Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-13-Speech-2-043"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040113.3.2-043"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the Commission should like first of all to thank Mrs Almeida Garrett for her excellent work on the Commission’s communication on the operating framework for the regulatory agencies. Let us start with the facts: we currently have 16 agencies that were set up by the Treaties in successive waves to meet specific needs on a case-by-case basis. What characterises these 16 agencies today is indeed their diversity, in terms of how they operate, the tasks assigned to them and what they are called.
As we stressed in 2001, we believe that creating new regulatory agencies helps to improve the implementation of Community rules. The 2001 White Paper proposed that the Commission set out parameters, more precise criteria, for the creation, operation and supervision of these agencies. Our communication, the one that you are debating today, therefore seeks primarily to launch a process of reflection with you, and moreover with the Council, within a common framework, on the creation, operation and supervision of any future regulatory agencies, which we define as being actively involved in exercising the executive function at Community level.
As your rapporteur has just mentioned, the work that they do is indeed at the very heart of the executive function. To avoid any misunderstandings – and I will be coming back to this when I respond to the debate, with reference in particular to the point raised by the rapporteur – this initiative does not cover the ‘executive’ agencies that help to manage Community programmes.
In a nutshell, what is the reasoning behind the Commission’s proposal? It is a balance between, on the one hand, strengthening the integrity and unity of the executive function – and we know that this is incumbent primarily on the Commission – and, on the other hand, providing the autonomy that these agencies must be able to enjoy if they are to plan their work for the longer term. It is all about striking this delicate balance. The purpose of the agencies is, on the one hand, to relieve the Commission of very technical tasks so that it can focus on essential policies. Nevertheless – and you reminded us of this, Mrs Almeida Garrett – the Commission must retain the final political responsibility for implementing regulations, because this is our particular responsibility to you and because we need to provide people with clearly identifiable remits to come before this House.
It is then this difficult balance that we are trying to improve, clarify and formalise, given that more and more of the regulatory agencies are meeting a need for an increasing level of expertise in a number of fields, regardless of short-term considerations. For this expertise to be constantly available and to ensure a certain amount of transparency, some degree of autonomy and, of course, supervision is also required. It is this balance that we are seeking and we await your debate to find out whether the way in which we have expressed this balance also reflects the kind of compromise that you might be able to accept on these tensions, which are inevitable, but which we wish to manage in a positive way."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples