk van hun ervaring met en perceptie van EU-wetten en het effect daarvan op hun dagelijks leven.
Ik wil me richten op betere wetgeving voor de interne markt en ervoor zorgen dat consumenten in de interne markt het nut van onze wetgeving inzien. De interne markt is verantwoordelijk voor bijna eenderde van het communautaire acquis. Een kwalitatieve, doeltreffende en eenvoudige regelgeving in de interne markt moet de grensoverschrijdende handel meer kansen en de consumenten meer keuze bieden, terwijl het milieu en de sociale en consumentenrechten worden beschermd. Tevens speelt betere wetgeving in de interne markt een belangrijke rol bij het bereiken van de doelstellingen van Lissabon inzake banen, groei en concurrentievermogen.
Ik ben van mening dat de interne markt zal profiteren van een gezamenlijke en gecoördineerde benadering van alle drie de instellingen om de hele wetgevingscyclus te verbeteren. Dat betekent dat we ook moeten stilstaan bij de gevolgen van de achterkamertjespolitiek en de compromissen die we sluiten en ons moeten afvragen of de wetten voor eindgebruikers hierdoor duidelijker worden of juist niet. Dat begint volgens mij met een goede, duidelijke formulering van de wetten, kwalitatieve effectbeoordelingen en doeltreffende, uitgebreide en doorzichtige raadpleging van de betrokkenen. De lidstaten moeten ook hun verantwoordelijkheden serieus nemen en zorgen voor goede en correcte tenuitvoerlegging van interne-marktwetten. Ze moeten weerstand bieden aan de verleiding om de zaak te verzachten of allerlei bijkomende nationale eisen te stellen. Hoewel het omzettingstempo al wordt opgevoerd, zoals blijkt uit de scorebordverslagen betreffende de interne markt, is er nog steeds veel ruimte voor verbetering. Daarom vragen we om een snelle inbreukprocedure voor proefprocessen voor de interne markt. We moeten leren van de mislukkingen en fouten van EU-wetten. Daarom willen we dat er ex ante en met name ook ex post effectbeoordelingen of evaluaties worden uitgevoerd van wat er fout is gegaan. Heeft deze wetgeving haar doel bereikt of juist niet en heeft ze tot vervorming en fragmentatie van de interne markt geleid?
Sommigen zijn van mening dat we de effectbeoordelingen aan een externe instantie zouden moeten overlaten. Ik deel die mening niet. Ik vind dat de wetten van de interne markt in het kader van een doeltreffende beleidsvorming onder de verantwoordelijkheid van de ambtenaren van de Commissie dienen te vallen. De Commissie interne markt staat er echter op dat alle wetgevingsvoorstellen gepaard gaan met een kwaliteitsbeoordeling, een samenvatting en een controlelijst in het kader van de verbetering van de wetgeving.
Natuurlijk bestaat er veel scepsis over alternatieve regelgeving. Het Interinstitutioneel Akkoord voorziet in deze niet-wetgevende optie, maar als het interne-marktwetten betreft, dringen wij erop aan dat het Parlement over dergelijke alternatieve benaderingen wordt geïnformeerd en geraadpleegd. Effectbeoordelingen rechtvaardigen dat. Zo moeten consumenten altijd hun toevlucht tot het gerecht kunnen nemen en moeten er sancties worden gesteld als deze alternatieve regelgeving de consument geen voordelen biedt in de interne markt.
Ik wijs nadrukkelijk op het werk van de Commissie interne markt als actieve partner in het proces ter verbetering van de wetgeving. Ik weet dat commissarissen vaak zeggen dat het Parlement zijn rol niet serieus neemt. Wij waren de eerste commissie die zelf opdracht gaf voor een effectbeoordeling. Dat was tijdens het voorzitterschap van de heer Whitehead en had betrekking op amendementen op het verslag-Toubon over nominale hoeveelheden voor voorverpakte producten. We voeren een effectbeoordeling uit over de door onze rapporteur voorgestelde amendementen in verband met het voorstel betreffende pyrotechnische artikelen. We zullen de kosten/baten-analyse van zijn amendementen op dat voorstel bekijken. We houden een hoorzitting over het effect van de regeling betreffende openbare aanbestedingen op de interne markt. Openbare aanbestedingen zijn verantwoordelijk voor 16 procent van het BBP van de EU, maar het pakket met wetten van 1992 heeft niet geleid tot de gewenste opening van de markt, zoals uit een aantal zaken van het Europese Hof van Justitie is gebleken.
Laten we er niet omheen draaien. Het zijn de consument, de burger en de bedrijven die de prijs betalen als wetten niet doeltreffend zijn. Een slechte formulering leidt tot juridische onzekerheid, slechte of verwarde transpositie en aan het eind van het verhaal kom je de verwarde ondernemer of consument tegen die het vertrouwen in de interne markt verliest. Na jaren touwtrekken werpt het Europese Hof van Justitie zich op als de scheidsrechter voor betere wetgeving. Dat is niet de juiste weg.
Tot slot verwijs ik naar SOLVIT, dat mijns inziens een uitstekend initiatief is van de Commissie. Een bevoegd arts probeerde een aantal jaren achtereen om zich in Spanje als arts te laten registreren. Dat koste hem een grote som geld aan juridische kosten en hij raakte het vertrouwen in de interne markt kwijt. Maar toen het SOLVIT-systeem bemiddelde, stond hij binnen tien weken in Spanje als arts geregistreerd. De arts zei dat SOLVIT zijn vertrouwen in de interne markt had hersteld.
De realiteit is dus dat goede wetten die goed geformuleerd zijn en eenvoudig ten uitvoer te leggen, na te leven en te controleren zijn, de sleutel zijn tot het herstel van het vertrouwen in de interne markt. Ik hoop dat het debat van vandaag het begin is van een proces van nauwe samenwerking en het delen van beste praktijken tussen de instellingen in een hecht partnerschap van gelijken waarmee we het vertrouwen waar de genoemde arts als consument in de interne markt om vroeg, kunnen opbouwen en herstellen."@nl3
"Mr President, as Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection I very much welcome this joint debate on better regulation and the opportunity to discuss with the Council and the Commission how we can improve the regulatory experience for consumers, citizens and businesses that are at the sharp end of making sense of implementing EU laws. The confidence and trust of citizens, consumers and business in the EU itself is linked to their experience and perception of EU laws and the impact they have on their daily lives.
I want to focus on improving better regulation for the internal market and ensuring that we achieve a sense of purpose in our law-making for consumers in the internal market. The internal market accounts for almost one third of the Community
. Good-quality, effective and simple legislation in the internal market should open up opportunities for cross-border trade and give consumers increased choice, while protecting environmental, social and consumer rights. At the same time, getting legislation right in the internal market is critical to achieving the Lisbon goals of jobs, growth and competitiveness.
I believe that the internal market will benefit most from a joint and coordinated approach by all three institutions to improving the entire regulatory cycle. That means that we also need to think of the consequences of the midnight deals and compromises that we make, and consider whether they are going to confuse or clarify laws for end users. That starts, in my view, with good, clear drafting of laws, high-quality impact assessments and effective, comprehensive and transparent stakeholder consultation. The Member States too must take their responsibilities seriously and ensure good and correct implementation of internal market laws. They must resist the temptation often to gold-plate or add on national requirements. Although transposition rates are improving, as shown in the internal market scoreboards, there is still room for much improvement. That is why we are asking for a fast-track infringement procedure for test cases in the internal market. We need to learn from the failures and mistakes of EU laws. That is why we would like to see both
and, in particular
impact assessments or evaluations of where we went wrong. Has this legislation achieved its objective or, on the contrary, has it led to distortion and fragmentation of the internal market?
Some believe that the impact assessments should be handed over to an external body. I do not share that approach, as I believe that the internal market laws should be the responsibility of Commission officials as part of the discipline of effective policy-making. However, the Internal Market Committee insists that all legislative proposals be accompanied by a quality impact assessment, a summary and a better regulation checklist on internal market proposals.
Of course alternative regulation is a subject of much scepticism. While the interinstitutional agreement provides for this non-legislative option, we insist with respect to internal market laws that Parliament is both informed of and consulted on such alternative approaches. They are justified by impact assessments. Equally, we must have redress for the consumer and sanctions if these alternative regulations fail to deliver benefits for the consumer in the internal market.
I want to stress the work of the Internal Market Committee as an active partner in the better regulation process. I know that Commissioners often say that Parliament does not take its role seriously. We were the first committee to commission our own impact assessment, under Mr Whitehead’s chairmanship, for amendments on the Toubon report on nominal quantities for pre-packed products. On the pyrotechnics proposal we are conducting an impact assessment on amendments proposed by our rapporteur. We will look at a cost/benefit analysis of his amendments to that proposal. We are conducting a hearing on the impact of public procurement laws on the internal market. EU public procurement accounts for 16% of EU GDP, yet the 1992 package of laws, as demonstrated in a number of ECJ cases, has not achieved the desired opening of the market.
Let us be clear. It is the consumer, the citizen and businesses that pay the price when laws are not effective. Bad drafting leads to legal uncertainty, poor or confused transposition and at the end of the line is a confused businessman or consumer who loses confidence in the internal market. The ECJ, after years of deliberation, becomes the arbiter of better legislation. That is not the right way forward.
Finally, I want to quote the cases of SOLVIT, which I believe is an excellent initiative of the Commission. A qualified doctor tried for a number of years to register as a doctor in Spain. He spent a large sum of money on legal fees, had lost confidence in the internal market, yet the SOLVIT system intervened and helped him within ten weeks to get registration in Spain as a doctor. That doctor said: ‘SOLVIT has restored my confidence in the internal market’.
So, the reality is that good laws that are well drafted, easy to implement, easy to enforce and police, are the key to restoring confidence in the internal market. I hope that today’s debate is the beginning of a process of close cooperation, sharing best practice between the institutions in a close partnership of equals, to build and restore that confidence that the doctor I mentioned was asking us to achieve for him as a consumer in the internal market."@pl16
"Senhor Presidente, como Presidente da Comissão do Mercado Interno e da Protecção dos Consumidores acolho com grande satisfação a discussão conjunta sobre uma melhor regulamentação e a oportunidade de discutir com o Conselho e a Comissão processos susceptíveis de melhorar a experiência regulamentar para os consumidores, cidadãos e empresas que são quem mais tem dificuldade em compreender a aplicação da legislação europeia. A confiança dos cidadãos, dos consumidores e das empresas na UE está associada à experiência ou percepção que têm da legislação europeia e ao respectivo impacto nas suas vidas quotidianas.
Gostaria de me centrar na melhoria da regulamentação para o mercado interno e na garantia de que os consumidores no mercado interno encontram um sentido para a nossa produção legislativa. O mercado interno equivale quase a um terço do Acervo Comunitário. Uma legislação de qualidade, eficaz e simples no mercado interno deverá abrir oportunidades ao comércio transfronteiriço e multiplicar as opções que se oferecem aos consumidores, ao mesmo tempo que protege os direitos ambientais, sociais e dos consumidores. Paralelamente, ter uma legislação adequada no mercado interno é fundamental para a consecução dos objectivos de Lisboa no que refere ao emprego, crescimento e competitividade.
Creio que o mercado interno beneficiará enormemente com uma abordagem conjunta e coordenada das três Instituições com vista a melhorar todo o ciclo regulamentar. Quer isso dizer que todos nós precisamos de pensar nas consequências das negociações e compromissos que fazemos a horas tardias, e ponderar se vão confundir ou clarificar a legislação para os utilizadores. Isso começa, na minha opinião, com uma boa e clara elaboração da legislação, avaliações de impacto de alta qualidade e uma consulta mais transparente e eficaz das partes interessadas. Os Estados-Membros também têm de assumir as suas responsabilidades e assegurar a boa e correcta implementação das leis relativas ao mercado interno. Têm de resistir à tentação frequente de imporem requisitos adicionais a nível nacional aquando da transposição da legislação comunitária
. Muito embora os índices de transposição estejam a melhorar, como se pode ver nos relatórios de avaliação sobre o mercado interno, há ainda muito a fazer. Razão por que solicitamos um processo por infracção acelerado para os casos-teste relativos ao mercado interno. Precisamos de aprender com os erros e os fracassos da legislação da UE. Por isso mesmo, gostaríamos de dispor, tanto
como, em especial
de avaliações ou análises de impacto dos nossos erros. Esta legislação alcançou ou não os seus objectivos ou, pelo contrário, conduziu a distorções e à fragmentação do mercado interno?
Alguns consideram que as avaliações de impacto deveriam ser entregues a um órgão externo. Não partilho dessa opinião, porque entendo que as leis sobre o mercado interno devem ser da responsabilidade dos funcionários da Comissão no quadro de uma prática política efectiva. Contudo, insisto que todas as propostas da Comissão sejam acompanhadas de uma avaliação de impacto de qualidade e de uma lista de controlo "Legislar melhor", que deve sintetizar os passos que as propostas sobre o mercado interno devem seguir.
Obviamente que a regulamentação alternativa é uma matéria que gera grande cepticismo. Embora o acordo interinstitucional preveja esta opção não legislativa, insistimos, com respeito à legislação sobre o mercado interno, que o Parlamento seja informado e consultado sobre essas abordagens alternativas. A sua legitimidade baseia-se nas avaliações de impacto. Da mesma maneira, temos de prever o ressarcimento dos consumidores e sanções no caso de estas regulamentações alternativas não forem vantajosas para o consumidor no mercado interno.
Gostaria de sublinhar o trabalho da Comissão do Mercado Interno como um parceiro activo no processo “Regulamentar Melhor”. Sei que os Comissários dizem várias vezes que o Parlamento não leva a sério o seu papel. Nós fomos a primeira comissão parlamentar a encomendar a nossa própria avaliação de impacto, sob a Presidência do senhor deputado Whitehead, para as alterações ao relatório Toubon sobre as quantidades nominais dos produtos pré-embalados. Quanto à proposta sobre os artigos de pirotecnia, estamos a levar a cabo uma avaliação de impacto relativa às propostas do nosso relator. Faremos uma análise do custo-benefício das suas alterações a essa proposta. Estamos a conduzir uma audição sobre o impacto da legislação relativa aos contratos de direito público no mercado interno. Os contratos de direito público são responsáveis por 16% do PIB da UE, no entanto, o pacote legislativo de 1992, como ficou demonstrado pelo número de casos apresentados ao TJE, não conseguiu a abertura desejável de mercado.
Sejamos claros, são os consumidores, os cidadãos e as empresas que pagam o preço de uma legislação ineficaz. Leis mal elaboradas conduzem à incerteza jurídica, a uma transposição pobre ou confusa e, no final, temos um empresário ou um consumidor confuso que perde a confiança no mercado interno. O TJE, após anos de deliberação, torna-se no árbitro de uma melhor legislação. Não é esse o caminho certo a seguir.
Por último, gostaria de citar os casos SOLVIT, que considero tratar-se de uma excelente iniciativa da Comissão. Um médico qualificado tentou durante vários anos registar-se como médico em Espanha. Despendeu largas somas de dinheiro em taxas legais, perdeu a confiança no mercado interno, mas o certo é que o sistema SOLVIT interveio e o ajudou, conseguindo em dez semanas obter o seu registo como médico em Espanha. O médico afirmou: “o Sistema SOLVIT devolveu-me a minha confiança no mercado interno”.
Portanto, a realidade é que uma boa legislação, que seja bem elaborada, fácil de implementar, fácil de fazer cumprir e controlar, é a chave para restaurar a confiança no mercado interno. Espero que o debate de hoje seja o início de um processo de estreita cooperação, de partilha de melhores práticas entre Instituições numa estreita parceria entre iguais, a fim de construir e restaurar essa confiança que o médico que referi nos pedia, como consumidor no mercado interno."@pt17
"Mr President, as Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection I very much welcome this joint debate on better regulation and the opportunity to discuss with the Council and the Commission how we can improve the regulatory experience for consumers, citizens and businesses that are at the sharp end of making sense of implementing EU laws. The confidence and trust of citizens, consumers and business in the EU itself is linked to their experience and perception of EU laws and the impact they have on their daily lives.
I want to focus on improving better regulation for the internal market and ensuring that we achieve a sense of purpose in our law-making for consumers in the internal market. The internal market accounts for almost one third of the Community
. Good-quality, effective and simple legislation in the internal market should open up opportunities for cross-border trade and give consumers increased choice, while protecting environmental, social and consumer rights. At the same time, getting legislation right in the internal market is critical to achieving the Lisbon goals of jobs, growth and competitiveness.
I believe that the internal market will benefit most from a joint and coordinated approach by all three institutions to improving the entire regulatory cycle. That means that we also need to think of the consequences of the midnight deals and compromises that we make, and consider whether they are going to confuse or clarify laws for end users. That starts, in my view, with good, clear drafting of laws, high-quality impact assessments and effective, comprehensive and transparent stakeholder consultation. The Member States too must take their responsibilities seriously and ensure good and correct implementation of internal market laws. They must resist the temptation often to gold-plate or add on national requirements. Although transposition rates are improving, as shown in the internal market scoreboards, there is still room for much improvement. That is why we are asking for a fast-track infringement procedure for test cases in the internal market. We need to learn from the failures and mistakes of EU laws. That is why we would like to see both
and, in particular
impact assessments or evaluations of where we went wrong. Has this legislation achieved its objective or, on the contrary, has it led to distortion and fragmentation of the internal market?
Some believe that the impact assessments should be handed over to an external body. I do not share that approach, as I believe that the internal market laws should be the responsibility of Commission officials as part of the discipline of effective policy-making. However, the Internal Market Committee insists that all legislative proposals be accompanied by a quality impact assessment, a summary and a better regulation checklist on internal market proposals.
Of course alternative regulation is a subject of much scepticism. While the interinstitutional agreement provides for this non-legislative option, we insist with respect to internal market laws that Parliament is both informed of and consulted on such alternative approaches. They are justified by impact assessments. Equally, we must have redress for the consumer and sanctions if these alternative regulations fail to deliver benefits for the consumer in the internal market.
I want to stress the work of the Internal Market Committee as an active partner in the better regulation process. I know that Commissioners often say that Parliament does not take its role seriously. We were the first committee to commission our own impact assessment, under Mr Whitehead’s chairmanship, for amendments on the Toubon report on nominal quantities for pre-packed products. On the pyrotechnics proposal we are conducting an impact assessment on amendments proposed by our rapporteur. We will look at a cost/benefit analysis of his amendments to that proposal. We are conducting a hearing on the impact of public procurement laws on the internal market. EU public procurement accounts for 16% of EU GDP, yet the 1992 package of laws, as demonstrated in a number of ECJ cases, has not achieved the desired opening of the market.
Let us be clear. It is the consumer, the citizen and businesses that pay the price when laws are not effective. Bad drafting leads to legal uncertainty, poor or confused transposition and at the end of the line is a confused businessman or consumer who loses confidence in the internal market. The ECJ, after years of deliberation, becomes the arbiter of better legislation. That is not the right way forward.
Finally, I want to quote the cases of SOLVIT, which I believe is an excellent initiative of the Commission. A qualified doctor tried for a number of years to register as a doctor in Spain. He spent a large sum of money on legal fees, had lost confidence in the internal market, yet the SOLVIT system intervened and helped him within ten weeks to get registration in Spain as a doctor. That doctor said: ‘SOLVIT has restored my confidence in the internal market’.
So, the reality is that good laws that are well drafted, easy to implement, easy to enforce and police, are the key to restoring confidence in the internal market. I hope that today’s debate is the beginning of a process of close cooperation, sharing best practice between the institutions in a close partnership of equals, to build and restore that confidence that the doctor I mentioned was asking us to achieve for him as a consumer in the internal market."@sk18
"Mr President, as Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection I very much welcome this joint debate on better regulation and the opportunity to discuss with the Council and the Commission how we can improve the regulatory experience for consumers, citizens and businesses that are at the sharp end of making sense of implementing EU laws. The confidence and trust of citizens, consumers and business in the EU itself is linked to their experience and perception of EU laws and the impact they have on their daily lives.
I want to focus on improving better regulation for the internal market and ensuring that we achieve a sense of purpose in our law-making for consumers in the internal market. The internal market accounts for almost one third of the Community
. Good-quality, effective and simple legislation in the internal market should open up opportunities for cross-border trade and give consumers increased choice, while protecting environmental, social and consumer rights. At the same time, getting legislation right in the internal market is critical to achieving the Lisbon goals of jobs, growth and competitiveness.
I believe that the internal market will benefit most from a joint and coordinated approach by all three institutions to improving the entire regulatory cycle. That means that we also need to think of the consequences of the midnight deals and compromises that we make, and consider whether they are going to confuse or clarify laws for end users. That starts, in my view, with good, clear drafting of laws, high-quality impact assessments and effective, comprehensive and transparent stakeholder consultation. The Member States too must take their responsibilities seriously and ensure good and correct implementation of internal market laws. They must resist the temptation often to gold-plate or add on national requirements. Although transposition rates are improving, as shown in the internal market scoreboards, there is still room for much improvement. That is why we are asking for a fast-track infringement procedure for test cases in the internal market. We need to learn from the failures and mistakes of EU laws. That is why we would like to see both
and, in particular
impact assessments or evaluations of where we went wrong. Has this legislation achieved its objective or, on the contrary, has it led to distortion and fragmentation of the internal market?
Some believe that the impact assessments should be handed over to an external body. I do not share that approach, as I believe that the internal market laws should be the responsibility of Commission officials as part of the discipline of effective policy-making. However, the Internal Market Committee insists that all legislative proposals be accompanied by a quality impact assessment, a summary and a better regulation checklist on internal market proposals.
Of course alternative regulation is a subject of much scepticism. While the interinstitutional agreement provides for this non-legislative option, we insist with respect to internal market laws that Parliament is both informed of and consulted on such alternative approaches. They are justified by impact assessments. Equally, we must have redress for the consumer and sanctions if these alternative regulations fail to deliver benefits for the consumer in the internal market.
I want to stress the work of the Internal Market Committee as an active partner in the better regulation process. I know that Commissioners often say that Parliament does not take its role seriously. We were the first committee to commission our own impact assessment, under Mr Whitehead’s chairmanship, for amendments on the Toubon report on nominal quantities for pre-packed products. On the pyrotechnics proposal we are conducting an impact assessment on amendments proposed by our rapporteur. We will look at a cost/benefit analysis of his amendments to that proposal. We are conducting a hearing on the impact of public procurement laws on the internal market. EU public procurement accounts for 16% of EU GDP, yet the 1992 package of laws, as demonstrated in a number of ECJ cases, has not achieved the desired opening of the market.
Let us be clear. It is the consumer, the citizen and businesses that pay the price when laws are not effective. Bad drafting leads to legal uncertainty, poor or confused transposition and at the end of the line is a confused businessman or consumer who loses confidence in the internal market. The ECJ, after years of deliberation, becomes the arbiter of better legislation. That is not the right way forward.
Finally, I want to quote the cases of SOLVIT, which I believe is an excellent initiative of the Commission. A qualified doctor tried for a number of years to register as a doctor in Spain. He spent a large sum of money on legal fees, had lost confidence in the internal market, yet the SOLVIT system intervened and helped him within ten weeks to get registration in Spain as a doctor. That doctor said: ‘SOLVIT has restored my confidence in the internal market’.
So, the reality is that good laws that are well drafted, easy to implement, easy to enforce and police, are the key to restoring confidence in the internal market. I hope that today’s debate is the beginning of a process of close cooperation, sharing best practice between the institutions in a close partnership of equals, to build and restore that confidence that the doctor I mentioned was asking us to achieve for him as a consumer in the internal market."@sl19
".
Herr talman! Som ordförande i utskottet för den inre marknaden och konsumentskydd välkomnar jag starkt denna gemensamma debatt om bättre lagstiftning och möjligheten att diskutera med rådet och kommissionen om hur vi kan förbättra konsumenters, medborgares och företags erfarenhet av lagstiftning, som är det svåraste med att införa EU-lagar på ett begripligt sätt. Medborgares, konsumenters och företags självförtroende och tillit till själva EU är förbundet med deras erfarenhet och uppfattning av EU-lagar och den inverkan de har på deras vardagsliv.
Jag vill fokusera på att förbättra lagstiftningen för den inre marknaden och säkerställa att vi uppnår ett syfte i vår lagstiftning för konsumenter på den inre marknaden. Den inre marknaden står för nästan en tredjedel av gemenskapens regelverk. En lagstiftning som är av bra kvalitet, är effektiv och enkel på den inre marknaden bör skapa tillfällen för gränsöverskridande handel och ge konsumenter ökad valmöjlighet, samtidigt som den skyddar miljö- och konsumenträttigheter samt sociala rättigheter. Att samtidigt få en lämplig lagstiftning på den inre marknaden är avgörande för att uppnå Lissabonmålen när det gäller arbetstillfällen, tillväxt och konkurrenskraft.
Jag anser att den inre marknaden kommer att dra fördel av en gemensam och samordnad strategi från alla de tre institutionerna för att förbättra hela lagstiftningscykeln. Det innebär att vi också måste tänka på följderna av de midnattsöverenskommelser och de kompromisser vi ingår och avgöra om de kommer att förvirra eller förtydliga lagar för slutanvändarna. Det börjar enligt min mening med en bra, tydlig utformning av lagar, högkvalitativa konsekvensbedömningar och effektiv, heltäckande och öppen samordning med berörda parter. Medlemsstaterna måste också ta sitt ansvar på allvar och säkerställa ett bra och korrekt genomförande av lagstiftningen för den inre marknaden. De måste avstå från frestelsen att ofta brodera ut eller lägga till när det gäller nationella krav. Även om införlivandegraden förbättras, vilket resultattavlan för den inre marknaden visar, finns det fortfarande utrymme för avsevärda förbättringar. Det är därför vi ber om ett snabbt överträdelseförfarande för testfall på den inre marknaden. Vi måste dra lärdom av nederlagen och misstagen i EU-lagstiftningen. Det är därför vi både skulle vilja se konsekvensbedömningar på förhand och i efterhand eller analyser av vad som gick snett. Har denna lagstiftning uppnått sitt syfte, eller har den tvärtom lett till snedvridning och fragmentering av den inre marknaden?
Vissa anser att konsekvensbedömningarna borde överlåtas till ett externt organ. Jag delar inte den strategin eftersom jag anser att lagstiftningen för den inre marknaden bör vara kommissionstjänstemännens ansvar, som en del av disciplinen för effektivt beslutsfattande. Utskottet för den inre marknaden insisterar emellertid på att alla lagstiftningsförslag ska åtföljas av en kvalitativ konsekvensbedömning, en översikt och en checklista för bättre lagstiftning avseende lagstiftningsförslag om den inre marknaden.
Naturligtvis är alternativ lagstiftning föremål för mycken skepticism. Samtidigt som det interinstitutionella avtalet tillhandahåller denna möjlighet som inte innebär lagstiftning, insisterar vi när det gäller lagstiftningen för den inre marknaden på att parlamentet både har underrättats och rådfrågats om sådana alternativa strategier. De rättfärdigas genom konsekvensbedömningar. Likaså måste konsumenterna få upprättelse och sanktioner om denna alternativa lagstiftning inte leder till fördelar för konsumenterna på den inre marknaden.
Jag vill betona arbetet i utskottet för den inre marknaden som en aktiv partner i förfarandet för bättre lagstiftning. Jag vet att kommissionsledamöter ofta säger att parlamentet inte tar sin roll på allvar. Vi var det första utskottet som beställde vår egen konsekvensbedömning, under Philip Whiteheads ordförandeskap, av ändringsförslag till Toubonbetänkandet om fastställande av bestämmelser för färdigförpackade varors nominella mängder. När det gäller förslaget om pyroteknik genomför vi för närvarande en konsekvensbedömning av ändringsförslag som lagts fram av vår föredragande. Vi kommer att titta på en kostnads- och intäktsanalys av hans ändringsförslag till det förslaget. Vi genomför för närvarande en utfrågning om konsekvenserna av lagstiftning om offentlig upphandling på den inre marknaden. EU:s offentliga upphandlingar står för 16 procent av EU:s BNP, likväl har 1992 års lagstiftningspaket, vilket har framgått av en rad fall i EG-domstolen, inte lett till att marknaden har öppnats på det sätt som var önskvärt.
Låt oss tala klarspråk. Det är konsumenten, medborgaren och företag som betalar priset när lagstiftningen inte är effektiv. Dålig utformning leder till rättslig osäkerhet, dåligt eller förvirrat införlivande, och leder i slutändan till en förvirrad näringsidkare eller konsument som förlorar tilltro till den inre marknaden. Efter åratals övervägande blir EG-domstolen envåldshärskare när det gäller bättre lagstiftning. Det är inte rätt väg framåt.
Slutligen vill jag citera fallen som behandlats av problemlösningsnätverket för den inre marknaden (Solvit), som jag anser vara ett utmärkt initiativ av kommissionen. En behörig läkare försökte i ett antal år registrera sig som läkare i Spanien. Han spenderade en stor summa pengar på juridiska avgifter, hade förlorat förtroendet för den inre marknaden, men Solvitsystemet ingrep och hjälpte honom att inom tio veckor bli registrerad som läkare i Spanien. Den läkaren sa: ”Solvit har återupprättat mitt förtroende för den inre marknaden”.
Verkligheten är alltså att bra lagar som är väl utformade, lätta att genomföra och lätta att upprätthålla och kontrollera är nyckeln till att återupprätta förtroendet för den inre marknaden. Jag hoppas att dagens debatt är början på en process för ett nära samarbete, där man delar bästa praxis mellan institutioner i ett nära samarbete mellan jämlikar och bygger upp och återupprättar den tillit som läkaren jag nämnde bad oss om att åstadkomma för honom som konsument på den inre marknaden."@sv21
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Aplausos)"20,17
"(Applause)"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,13,4
"(gold-plating)"17
"Arlene McCarthy (PSE ),"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
"acquis"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4,12
"ex ante"5,19,15,1,18,14,11,16,13,4,12
"ex post"5,19,15,1,18,14,14,16,11,16,11,13,4,20,12
"ex-ante"2,20,17
"ex-post,"17
"rapporteur"5,19,15,1,18,14,11,16,13,4
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples