Fuldstændigt Forhandlingsreferat

Tirsdag den 8. marts 2016 - Strasbourg

13. Interinstitutionel aftale om bedre lovgivning (forhandling)

  President. – The next item is the report by Danuta Maria Hübner, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on the interinstitutional agreement on Better law-making (COM(2015)0215 – 2016/2005(ACI)) (A8-0039/2016).

  Danuta Maria Hübner, rapporteur. – Madam President, I would like to start by saying that under Rule 140 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the President of the European Parliament may sign an interinstitutional agreement after examination by Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) and after approval by Parliament. It is my honour today to recommend to Parliament the approval of the new interinstitutional agreement on better law-making and its signature by the President.

The current agreement on better law-making dates back to 2003. It was concluded before the 2004 enlargement of the European Union when we still had a Union of 15 Member States, and well before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Parliament repeatedly called for the 2003 agreement to be renegotiated to take account of the new legislative environment created by the Treaty of Lisbon, to consolidate best practices and to bring the agreement up to date in line with the modern understanding of the better law-making agenda.

So we took it as good news when, in January 2015, the then newly-elected Juncker Commission committed to presenting a proposal for a new interinstitutional agreement between the three institutions: Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission. AFCO provided its contribution to the position of the European Parliament in the negotiations, in April 2015, on the revision of the 2003 agreement. The Conference of Presidents then endorsed the President’s proposal that Mr Guy Verhofstadt would be Parliament’s lead negotiator, conducting the negotiations in close cooperation with AFCO and the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI), and also reporting to the Conference of Presidents.

Finally, in December 2016, the Conference of Presidents endorsed the new agreement. And the resolution on the conclusion of this agreement on better law-making adopted by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, to be voted on tomorrow, expresses, in general terms, its view on the outcome of the negotiations. It also calls for the impact of the new agreement on the framework agreement and other related interinstitutional agreements to be ascertained with a view to simplifying the architecture of the numerous arrangements. It also identifies a range of issues that need further follow-up at technical or political level. It recommends the approval of the agreement and contains a mandate for AFCO to examine the extent to which amendments to or interpretations of the Rules of Procedure are necessary for the implementation of the agreement.

Let me mention just some elements of particular importance for the European Parliament of the content of the new agreement. These include multiannual and annual programing; the Commission’s follow-up to Parliament’s legislative initiative requests and justifications for and consultations on envisaged withdrawals of legislative proposals; better law-making tools – which are important for a well-informed, inclusive and transparent decision-making process – and the impact assessment issue. We agreed that the impact assessment should be comprehensive and balanced and take into account the costs of not legislating.

The independence and objectiveness of the new regulatory scrutiny vote is also an issue of particular relevance for us. The impact assessment should not, however, replace the political decision-making. Gold-plating is also an important issue, in the context of avoiding over-regulation and administrative burden for citizens, administrations and businesses, especially small and medium-sized businesses.

With regard to delegated and implementing acts, we have moved forward, but Parliament expects today a swift agreement between the three institutions on the appropriate criteria for delineating delegated acts and implementing acts and a prompt alignment of basic acts via the legal framework of the Lisbon Treaty.

To conclude, having examined the content of the new interinstitutional agreement, AFCO has identified a number of issues that need further follow-up. These issues will be subject to further analysis in a joint initiative report drafted by AFCO and JURI. We trust that the new interinstitutional agreement on better law-making will be an important tool in establishing and developing a more open, more transparent relationship between the institutions with a view to delivering better law-making in the interest of the Union’s citizens.

  Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, I am very happy to be back in this Chamber.

The issue up for debate is one where we, as institutions, have come together and demonstrated our firm intent to strengthen our cooperation. I am pleased to mark this important step forward in our interinstitutional relations.

With this new agreement we have jointly established a set of rules on how to ensure a better delivery for our citizens and businesses together. I will not repeat the content of the agreement, but let me mention a couple of points that demonstrate this. We will have a joint discussion on our legislative priorities and also select those that, according to the three institutions, should be at the top of the agenda for the upcoming year. And yes, at a time when the EU is perceived as fragmented, it is important to show unity, to send a signal of common purpose and to tackle the big challenges ahead of us in a joined-up way.

Concerning impact assessments, we agree that EU legislation must be based on informed decisions, while acknowledging that the legislative process is political and not technocratic. As co-legislators, we have a responsibility and a duty to our citizens to ensure that when we decide we have all relevant information in front of us and we take that information into account. In this regard much emphasis has rightly been put on having a particular regard for our SMEs as they are key to fostering growth and jobs in Europe. We have committed to avoiding overregulation and administrative burdens. The Commission’s fitness and performance programme is firmly anchored within the agreement framework. This agenda should not be seen as being all about lowering standards for protection. Rather it is about thinking twice before we legislate and casting a critical eye on existing regulation.

The annual burden survey that, on the suggestion of Parliament, found its way into the agreement will help us to focus our minds on this matter. It will be a common platform for a discussion on how we can better ensure that we have legislation fit for purpose but without unnecessary burdens being put on citizens, businesses and administrations. We have also agreed to enhance the transparency of our work for citizens, and here I would like to highlight that we will have a joint database on the state of play of legislative files. This may sound to some of you like a technical issue, although it is quite important. People have to be able to understand how we work, so more active joint communication is needed. Then – and this is highly significant – Parliament and Council have agreed on a number of points where we, as co-legislators, can strengthen our cooperation, such as being better at ensuring an efficient process, while safeguarding the quality of legislation and respecting each institution’s prerogatives, such as working closer together at an early stage to better understand each other’s points of view and thereby, hopefully, facilitating negotiations.

In this context, I would like to express my appreciation for the constructive approach of both Parliament and the Commission in establishing measures to instil greater confidence in Member States in the use of delegated acts.

I am confident that this agreement will contribute to ensuring a framework and an atmosphere for negotiations that are conducive to finding constructive solutions to our common problems. We are all aware that the agreement is the result of a compromise, and not all issues were settled to the full satisfaction of each institution. Some points were hard fought, touching on sensitive issues and the balance between institutions. However, I believe that the deal represents a fair balance.

The Council has welcomed the agreement reached and next week, on 15 March, the General Affairs Council will formally adopt the agreement. We then have to turn swiftly to implementation. We have to seize the momentum to put all the good words into practice, to make a real difference in how we deliver to our citizens and businesses. The Presidency has therefore placed implementation and follow-up high on the agenda of the Council. Already next week we will kick off by deciding on how the Council will organise its work in relation to the Commission’s annual work programme, also paving the way for the three-way talks on the joint annual priorities.

We are only at the start of our discussion within the Council on implementation, but the Presidency in particular intends to look at how the Council deals with impact assessments and how to take forward the overall ‘better regulation’ package presented by the European Commission. And yes, the Presidency also intends to put transparency on the agenda.

In closing, I would like to underline that the Presidency and the Council will of course continue to work in close cooperation with both Parliament and Commission on ensuring an effective application and implementation of this important agreement.

  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, when we reached an agreement on this in December, I was in two minds about it. I was happy that we had an agreement which takes us quite a number of steps forward, but I would have liked to see a more ambitious agreement in many areas. But realism took over and it was impossible to convince people to go the extra mile, so we settled for an agreement that is still much better than what we had before. So for me the glass is still half full with this agreement.

Why is it important? Because we needed to look at the whole policy cycle. We needed to review everything we – the three institutions directly involved – do when we legislate. All three institutions were unhappy with the status quo, so we wanted to bring improvements. Let me a mention a few substantial and meaningful, and let me repeat that, from our three different perspectives, none of us got a hundred percent of what we wanted.

On implementing acts and delegated acts, the proposed approach should facilitate future discussions between the co-legislators and unblock the current impasse on many individual files. The Commission will also provide greater transparency by allowing stakeholders to see the text of delegated acts and implementing acts before they are adopted. On annual and multiannual programming, the interinstitutional agreement provides for intensive collaboration between the institutions in setting priorities through annual and multiannual programming and on identifying the priority files for the legislative procedure.

On regulatory fitness, each new act will set out how the legislation will be monitored and evaluated in the future so that we can check whether it is working as planned. The Commission’s regulatory fitness programme will also play a central role in simplifying the body of existing legislation and reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens, but without weakening any of our important social and environmental goals. One of the biggest fears when we started this exercise was that this was just cutting red tape at the expense of our standards. This is not what we are doing. We are maintaining, and even improving, our standards, while still cutting red tape.

On transparency, in some cases working jointly across the institutions to build common IT platforms for delegated acts – and later perhaps for the codecision procedure – will help open up decision-making to public scrutiny. It is important to remember that the framework agreement between Parliament and the Commission continues to apply in full, and the Commission remains committed to it as the bedrock of the cooperation between our two institutions.

This is a balanced outcome. I repeat that, although not all my ambitions were realised, it is balanced for the institutions. I hope that Parliament can support the outcome agreed by its negotiators, as this is good for the public and for business.

I would like to thank Mrs Hübner very much for her outstanding report on this. We have a strong political message from the three institutions that they take seriously better regulation and the concerns of small businesses and the man and woman in the street – how can I say ‘man in the street’ on 8 March? – about unnecessary regulation. We have support for better regulation from all the institutions as a means to deliver societal objectives in the most efficient way.

If Parliament approves the new agreement, the Commission is ready to start work immediately with Parliament and Council to ensure its timely and effective implementation so that together we can start delivering concretely for our citizens and our businesses. In particular, the Commission can start to deliver on its commitments on the alignment of existing empowerments with the Lisbon Treaty, and we can work together to deliver the new register for delegated acts, which is something Parliament also wants.

  Esteban González Pons, en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señora Presidenta, yo quería, en primer lugar, felicitar al señor Timmermans por esta iniciativa que ha llevado a cabo desde la Comisión, muy importante. Quiero felicitar también la señora Hübner por el informe, que es un informe, yo creo, difícil de llevar porque exigía mucho consenso y que ha traído a buen puerto. Y felicitar a mi compañero Markus Pieper porque se ha empeñado en que las pequeñas y medianas empresas queden bien defendidas en el acuerdo interinstitucional y, aunque en definitiva no estamos del todo satisfechos, contamos con un segundo informe que tramitará este Parlamento para aclarar aquellos puntos en los que creemos que las pequeñas y medianas empresas deberían haber sido mejor defendidas por este acuerdo.

Durante las negociaciones, muchas prioridades del Grupo Popular han sido atendidas y por eso estamos satisfechos: respecto a las evaluaciones de impacto, que son herramientas indispensables para conseguir una legislación de calidad y que reducirán la carga burocrática de las empresas, en particular de las pequeñas y medianas; respecto del examen de subsidiariedad, que nos permitirá legislar solo donde y cuando haga falta; respecto los actos delegados, y me alegro de las palabras que le acabo de escuchar al señor Timmermans, porque es momento de que se resuelvan las dificultades con que se enfrenta el Parlamento en casi todas las negociaciones de la última década.

La última declaración del Consejo sobre el Reino Unido ya se refirió a este acuerdo como una pieza clave para evitar leyes innecesarias y mejorar la competitividad de nuestras empresas y el crecimiento económico. Es importante para el Parlamento trabajar en igualdad de condiciones. Es lo que nos convierte en lo que somos: Parlamento.

  Richard Corbett, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, let me begin by making very clear the position of the Socialist Group throughout these negotiations. We are, of course, in favour of an improved and better system for legislators to know the impact of what they are doing and the potential costs that they may place on others. That is essential. But, we have always said that this must be a comprehensive assessment. It is not just about cutting costs to small and medium-sized enterprises, important as that is. It is also about the costs and burdens of other kinds. Not just of legislating, but potentially of the cost of not legislating, costs on the consumer, costs on public health and therefore on public budgets, costs to the environment, costs to the way our competition policies work. All this must be taken into account. Impact assessment must be comprehensive; a real cost-benefit analysis, in other words.

We must also bear in mind that we are talking about legislating at the European level. Now, when we get it right, when we bring in common rules for our common market we are replacing 28 divergent and contradictory sets of national rules. In other words we are simplifying things for businesses, we are cutting red tape. That must be part of the occasion.

And our third concern was that the procedure for impact assessments must, of course, be advisory. There is no right of veto for an appointed official in a legislative procedure. As elected representatives we must have the final say. Imagine if, 30 years ago, since this is International Women’s Day, an impact assessment had said: ‘oh, equal pay for equal work, that will cost businesses, that will cost the exchequer, no we had better not do that.’ Of course, we would have overridden that advice and taken the political decision to legislate anyway.

Since the agreement meets our concerns in these respects my Group will fully support it. We also support the other things in it – on programming, transparency, impact assessments – very good. We look forward to approving it and to working for the further implementation of this important agreement.

  Anthea McIntyre, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, I welcome this agreement as a step in the right direction; but like the Commissioner, I wish it had been more ambitious.

Reform in the European Union must be an ongoing process and it cannot stop with this interinstitutional agreement. Cutting administrative burdens, cutting red tape, especially for small businesses, is absolutely vital for our competitiveness in the global economy. My Group established three key priorities for the IIA: the SME and competitiveness tests, burden reduction targets and the independence of the regulatory scrutiny board.

On the last priority, our report sees the establishment of the scrutiny board as a welcome first step in achieving the independence thereof. On the first two, I am very pleased that the IIA reflects the text of the Council conclusions from February, specifically the burden reduction target. This was a key part of my Prime Minister's negotiations. Simplifying regulation and setting targets for cutting red tape will be good for the whole EU, and that is just what he made clear: we should make things better for the whole of Europe, not just the UK.

So there are some important things in this agreement, including impact assessments on substantive amendments, sunset and review clauses and a strong commitment to regulatory simplification. I am particularly pleased to see the commitment to undertake an annual burden survey to review the efforts to simplify legislation, to avoid overregulation and to look at the stock of existing EU law.

As someone who believes that Britain will be better off in a reformed EU, I see reform as vital and I see this agreement as another step in the right direction, in a continuing journey of reform.

  Maite Pagazaurtundúa Ruiz, en nombre del Grupo ALDE. – Señora Presidenta, la señora Hübner, presidenta de la Comisión AFCO, ha expuesto de una forma estupenda cuál es el objetivo del informe que vamos a poder votar mañana y al que, desde luego, desde el Grupo ALDE aconsejamos votar positivamente para que se pueda aplicar el Acuerdo Interinstitucional.

Legislar no es un trabajo fácil, pero legislar para el conjunto de 500 millones de europeos en veintiocho países es, desde luego, muy difícil. Más allá del principio de subsidiariedad, del principio de proporcionalidad por el que nos regimos, está el objetivo de que la legislación resulte de calidad y de que no sea imposible de comprender y de aplicar.

Este Acuerdo tiene que ver en lo concreto con la comprensión de las normas, con una mejor colaboración entre colegisladores, con la aplicabilidad de la legislación que vamos a aprobar, con la previsión del impacto, por una parte, y del coste de la no Europa en la legislación, y con tener en cuenta a las pymes, efectivamente eternas olvidadas en muchas de las normativas y de las políticas europeas.

No es fácil colegislar, porque las instituciones tienen engranajes técnicamente muy sofisticados, y lo cierto es que muchos de los ciudadanos europeos nos ven a veces como si estuviéramos instalados en una lejana galaxia. Por todo lo anterior, este Parlamento siente la necesidad —y ha colaborado para ello— de mejorar esa participación y confianza que debemos ganarnos de los ciudadanos. Con este Acuerdo, el Parlamento ha rebajado algunas de las barreras que hemos detectado y ha negociado con éxito un enfoque más amplio y equilibrado para legislar mejor.

En este contexto, han de lograrse esos buenos resultados, señor Timmermans, en lo referente a esas evaluaciones de impacto, a la transparencia y a la aplicación de la legislación de la Unión, además de a la reducción de los requisitos burocráticos, que debe permitir mayor flexibilidad, y a la lucha contra la desregulación, que no es lo mismo que legislar de más. Legislar lo justo, ni más ni menos, pero legislar, además, bien.

No ha faltado, sin embargo, la presión por parte de los que insisten en la miopía nacional o en el populismo ciego. Bien, pues frente a eso también yo creo que hemos alcanzado un acuerdo pragmático, realista. Y, con ese objetivo de dotar a la Unión Europea del marco legal más sólido posible, trabajaremos. Desde luego, nosotros apoyaremos mañana el informe.

  Κώστας Χρυσόγονος, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, συζητούμε σήμερα για τη συμφωνία μεταξύ της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής, του Ευρωπαϊκού Συμβουλίου και του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου σχετικά με τη βελτίωση των εσωτερικών νομοθετικών διαδικασιών με στόχο την ορθότερη λειτουργία των οργάνων, την καλύτερη εφαρμογή των πολιτικών της Ένωσης και την εξοικονόμηση χρόνου και χρήματος. Μετά από μακρές διαπραγματεύσεις έχουμε επιτέλους μια πρόταση με ορισμένα θετικά στοιχεία.

Είναι όμως φανερό πως και πάλι στο επίκεντρο του ενδιαφέροντος βρίσκονται οικονομικά και όχι κοινωνικά ζητήματα. Οι συνδικαλιστικοί φορείς που εκφράζουν τις ανάγκες των εργαζομένων φαίνεται να τίθενται στο περιθώριο. Παράλληλα, γεννώνται ερωτηματικά σχετικά με το αν όντως ενισχύεται η φωνή του Κοινοβουλίου κατά τη νομοθετική διαδικασία ή αν αντίθετα είναι η Επιτροπή εκείνη που βγαίνει κυρίως ενισχυμένη από αυτή τη συμφωνία. Καθώς η Ευρώπη βιώνει έναν έντονο προβληματισμό για το μέλλον της θα έπρεπε να είχαμε αλλάξει στόχευση και αντιλήψεις και να εστιάσουμε στα προβλήματα των πολλών, όχι στα συμφέροντα των λίγων.

Αυτό μπορεί να επιτευχθεί με πραγματικά δημοκρατικές και διαφανείς διαδικασίες και όχι με συμφωνίες που περιορίζουν τη φωνή των πολιτών και των οργάνων που τους εκπροσωπούν άμεσα. Οι διευκολύνσεις για την ενεργό συμμετοχή των πολιτών πρέπει να αποτελέσουν προτεραιότητα για την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, ώστε να ενισχυθεί η δημοκρατία και να αποδυναμωθεί η γραφειοκρατία.

  Pascal Durand, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur Timmermans, qui pourrait imaginer que derrière le mot "mieux réguler" se cache en fait la volonté de moins bien légiférer? Je crains que derrière ce mot ne se cache effectivement une idéologie, celle du moins légiférer, pas du mieux légiférer; une idéologie qui se focalise – et vous l'avez dit, vous avez utilisé ce mot, il est répété et on l'entend à l'envi, notamment à droite de cet hémicycle – sur le fardeau administratif.

Je vous le dis, Monsieur le Vice—président, le fardeau de l'Europe n'est pas administratif. Il est démocratique et social. Ce sont les 27 millions de chômeurs, les réfugiés que l'on ne peut pas accueillir dignement et les problématiques qui se posent à cette Europe qui n'ont rien d'administratif. Alors, derrière l'idéologie du "moins réguler" et la volonté de faire en sorte que l'on libère les marchés, on doit se poser la question de savoir quelle Europe on veut.

Moi, Monsieur le Vice-président, l'Europe qui régule, c'est celle que je défends, c'est celle de la qualité de l'air, de l'eau, c'est celle qui fait en sorte que la santé soit respectée. Ce n'est pas l'Europe de la bureaucratie, où l'on va payer des fonctionnaires pour vérifier ce sur quoi l'on n'aura pas légiféré pendant près d'une année. Kafka en rêvait, l'Europe est en train de le faire.

  Isabella Adinolfi, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi,

l'accordo che ci apprestiamo a licenziare è frutto di un compromesso al ribasso e noi, in quanto Parlamento europeo, unica istituzione direttamente eletta dai cittadini, potevamo e dovevamo chiedere di più. La procedura seguita, per addivenire a un testo di compromesso, non è stata delle migliori.

Noi del Movimento 5 stelle avremmo chiesto, per esempio, una maggiore trasparenza per quanto riguarda i triloghi: non è sufficiente infatti sapere che cosa è stato deciso a posteriori – i cittadini devono sapere che cosa viene negoziato e da chi; un maggiore coinvolgimento dei cittadini per il tramite di specifici strumenti, per esempio quelli elettronici; la massima pubblicità e trasparenza per gli atti delegati e di implementazione – troppo opacità infatti e interessi lobbistici circondano questi atti, vedi il caso Volkswagen; l'istituzione immediata del registro degli atti delegati – infatti non si capisce perché debba avvenire soltanto nel 2017, se avverrà.

Infine, avremmo chiesto l'istituzione di un registro per la trasparenza obbligatoria e vincolante per tutte le istituzioni europee. Insomma, avremmo tutelato veramente i cittadini.

  Sophie Montel, au nom du groupe ENF. – Madame la Présidente, je dois l'avouer, la lecture de ce rapport m'a affligée.

Ce pensum long comme un jour sans pain ne contient rien de concret ou d'utile. Les mots creux s'enchaînent, se répètent, tournent en boucle dans une valse infernale qui ne mène à rien. Les grandes déclarations sur la transparence auraient pourtant pu me faire rire, mais lorsque je vois l'opacité qui règne autour du TAFTA et de l'influence des lobbies au sein des institutions, ce n'est pas le rire qui me saisit, mais l'indignation.

Lorsque je regarde le coût monstrueux de la directive "Détachement des travailleurs" pour le système de protection sociale français et, surtout, pour les Français eux-mêmes, je sais que la législation européenne n'a pas pour but de servir l'intérêt des personnes et des peuples, mais seulement ses dogmes ultralibéraux et l'intérêt de quelques puissantes multinationales.

Il n'y a qu'une façon, pour l'Union européenne, de mieux légiférer, c'est de ne plus légiférer du tout. Que chaque peuple retrouve son droit fondamental à décider lui-même de ses lois et que les États coopèrent en bonne intelligence. La liberté du peuple souverain au sein de chaque nation est le seul principe législatif valable en démocratie.

  György Schöpflin (PPE). – Madam President, this agreement is the first since 2003, and very timely it is too. Broadly, legislation should express a political will to regulate some area and to do it as effectively as possible, but legislation does not happen by chance, as it were. Its aims have to be formulated as thoughtfully as possible. That is the policy process. Legislation – and I think that has been clear from the debate so far – has to avoid the extremes of under-regulation and over-regulation. To that end, while legislation is being formulated there must be wide-ranging consultation with all stakeholders, not just with the ones that have the most effective lobbying capacity. Some stakeholders are smaller, but their interests too must be recognised. SMEs come to mind here, and not just mine.

All law-making involves a political decision which is then converted into a legal outcome. This is where impact assessment and attention to implementing and delegated legislation assumes importance. This meeting of politics and law will always be a sensitive one, and politicians should be aware that it is impossible to make regulations for all contingencies. In an ideal world better legislation should be of benefit to all the citizens of Europe and to European citizenship itself.

  Mercedes Bresso (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, credo che la firma di questo accordo interistituzionale sia un'ottima notizia per l'Unione europea, in tempi di crisi in cui i confini delle competenze fra le varie istituzioni si stanno spostando e sono sempre più evanescenti. Voglio anche ringraziare la nostra relatrice, la presidente Hübner, il nostro relatore ombra, Richard Corbett, e i tre negoziatori che hanno lavorato per ottenere un accordo positivo.

Io credo che questo sia un buon accordo: apporta delle modifiche che rendono più attuale il precedente accordo del 2003; il dialogo con le parti sociali e le piccole e medie imprese, sarà preservato e sviluppato; il loro input sarà tenuto in maggiore considerazione nel corso del processo legislativo; soprattutto anche l'impatto sociale e ambientale degli atti, sarà valutato nel corso delle procedure stesse. Inoltre, questo nuovo accordo garantisce una maggiore trasparenza nel corso dei negoziati, e da ultimo, al Parlamento è conferito un maggiore peso nel quadro della programmazione annuale, cosa che abbiamo chiesto da tempo.

Alla luce di tutto ciò, mi sento di poter affermare che questo è un buon accordo, che rappresenta un passo importante nella direzione se non della ever closer union, certamente di una ever closer Institution. Ci attendiamo molto, dal lavoro di implementazione che nelle istituzioni inizierà da domani che deve essere di comune accordo.

Le chiedo un minuto, Presidente. Legiferare meglio …

(L'oratore prosegue in francese)

veut dire avant tout retirer de sa table et de sa tête le drapeau de son propre pays et y mettre celui de l'Europe.

  Kazimierz Michał Ujazdowski (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Nie jestem takim entuzjastą jak moi poprzednicy. Cieszę się z porozumienia, ale moja radość jest ograniczona. Nie wykorzystano szansy na tworzenie oszczędnej regulacji. Jestem przekonany, że ocena skutków regulacji powinna być dokonywana na każdym etapie legislacji, powinien być mocniej wyeksponowany test konkurencyjności. I wreszcie jest ta sprzeczność: albo chcemy zasady pomocniczości, albo wciąż mówimy o czymś, czego do końca nie rozumiem – o braku, o kosztach braku Unii Europejskiej. To ostatnie zazwyczaj jest jednak zaproszeniem do centralizmu i nadprodukcji prawa. Więc postawmy na zasadę pomocniczości, także w samym Parlamencie Europejskim. W Komisji Regulaminowej toczą się prace nad Regulaminem Parlamentu. Proponuję, żeby sam Parlament Europejski szerzej niż dotychczas stosował zasadę pomocniczości. Więc: tak dla porozumienia – ale moja ocena jest nie tak entuzjastyczna jak u wielu poprzedników.

  Pavel Telička (ALDE). – Madam President, on the contrary, I was an enthusiast. In fact, for me, this was one of the top priorities with which I came to the European Parliament and I still remember my meeting with First Vice-President Timmermans in November 2014 where we exchanged views, and I can understand, Mr Timmermans, what you say today, that you had higher ambitions. So did I. I think that many of us did, but the reality too is that many of us had lower ambitions so what we stand in front of today is a compromise, a compromise which you called a glass half-full, maybe a bit more than half-full I would say, but I think it is a good agreement and I think that we can make it a full glass with implementation.

I had the privilege to work closely with our negotiator, Guy Verhofstadt. I would not say what I am going to say now if he were present, but I think that, likewise his colleagues and partners, he did a very good job and I think that we have an agreement that we can implement today, and we can implement it so that the glass is, as I say, full.

One example, very briefly, is the administrative burden. This is exactly what is a chance for us. If the Commission will have the ability and the courage to show who proposes what, what happens in each sector and how Member States behave, what is the difference between the proposal that was submitted and the legislation enacted, and what is in fact the act that was passed through the parliaments, the gold-plating, I think that for me this is satisfactory in comparison to what I was seeking and that was one in, one out. I think that is the tool with which we can deliver. Thank you and it is up to us how we are going to implement this agreement.

  Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, Ms Hübner in her report has pointed out the need for more concrete provisions on transparency of the legislative procedures, especially the trilogues, and I fully agree. Just two weeks ago the Committee on Legal Affairs came exactly to the same conclusions. Transparency is a necessary component of legitimacy. The interinstitutional agreement lays a good foundation for a more open and transparent interaction between the EU institutions. But I do not think that this agreement in itself is enough. We should not stop now when we are only at the halfway point. Let me explain.

A natural follow up for better law-making is better administration. I have had a chance to prepare a draft regulation for an open, efficient and independent EU administration that will also soon be presented here in plenary, next month in fact. And the Minister actually knows this project very well because she is a former member of this House. Diligent and transparent administrative procedures could reduce the complexity and restore the credibility of the EU administration in the eyes of its citizens, and I will not spare my efforts when this Parliament starts taking concrete actions towards better law-making and better administration.

  Tim Aker (EFDD). – Madam President, the European Union controls fishing, it controls farming, it controls trade, it has legal supremacy, it has a foreign minister and a foreign service, it wants a police force, it gives the UK a complete and open border, it wants an EU army, it will not give up on its failing currency, it wants more tax powers and its economy is crumbling.

I will give the EU some free advice. If you want better lawmaking, stop. All of these powers I mentioned belong with sovereign democratic nation states. They do not belong in this place and the sooner the United Kingdom is free and taking back control of these powers outside of this Union, the better.

  Markus Pieper (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin! Wenn ich einigen Vorrednern glauben soll, ist das heute der große Wurf.

Allerdings möchte ich an den Entwurf der Kommission erinnern. Leider ist da im Trilog-Verfahren vieles wegverhandelt worden. Das Glas ist halb voll, sagte Herr Kommissar Timmermans, und es ist auch bezeichnend, dass unser Verhandlungsführer, Herr Verhofstadt, heute gar nicht dabei ist.

Positiv – immerhin – bei der Vereinbarung: Der Rat ist dabei, kleine Firmen sind im Fokus des Bürokratieabbaus, und es gibt ein bisschen mehr Unabhängigkeit bei der Bewertung der Qualität von Folgenabschätzungen. Positiv ist auch die Lesart des Parlaments, die jetzt im Bericht Hübner zum Ausdruck kommt. Ich danke Herrn Verhofstadt und Frau Hübner ganz ausdrücklich dafür.

Der große Wurf ist das alles aber nicht. Die Kommission wollte eine stärkere Berichtspflicht für gold-plating. Warum haben Parlament und/oder Rat das abgeschwächt? Die Kommission wollte Rat und Parlament für eigene Folgenabschätzungen stärker in die Verantwortung nehmen. Warum haben Rat und Parlament das abgeschwächt? Die Kommission wollte Selbstverpflichtung für eine jährliche Liste über zurückzunehmende Gesetzesakte. Warum haben Rat und Parlament das abgeschwächt? Die Kommission behält jetzt den Schwarzen Peter der EU-Bürokratie. Im Nirwana einer Trilog- Verhandlung ohne Parlamentsvotum sind wichtige Fortschritte für mehr Transparenz verschwunden.

Schade, denn wir vertun die Chance, dass die europäischen Bürger viel mehr mitbekommen, wer für was in welcher Phase der europäischen Gesetzgebung wirklich Verantwortung trägt. Diese Vereinbarung hätte mehr verdient als dieses halbvolle Glas. Aber wir machen ja weiter.

  Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Die interinstitutionelle Vereinbarung, über die wir morgen abstimmen, ist eine gute Vereinbarung. Sie ist eine gute Grundlage für die Zusammenarbeit der europäischen Institutionen. Sie ist aber auch eine gute Nachricht für die Bürgerinnen und Bürger. Warum? Weil wir mit dieser Vereinbarung deutlich machen, dass wir Kritik ernst nehmen. Wir wollen gemeinsam unser gesetzgeberisches Handeln verbessern, wir wollen es verändern. Wir werden Rechtsetzung verbessern und zielgerichtet darauf achten, Bürokratie abzubauen.

Hervorheben möchte ich auch einen zweiten Aspekt: Bei besserer Rechtsetzung geht es im Kern nicht um die bloße Anzahl von EU-Gesetzen, um mehr oder weniger. Entscheidend ist vielmehr die Qualität. Hohe Verbraucherschutz- und Umweltstandards wahren und ausbauen, die Grundrechte und die Arbeitnehmerrechte stärken – das erwarten die Bürgerinnen und Bürger von uns, und daran werden sich Kommission, Parlament und Rat schlussendlich auch messen lassen müssen.

   Anneleen Van Bossuyt (ECR). – Morgen stemmen we over iets wat eigenlijk vanzelfsprekend zou moeten zijn: de Europese instellingen gaan voor betere wetgeving. Enkel Europees optreden waar nodig, eenvoudige en gemakkelijk toepasbare wetgeving en het vermijden van overbodige administratieve lasten. En wat zien we? We zien dat het akkoord dat niet weerspiegelt.

De wijze waarop het akkoord tot stand is gekomen laat dan ook te wensen over. Als je natuurlijk de onderhandelingen voor het Europees Parlement laat voeren door Guy Verhofstadt, iemand die staat voor het oude Europa, los van elke realiteit, dan kom je tot een niet-representatieve situatie. Vandaag is hij hier ook weer de grote afwezige, dus dat bevestigt dit alleen maar.

Het gebrek aan transparantie gedurende het hele proces heeft dit ook alleen maar in de hand gewerkt. Laat dit dus een les zijn voor de toekomst. We hebben nood aan een nieuwe wind in Europa, het oude Europa is niet meer!

  Max Andersson (Verts/ALE). – Fru talman! Den här överenskommelsen är en överenskommelse mellan rådet, kommissionen och parlamentet om hur EU ska stifta lag i framtiden. Den innehåller både bra saker och dåliga saker, men den bästa saken är ändå att de förslag som kommissionen presenterade och som hade riskerat att paralysera EU:s lagstiftningsprocess inte längre är kvar.

Vi gröna är oroade över förslag om att införa alltför mycket konsekvensanalyser. Varför då? Är det inte bra att analysera konsekvenserna innan man går till beslut? Jo, det är det, men det är så mycket enklare att se kostnaderna för ett politiskt förslag som drabbar ett enskilt företag – exempelvis en producent av en farlig kemikalie – än att se vinsterna av det politiska förslaget om att förbjuda den farliga kemikalien, något som väldigt många människor som har nytta av. De här diffusa vinsterna och ett övermått av konsekvensanalyser riskerar att paralysera beslutsprocessen.

  Tadeusz Zwiefka (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Koleżanki i Koledzy! Chciałbym dołączyć do tych wszystkich głosów, które mówią o tym, że nie jesteśmy jednak w pełni zadowoleni z zakończonych negocjacji dotyczących porozumienia międzyinstytucjonalnego. Oczekiwaliśmy więcej, udało się zrobić tylko tyle, ile się udało. Dzisiaj Parlament jest w sytuacji, że może powiedzieć tak lub nie dla tego porozumienia. No cóż możemy powiedzieć, oczywiście powiemy tak, ponieważ jest to absolutnie niezbędne porozumienie. Ale mówimy także nie dla ewentualnego zamknięcia dalszych negocjacji, bo one są niezbędne. Chcemy również powiedzieć, że będziemy oczekiwać, że chociażby to, co już zostało w porozumieniu międzyinstytucjonalnym zawarte, w rzeczywistości będzie przez wszystkie trzy instytucje w pełni respektowane.

W tym Parlamencie, w tej Izbie co roku dyskutujemy nad sprawozdaniem przygotowanym przez Komisję Prawną właśnie dotyczącym lepszego stanowienia prawa, tworzenia lepszych mechanizmów, tworzenia dobrej europejskiej przestrzeni prawnej. Ale chcę wyraźnie zaznaczyć, że dobra współpraca pomiędzy instytucjami, to nie jest wystarczający element dobrego tworzenia prawa. Przede wszystkim musi być na stole dobry projekt, no i oczywiście dobry efekt końcowy. A tutaj bywa różnie. Dlatego jest mi bardzo przykro, że mimo naszych starań, grupy PPE, ale i nie tylko, w Impact Assessment nie mamy testu SME. Chociaż mamy solenne zapewnienie ze strony Komisji Europejskiej, że będzie przeprowadzała bardzo szerokie konsultacje. A propos tych konsultacji – za chwilę, kiedy skończymy debatę na ten temat, Komisja Europejska przedstawi propozycję ustawodawczą dotyczącą delegowania pracowników. z tego co wiem, konsultacje nie zostały w ogóle przeprowadzone, więc albo się okłamujemy, albo będziemy razem dobrze pracować. Wierzę, że to drugie jest bardziej pewne

  Vicky Ford (ECR). – Madam President, increasing competitiveness is key to delivering stronger economies, increasing prosperity and boosting jobs and growth. We need to rewind the red tape, remove the bureaucracy and reduce the costs faced by businesses and public services when they try to comply with European law.

This new agreement, which will govern how the Parliament, the 28 countries of Europe, and the EU Commission work together on better regulation will help – but we can go further. Last month, European leaders and the Commission promised a sector-by-sector, year-by-year approach to eliminate the unnecessary costs faced by businesses and passed on to consumers. Our economies cannot afford for this to be an empty promise.

Commissioner, Member States, Parliament: let us work together to deliver on those promises.

  Pavel Svoboda (PPE). – Paní předsedající, promluvím jako předseda Výboru pro právní záležitosti, do jehož kompetence mimo jiné spadá zdokonalování tvorby právních předpisů.

Je jistě pozitivní to, že nyní novou dohodu máme. Nicméně, Evropský parlament v této oblasti již v minulosti stanovil určité postoje, které se podařilo do výsledného textu dostat jenom částečně. Proto pár poznámek k několika aspektům.

Za prvé: hodnocení dopadů je důležitý nástroj pro hodnocení kvality právních předpisů. K takovému hodnocení patří i to, aby nové předpisy nezpůsobovaly nadměrnou administrativní zátěž pro jejich uživatele. Nezávislost hodnocení dopadů je nadále jednou z našich největších priorit, která zatím nebyla plně dosažena.

Za druhé: nová dohoda vyžaduje další návazné kroky například k aktům k přenesené pravomoci a k prováděcím aktům. Teprve potom bude dohoda plus minus kompletní. Konečně musíme také sledovat implementaci dohody jako celku, protože jedině tak budeme mít skutečně funkční nástroj, který splní svoji roli.

Proto Výbor pro právní záležitosti bude společně s Výborem pro ústavní záležitosti sledovat výklad a provádění nové dohody, a to skrze zprávy z vlastního podnětu a také skrze společnou pracovní skupinu.

  Емил Радев (PPE). – Уважаеми колеги, мисля, че можехме да постигнем и по-добър резултат с това споразумение, защото ние трябва да правим по-прости и ясни закони, а не да засипваме гражданите и бизнеса с бюрокрация. В тази връзка, договореното годишно изследване относно тежестта е важен инструмент за идентифициране и мониторинг на резултатите от усилията на европейските институции, за да се избегне и намали свръхрегулирането и административната тежест с акцент върху малките и средните предприятия. Необходимо е ясно да се разграничава тежестта, наложена от различните предложения на Комисията и актовете на отделните държави членки. По този начин вече няма Брюксел да е виновен при появата на различни проблеми, дължащи се на мерки, взети от държавите членки.

Консултациите с обществеността при законодателното планиране ще спомогнат да се обърне повече внимание на въздействието на новите закони върху конкурентоспособността. Годишният преглед на тежестта и оценките на въздействието на проектите за законодателство ще установяват контрол върху въздействието, което те оказват, по-специално по отношение на малките и средните предприятия. Надявам се, че новите правила и ангажименти, приети с това споразумение, ще се прилагат правилно и ще спомогнат за наистина по-добро, съвременно и качествено европейско законодателство.

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospodine predsjedniče, pozdravljam izvjestiteljeve preporuke jer dijelim njegovu zabrinutost zbog zanemarivanja procjene učinaka zakonodavstva na mala i srednja poduzeća. Te su tvrtke kralježnica europskog gospodarstva i zapošljavaju više od 80 % zaposlenika u privatnom sektoru pa bi se svaki odgovoran zakonodavac morao, između ostalih, voditi i njihovim interesima.

Dok se u ovom domu predlaže procjena učinaka zakonodavstva na jednakost spolova, malim i srednjim privatnim tvrtkama koje zapošljavaju pripadnike oba spola i tako osiguravaju barem djelomičnu jednakost u praksi dajemo premalo na važnosti.

Kad je riječ o zakonima i ostalim aktima, kvaliteta je puno važnija od kvantitete. Nadam se stoga da ćemo konačno dočekati sveobuhvatnu regulatornu giljotinu koja će ukloniti suvišna pravila i procedure i na europskoj, ali i na nacionalnoj razini, te osigurati da naše tvrtke dodatno profitiraju od jedinstvenog tržišta i zaposle još više ljudi.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, accolgo con favore questo accordo interistituzionale e lo considero una buona base per instaurare e sviluppare relazioni trasparenti tra le istituzioni, con l'obiettivo di legiferare meglio nell'interesse dei cittadini dell'Unione.

Mi compiaccio che sia stato deciso di tenere uno scambio di opinioni interistituzionale per la modifica della base giuridica di un atto. È importante utilizzare tutti gli strumenti a disposizione per legiferare meglio (e quindi valutazioni d'impatto, consultazioni pubbliche e delle parti interessate, analisi, specifiche, ecc.) al fine di garantire un processo decisionale informato, inclusivo e trasparente.

Riconosco quindi che le misure concordate per migliorare lo scambio di opinioni e di informazioni tra il Parlamento e il Consiglio in qualità di legislatori costituiscono, indubbiamente, un passo avanti. Tuttavia, ritengo necessario un approfondimento in particolare per quanto riguarda l'accesso reciproco alle informazioni e alle riunioni, in modo da poter assicurare reale equilibrio e parità di trattamento tra legislatori nel corso dell'intero processo legislativo, garantendo il rispetto del principio di leale cooperazione tra le istituzioni.

  Pirkko Ruohonen-Lerner (ECR). – Arvoisa puhemies, EU:n lainsäädäntötyötä on joskus verrattu polkupyörällä ajamiseen: pitää koko ajan polkea, muuten kaatuu.

No poljettu on. Joidenkin arvioiden mukaan EU:ssa on tehty 40 000 erilaista laillista toimenpidettä. Kukaan ei tunnu tietävän tarkkaa lukua. Myös polkijoita riittää. Pelkästään komissiossa työskentelee tällä hetkellä noin 33 000 virkamiestä.

Hübnerin mietintö on minusta tervetullut muistutus siitä, mitä Euroopan unionista on alun perin sovittu. EU:n tehtävänä on antaa säädöksiä ainoastaan silloin, kun se on tarpeen, ja ainoastaan siinä laajuudessa, kun se on tarpeen. Tämä on hyvä ohjenuora, joka on syytä aina välillä palautta mieleen, olipa Euroopan unionista sitten mitä mieltä tahansa.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, três ideias-chave sobre este programa a que chamaram Legislar Melhor e ao acordo interinstitucional que lhe dá suporte.

Primeiro, legislar melhor. Segundo, que critérios e servindo que interesses? Pelo que podemos ver, será a dita competitividade das empresas – leia-se os interesses dos grandes grupos económicos europeus – a determinar, ainda mais, a oportunidade e o conteúdo da legislação, sobrepondo-se este critério, ainda mais, a critérios sociais e ambientais, que alguma coisa poderiam ainda aproveitar à melhoria das condições de vida dos povos.

Segundo, desenham-se mais gravosas limitações à democraticidade do processo legislativo e decisório. Está aberta a porta para uma maior concentração de poder na Comissão Europeia e para a limitação da capacidade de intervenção dos colegisladores, muito especialmente dos deputados.

Terceiro, transparência. As declarações de boas intenções a este respeito não têm correspondência em medidas concretas. O acesso a documentos e reuniões continua a confrontar-se com inúmeros obstáculos, em prejuízo da transparência do processo legislativo, e sabemos que é na sombra que os poderes fácticos se afirmam. É a eles, fundamentalmente, que serve este programa.

Preşedinte: IOAN MIRCEA PAŞCU
Vicepreşedinte

  Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la domanda che ci siamo posti all'inizio di questo dibattito è stata "meglio un bicchiere mezzo pieno o mezzo vuoto?" Secondo i punti di vista, quest'accordo può essere entrambi. Io, purtroppo, concordo con chi lo vede più mezzo vuoto. È vero, ci sono stati dei passi in avanti, ad esempio in tema di programmazione. Si parla anche di impact assessment, ma poi dovremmo effettivamente vedere chi lo farà in nome e per conto della Commissione.

E per quanto riguarda le PMI, è chiaro che questo è un punto molto caro al movimento che rappresento ma non vorremmo che, sotto le mentite spoglie dell'occhio di riguardo per una legislazione che diminuisca il loro fardello burocratico, si nasconda un cavallo di Troia che punti a smantellare quel corpus di diritti e principi per i cittadini che l'acquis communautaire rappresenta e che sono piuttosto invisi alle grandi multinazionali.

Abbiamo delle critiche anche sull'aspetto procedurale. Scegliere un negoziatore unico, che non ha ricevuto mandato sulle singole questioni da parte del Parlamento, non è stata la scelta migliore. E poi chiediamo anche più trasparenza su triloghi. Non basta sapere ex post, abbiamo bisogno invece che siano più conformi allo spirito dei Trattati.

Il principio della trasparenza e della responsabilità politica non è negoziabile.

  Ελευθέριος Συναδινός (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η νέα διοργανική συμφωνία για τη βελτίωση της νομοθεσίας είναι ένα γράμμα κενό νόμου. Πρωτοετής φοιτητής της Νομικής θα μιλούσε για κενό δικαίου. Πολλάκις η γραμματική, ιστορική, τεχνολογική, συστηματική ερμηνεία του δικαίου της Ένωσης έρχεται σε ευθεία αντίθεση με τις αρχές της αναλογικότητας και επικουρικότητας καθώς και την ασφάλεια δικαίου. Τα παραδείγματα πολλά και τα γνωρίζουμε όλοι σε αυτή την αίθουσα, όταν για παράδειγμα η Επιτροπή αποστέλλει νομοθετικές πράξεις ή οδηγίες μη λαμβάνοντας υπόψη τις παρατηρήσεις των διαφόρων κοινοβουλευτικών επιτροπών ακόμα και μετά το πέρας δύο αναγνώσεων. Πολλές και οι περιπτώσεις μη μεταφοράς του κοινοτικού δικαίου στα αντίστοιχα εθνικά. Η νομική επιστήμη δεν είναι θετική επιστήμη, διότι τα πορίσματά της δεν μπορούν να επαληθευθούν με πειράματα. Οι θεσμοί δυστυχώς έχουν καταντήσει τους πολίτες της Ένωσης πειραματόζωα εσφαλμένων οικονομικών, κυρίως, πολιτικών και νομοθετημάτων.

  Ramón Jáuregui Atondo (S&D). – Señora Presidenta, yo quería sumarme al acuerdo y quería recordar dos cuestiones que me parecen importantes de este acuerdo.

En primer lugar, que por primera vez se establece un procedimiento para que la Comisión tenga que responder a las propuestas de actos que vengan de este Parlamento. El acuerdo establece tres meses de plazo para que la Comisión dé una respuesta, e inclusive dé un seguimiento a las propuestas de iniciativa que surgen de esta Cámara. Me parece un logro muy importante, porque todos sabemos que muchas veces los informes de iniciativa o de propuestas legislativas que surgen del Parlamento a veces duermen en los cajones de la Comisión.

Este compromiso de respuesta me parece muy importante y me parece también muy importante, en segundo lugar, el compromiso de mayor capacidad de acceso a la información, a los documentos, y de incorporarse a las reuniones, por parte del Parlamento, del Consejo, porque mejorar la relación entre Consejo y Parlamento favorecerá mucho el proceso legislativo.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, έχω κάνει συχνά κριτική στην Κομισιόν για τη γραφειοκρατία που έχει, για τη σύγκρουση συμφερόντων που παρουσιάζει ως μέλος της τρόικας και ως θεματοφύλακας των συνθηκών, αλλά θέλω να πω κάτι και να απευθυνθώ στο Σώμα: Έχει δει το Προεδρείο τι νέα γραφειοκρατία έχει φέρει με τον νέο τρόπο πρόσληψης των τοπικών συνεργατών των βουλευτών; Έχετε ασχοληθεί πραγματικά με το τι γραφειοκρατικό τέρας έχετε δημιουργήσει; Εάν κάποιος θέλει να προσλάβει κάποιον με τηλεργασία, ο οποίος δεν μένει στην Αθήνα φέρ’ ειπείν και μένει στη Θεσσαλονίκη, δεν μπορεί να τον προσλάβει με σύμβαση αορίστου χρόνου, διότι πρέπει να έρθει να εγκατασταθεί στην Αθήνα, και σου λέει να τον προσλάβεις με σύμβαση παροχής ελεύθερων υπηρεσιών.

Πολύ απλά, το ίδιο το Κοινοβούλιο, με τη γραφειοκρατία που έχετε φέρει, έχει κάνει έτσι την κατάσταση που δεν μπορούμε ούτε να προσλάβουμε τοπικούς βοηθούς ούτε να αναθέσουμε υποθέσεις. Τεράστια γραφειοκρατία! Ένα έγγραφο που είχε πέντε σελίδες το κάνατε πενήντα σελίδες! Λοιπόν, πριν κάνουμε κριτική στην Κομισιόν, ας αποφασίσει και το Κοινοβούλιο να μαζέψει τη γραφειοκρατία που έχει δημιουργήσει.

  Paloma López Bermejo (GUE/NGL). – Señor Presidente, la mayor parte de los europeos ya saben que la Unión Europea no es una institución democrática. No puede serlo una institución que exige el pago de la deuda frente al mantenimiento de los servicios públicos, que obliga a los trabajadores a renunciar a sus derechos laborales o que se niega a abrir sus fronteras a los refugiados de las guerras que ella misma alimenta.

Quizá con otras mayorías sería distinto, con una Europa vertebrada por sus clases trabajadoras, conscientes y organizadas para defender sus derechos frente a las oligarquías. Pero, con propuestas como la de hoy, se nos niega incluso esa posibilidad formal, retirando al Parlamento la posibilidad de actuar como cámara representativa de la voluntad popular. Pues lo que este Acuerdo contiene no es otra cosa que una concentración de poderes en una burocracia no elegida, la de la Comisión, una fantasía weberiana del dominio neoliberal.

Para nosotros la ley no es un complemento a los intereses del mercado: es, por el contrario, un arma para la conquista de derechos y libertades a la que este Parlamento no puede renunciar.

(Încheierea procedurii „catch the eye”)

  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I will make just a few comments on what I have heard.

First of all, I fail to understand how anyone can say that doing something for SMEs is neo-liberal policy. I just do not understand it. If we can help SMEs across the European Union so that people who run small businesses can run their business instead of being engaged in endless hours of administration, they can hire extra people – how is that neoliberal? If we are to create more jobs in this European Union, we will have to start with SMEs. That is the best bet we have and this programme, this agreement, gives us extra concentration on what it means for SMEs. Why? Because they cannot defend themselves as well as big corporations can in the Brussels bubble. That is why I strongly believe we should concentrate on helping SMEs be better at what they do.

My second point is this: Mr Durand of the Greens got terribly excited – I was a bit afraid he might do himself some harm – but he was angry because we were lowering social standards and lowering environmental standards. I have challenged his group time and again to give me three examples of where this Commission has come up with proposals that led to lower social or environmental standards. Two would be fine. Even one. Nothing. So before he gets terribly excited he should perhaps talk to other members of his Group so that we know what we are talking about.

Finally, let me repeat very clearly that to me this is the beginning of a process. The way we implement this will show whether we really are capable of better law-making or not. It is not just about having less regulation at European level. It is also, in a rational way – a socially, environmentally and economically sustainable way – about removing too much red tape because there are 28 different regulations, and trying to find a common European solution. That also is better regulation.

So I am proud of the fact that we have got this agreement. I will repeat once again that I would have loved to go beyond what we have achieved, but still this represents the consensus between three institutions and different political angles to this. I believe it is the basis for truly better regulation, completely controlled by the outside world, because we are going to be much more transparent, engaging others much more. Especially by using the expertise in the REFIT platform, we will be able to create momentum so that in future our SMEs in particular will not be overburdened by unnecessary regulation.

  Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, many Members have spoken about the importance of the impact assessments and yes, I am convinced that the impact assessment will strengthen the decision-making process in the Council and the European Parliament. I am also convinced that new impact assessments will allow the institutions to better assess the implication of legislation at a very early stage. It is important to note, though, that impact assessments will not or should not limit the roles of the co-legislators, whether in Parliament or in the Council. It will and should only serve as a very helpful tool so yes, I agree very much with you, Mr Howitt, on impact assessments. These are advisory because ultimately it is us, the co-legislators, who will take a political decision. But clearly, the better the impact assessment is, the more informed the political decision will be.

Mr Pieper mentioned the issue of gold-plating. The current text in my view is clear and reflects the roles and responsibilities of the institutions and the Member States in a process of implementation and transposition of Union legislation. It is important that we all have a very clear picture about what aspects of national legislation are of a European nature and what aspects are the result of national considerations. It is clearly indicated in the agreement. With the current wording we were able to listen to the wishes of the European Parliament and the positions held by national parliaments with their specific role in the implementation process.

I know that Mr Pieper wanted to go further when it comes to gold-plating, I understand, but I do hope that he will accept that a glass half-full, as the First Vice-President said, can still be enjoyable to drink.

Ms Adinolfi and several others mentioned the importance of increased transparency. I stressed this as well earlier, and I would like to stress again that under the Netherlands Presidency we will also make a start with two important provisions in the agreement: the register for delegated acts and the database on the state of play of legislative files. I do hope that the European Parliament and the Commission will undertake similar steps thereby making it possible to strengthen transparency of the Union as a whole.

On the SMEs I think the First Vice-President of the European Commission was very clear about that and yes, I do agree with Mrs Vicky Ford. She is right: we need to deliver on our promises, and I am convinced that we will act accordingly.

Before closing, let me take the opportunity to thank the chief negotiators, Guy Verhofstadt and First Vice-President Frans Timmermans and Minister Nicolas Schmit for reaching this agreement, and I also wish to thank the rapporteur, Ms Hubner, and her colleagues in the AFCO Committee for their hard work. I look forward to cooperating closely with Parliament and the Commission on the agreement.

  Danuta Maria Hübner, rapporteur. – Mr President, I would like to use my two minutes to address the two institutions which are here with us today. I would like to thank the Council, represented by the Dutch Presidency, and the Commission, represented by First Vice-President Timmermans, for their commitment to the implementation of the Interinstitutional agreement on better law-making. I am sure that if we work on implementation in close cooperation, if we commit ourselves to smart implementation, it will allow us to make maybe not the full extra mile, as you said, First Vice-President, but as many colleagues have said today through implementation I think we can do more for better law-making. We can indeed, as you were trying to say, go beyond what is on the paper and the Parliament is committed to it.

We have heard that the Council is starting the debate on implementation and will ensure the implementation of the agreement in close cooperation with the Parliament and with the Commission. And this is good news for us, but for us in the European Parliament it is also important that we move forward on better law-making, while respecting equality between legislators. In the agreement, steps have been taken to improve the mutual exchange of views and information between the Council and the European Parliament. We need to develop this cooperation further.

Transparency of decision-making, although recognised in the agreement, requires further follow-up in the implementation phase. Indeed it is up to us, as somebody said, to implement this Interinstitutional agreement in a way that will multiply the value of this joint interinstitutional effort toward better law.

So, once again thank you to all those who were involved in all the institutions, and I also have hope that tomorrow we will have a happy end to this exercise. And then, as you said First Vice-President, it is just the beginning of a strong, joint effort on implementation.

  Preşedinte. – Dezbaterea a fost închisă.

Votul va avea loc miercuri, 9 martie 2016.

Declaraţii scrise (articolul 162)

  Hugues Bayet (S&D), par écrit. – Les trois membres du PS belge élus dans ce Parlement ont voté contre cet accord car ils estiment que, sous le couvert d'une simplification de la législation européenne, le programme REFIT menace lourdement nombre de dispositions relatives à la protection sociale, de protection environnementale et de santé publique. Or, encore plus qu'avant cette longue période d'austérité, l'Europe doit protéger ses citoyens et ses travailleurs.

Nous avons voté contre ce point, car, outre cette vive inquiétude, l'approche interinstitutionnelle est déséquilibrée puisqu'il prévoit uniquement une consultation du Parlement européen par la Commission européenne et par le Conseil dans la mise en oeuvre de REFIT. C'est clairement insuffisant au vu des menaces qui planent sur la sécurité et la santé des travailleurs ou, plus généralement, des citoyens européens.

  József Szájer (PPE), in writing. – One word about delegated acts: it is high time to solve this remaining stumbling block that the EP has been facing during almost all negotiations. Whether the concessions given to Council as regards Members States’ expert consultation will achieve this aim – only time can tell. It is only to be hoped. Since being the owner of several reports in this field, I will advise my Group to examine carefully how the commitments are followed up, especially on common criteria, full alignment and common register.

  Adam Szejnfeld (PPE), na piśmie. – Porozumienie między Komisją, Radą i Parlamentem zastępuje umowę z 2003 roku i ma na celu usprawnienie unijnego prawodawstwa. Chodzi między innymi o to, aby unijne przepisy osiągały zamierzony skutek jak najmniejszym kosztem i przy jak najmniejszych obciążeniach administracyjnych. Nowe porozumienie międzyinstytucjonalne zakłada, że proces stanowienia prawa będzie jawny i przejrzysty oraz oparty na jak najdokładniejszych informacjach z istotnym udziałem zainteresowanych stron.

Poprawa istniejącego porozumienia międzyinstytucjonalnego jest szczególnie istotna w momencie coraz częstszego kwestionowania funkcjonowania instytucji unijnych i ich oddalenia od problemów obywateli europejskich. W Brukseli tworzy się często prawo, którego nikt nie rozumie, a korzyści z niego wynikające są przez wielu kontestowane. Dzięki porozumieniu polepszony ma być cały cykl polityczny – planowanie, opracowywanie, przyjmowanie, wdrażanie, ocenianie i modyfikowanie nowego prawa. Służyć temu ma m.in. wieloletnie i roczne programowanie prac Komisji Europejskiej, ocena skutków wprowadzenia lub niewprowadzenia prawa na szczeblu unijnym czy konsultacje publiczne z zainteresowanymi stronami.

Bardzo cieszę się, że w końcowym dokumencie znalazła się także konieczność przeprowadzania przez instytucje oceny konsekwencji nowego prawa unijnego, w tym szczególnie dla małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw, bowiem to one są najbardziej wrażliwe na zmiany prawne – zarówno negatywne, jak i pozytywne.

  Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE), na piśmie. – Uważam, że efektywne porozumienie w zakresie lepszego stanowienia prawa między Parlamentem Europejskim, Radą Unii Europejskiej oraz Komisją Europejską ma fundamentalny wpływ na każdą dziedzinę naszego życia w Unii Europejskiej. Dzięki nowo zaproponowanym przepisom jesteśmy na dobrej drodze nie tylko do zmniejszenia kosztów oraz obciążeń administracyjnych, ale także zwiększenia jawności i przejrzystości stanowionego prawa.

Istotnym elementem porozumienia jest fakt, że dotyczy ono całego cyklu politycznego, od etapu planowania, poprzez wdrażanie aż do oceny i ewentualnych modyfikacji. Moim zdaniem jednym z najistotniejszych narzędzi, które powinniśmy wykorzystywać, są konsultacje społeczne, które pozwalają zainteresowanym stronom na wypowiedzenie swojego zdania na dany temat. Aktywny udział obywateli w procesie tworzenia unijnego prawa, jeszcze przed przedstawieniem przez Komisję Europejską nowej propozycji legislacyjnej, znacznie zmniejsza dystans w stosunku do instytucji oraz daje nam praktyczne wskazówki dotyczące oczekiwań i potencjalnych obaw obywateli, przedsiębiorstw oraz organizacji.