Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-09-Speech-2-052"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040309.4.2-052"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I am here today speaking on behalf of all my colleagues in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, in particular my colleague, Mr Doorn, who has been the shadow rapporteur for the three successive reports that our hardworking rapporteur, Mr Medina Ortega, has produced.
In a way this is the end of the first phase of our cycle of work and, as the Commissioner said, we are now moving on to looking at further details of how to make the interinstitutional agreement work effectively. It is perhaps in that context we have the opportunity to make one or two remarks, rather than the specific points contained in this relatively short report. We have not really had enough debate in this Chamber about the whole issue of our role in better lawmaking or improving and simplifying the regulatory climate, as the Commission reminded us.
I would like to reflect on what my colleague, Mr Medina Ortega, said on the way in which we adopt decisions and the way in which regulation is developed and promoted within the European institutions. I agree with him that our citizens are genuinely concerned by the process. That is why they want us to do the job better and that is why those who are directly implicated in the process – whether consumers, citizens, or businesses, large and small – want to feel that they have been consulted and they have had their say at the right stage in the process.
One of the crucial elements of doing the job better is improved development of our legislative strategies and early consultation in the process. One of the most important features of the Commission's action plan is that it is essentially a two-step process. Before we move into the detail of the extended impact assessment there is also a stage for considering the whole strategy of the legislation, its objectives, a clear definition of those objectives, and the tools by which those objectives would be achieved. This might possibly be regulation, but there is no reason at that stage why some form of self- or co-regulation should not be considered as a proper option.
I know that my colleague, Mr Medina Ortega, is concerned about the way that self- and co-regulation develops, but I would argue that, if we consider that as a genuine alternative at the beginning of the process and see how it is integrated and that safeguards are built in and check it against the alternative of heavyweight and intrusive legislation, this can only be to the benefit of simplifying and improving the regulatory climate.
After all, we are looking for effective and efficient legislation. We are looking at outcomes. That is what we have just been discussing in connection with enforcement because the problem is that, however much we legislate at European level, if we cannot have consistent enforcement, the cost of the legislation falls on people who already have the systems in place and are doing the job. It does not squeeze out those who are breaking the law. This works to the disadvantage of consumers – an issue that I know is at the core of your remit, Mr Byrne.
We should support this report, but this is only just the beginning of the process of working together with all the institutions to deliver what our citizens want, which is effective and efficient regulation or alternatives to regulation."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples