Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-13-Speech-2-067"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-05-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Exercise of Commission implementing powers2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030513.4.2-067"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-05-13-Speech-2-0682
lpv:speaker	lp:Ursula Schleicher2
lpv:spokenAs	member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2002-03-08--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Christlich-Soziale Union in Bayern e.V. (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; AFCO (2002-01-21--2004-07-19)3 chair; Delegation to the EU-Armenia, EU-Azerbaijan and EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committees (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission's implementing powers: it all sounds so harmless and yet it conceals a multitude of problems that all of the committees that deal with European legislation have to contend with, and have been doing so for two decades. The Council Decision of 1999 reduced the Babylonian confusion of over 20 variants of such committees in the Commission to three procedures, namely management, regulatory and advisory procedures. The decision also laid down criteria for deciding which committee procedure was appropriate. All of the relevant European Union legislation, consisting of several hundred directives and regulations, had to be brought into line with it. Mrs Frassoni’s report in March 2003 – just a few weeks ago – brought this work to its conclusion. The consequences of our consultations today would be that once again all of the European Union's legislation, that is once again several hundred legal instruments, would have to be brought into line with the new texts. Should the Convention – and here I am talking about Article 202 – propose alternative solutions to the ones that we are discussing today, then this process of adapting all European legislation would have to be repeated. Once again, as with the Lamfalussy procedure, we are only debating an interim solution. This is expressed very clearly in Amendment No 1 of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. In my judgment, the Commission proposal does not enable us to achieve the objectives of transparency and improved legislative supervision of the Commission when it enacts implementing provisions. On the contrary, the proposed changes are designed to remodel Parliament's existing right of supervision as a hearing procedure pure and simple. the Commission's proposal amounts to abolishing the management procedure, which also considerably curtails the Council’s and the Member States' influence and supervisory powers. This might well not matter to us in Parliament if our influence and supervisory powers were enhanced accordingly. That is the intention of Parliament's amendments. But the Commission, as Mr Corbett has already said, is refusing to delete an essential word, namely 'possibly'. This means that in the future it may only possibly take into account the substantive demands made by Parliament with regard to the implementing legislation. We cannot support this as a Parliament and are in complete agreement with the rapporteur here."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"De facto"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph