Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-03-13-Speech-2-049"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070313.6.2-049"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I think that this debate has illustrated excellently the role of a directly-elected European Parliament. Parliamentarians should criticise the Commission, ask for more detailed proposals, point to what is missing or ask about the synergies between different policy proposals. You have also taken the opportunity to congratulate the Commission where appropriate and to call for the introduction of an ambitious climate policy or energy policy, for example, hopefully helping us and the European institutions to work together in implementing these policies.
We also have to be careful to ensure that our legislation is up to date and modern and that we get rid of legislation that is outdated. Therefore, we will continue along the same path and will inform and involve the European Parliament so that we can work hand-in-hand to ensure that the overall political objectives of the Lisbon Strategy are implemented – the four overall priorities that we set out in our annual policy strategy.
Some Members raised the issue of the link between our debate on the annual policy strategy and the budgetary process. I have noted Parliament’s desire to improve this link, and it is important that we continue our dialogue on how to do so.
We see the budget and the policy as complementary and the purpose of the annual policy strategy is precisely to set the political framework in which the annual budget is to be established. But the institutional framework is such that there is seldom a direct link between the policy initiatives undertaken in a given year and related expenditure in the same year. There is a kind of mismatch between those processes. As you know, the 2008 budget will finance actions deriving from legislative proposals presented in previous years.
These were proposals that the co-legislators approved in 2007 or earlier. That means that the legislative proposals put forward in 2008 will have almost no budgetary implications for 2008, but will come on stream at the earliest in 2009. Also, many initiatives from the Commission have little or no costs for the EU budget at all. The Commission strongly believes that the new framework agreement put in place in 2005 actually provides a solid basis for relations. It has already improved the flow of information and enhanced the coordination of planning and programming.
Now, let me say something more about the political issues raised here. Some of you referred to the question of fundamental rights. I am surprised at the criticism of the Commission’s actions on fundamental rights. I do not think that we should doubt President Barroso’s commitment, given both his personal history and the challenges that he has faced to assert his rights and to realise his ambitions. As you know, we have just set up the European agency for fundamental rights and we are in the European Year of Equal Opportunities. I have already mentioned planned action to reinforce the protection of children and to fight discrimination outside the workplace.
I could give a much longer list of the things that we are doing. Right now we are fighting, together with the Member States, to keep the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the new Treaty. I think this is also a very basic provision and making sure that we can defend it will be an important part of the work ahead. I will pass on to President Barroso and the Commission the idea of holding a chat forum on fundamental rights. My experience is that we are never afraid of entering into debate. I think that if we can engage in different ways, we will most certainly do so.
I would have liked Mr Whittaker to stay, because he actually questioned the whole climate change issue. Maybe he has gone back to where he came from, to the kindergarten school of economics at which he said he studied. If he had looked at reality instead, he would have realised that we have already become poorer because of climate change. Climate change is already costing today’s society and this is a way to improve our competitiveness, to be in the lead, to say that we can show the rest of the world how we combine the best of environmental technology and the best of our knowledge society in Europe with being ambitious in aiming to use a sustainable source of energy for the future. By so doing, we can lead the way and be an example to the rest of the world. We have already shown that this is possible. That is the path we should also follow in the future.
Let me thank all of you who have given practical examples of what needs to be implemented, because, before we know it, we will also see environmental refugees as a result of climate change and these problems. Of course, other countries have already experienced that, but, unless we take action, we too will be affected, in ways we can scarcely imagine at present.
So, finally, on communication, let me say that the Barroso Commission is the first to have started sending proposals directly to the national parliaments. Furthermore, we now send the same documents that we send to the European Parliament and to the Council directly to the national parliaments. The dialogue that we have engaged in – including more than 350 visits by Commissioners to national parliaments, engaging with their different committees, responding to questions, being heard by the national parliaments – is, I think, absolutely crucial in making sure that the European agenda is also anchored in national parties, in the democratic traditions of each and every Member State.
From a communication point of view, this is very important and we have also now set out communication priorities, including better consultation, better listening and explaining, and being present locally in Member States. Without the engagement of Member States and politicians at all levels, it will be very difficult, as has already been pointed out. We also need political leaders in all the Member States to be able to defend what they have been doing at European level and to say why they have come to certain decisions. We have to engage at all levels and this is of course the intention of our communication policy as well.
Listening to the debate, it seems that some of you want the Commission to do more, while others want it perhaps to do a little less. The Commission will always work with the aim of making things better – better quality legislation, better coordination between the institutions and better implementation. This must be the overall goal.
We want the European Union to deliver and we want results that respond to the needs and expectations of citizens all over Europe. This means better regulation. Not more or less regulation, but better regulation. It means simplification, more focused action; it means clearer communication, informing citizens and listening more attentively to them; and it also means strengthening the European Union’s institutions by completing the Treaty revision. We need stronger institutions and closer dialogue to address the challenges and the opportunities ahead of us and we will definitely play our role in these matters, making sure we can come to an institutional settlement.
In response to the question about renting premises, let me say that we are working together with Parliament, renting a house in London together. This is exactly how I think we should operate in future, working hand-in-hand to project a single image of the European Union.
Thank you very much for this debate. I will of course ensure that the whole Commission is made familiar with your ideas and your positions.
I would like to start by commenting on the procedure and the dialogue that we have started between Parliament and the Commission on the annual policy strategy. I think that it is very important that we improve the quality of this regular dialogue. I think we have already realised that the way to improve it, to make it more effective, is to make it more political. We hope that Parliament can plan in such a way as to ensure that the political groups are involved more consistently, and maybe at an earlier stage in the procedure, because this also allows us to identify in advance some of the questions mentioned here, such as what is missing entirely from our proposals or what you think is wrong with their overall structure.
I think that the political groups should discuss the annual policy strategy in exactly the same way as the different committees do. I hope that the groups will feel the same commitment to this regular dialogue. The points of view expressed in the summary report and which will be endorsed by the Conference of Presidents in September have to reflect the position of both the committees and the political groups. I think that this will help us a lot.
We have to realise that we are at an early stage and that, when we come to the legislative and work programme, we will be able to see more of the details and a clearer outline of the specific characteristics of each and every proposal.
I would also like to comment on the issue of migration, because we in the Barroso Commission firmly believe that properly managed labour migration can make a very positive contribution to our economies and to our societies. As regards asylum, a question several of you also raised, we shall make proposals to approximate the criteria on the basis of which Member States can examine applications for asylum, but this will be done within the limits of the current Treaty and with full respect for the subsidiarity principle.
In the area of visas, which was also mentioned, we shall launch the visa information system, whereby Member States, while retaining responsibility for issuing visas, can exchange information and pertinent data. This is an important step in the right direction and in coordinating between Member States what has to be done.
I should also like to comment on simplification and better regulation. Let me start by saying that I have often heard the criticism that the Commission is legislating too little or that it is not ambitious enough in legislating. We have compiled and checked all the statistics and, if you look at the amount of legislation adopted by the Commission, it has remained remarkably stable. If we look at the number of regulations, directives, decisions and recommendations adopted over the past 10 years, it has only once topped 550 and has only once dropped below 430. The average has been some 489 proposals a year, and last year, at 474, we were very close to that average. So, whatever may be said, those are the facts. Nevertheless, with the careful consultation and impact assessments we are now carrying out on every proposal included in the work programme, I think that we are making particular efforts to ensure that our proposals are well prepared and of high quality. It is therefore important to bear these figures and statistics in mind.
We take the whole issue of simplification seriously and, as you know, we have set out a very ambitious simplification programme of 100 proposals, covering about 220 legislative instruments to be repealed, codified, recast or reviewed over the next three years. On average, there have been about 40 or 43 proposals to simplify legislation or identify legislation which is outdated. We will continue along the same path and at the same pace in order to constantly review legislation. In some cases, it means that we can introduce new legislation and, at the same time, abandon or scrap directives, as we did with REACH, where the 40 existing directives were replaced by a single one."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples