Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

 Index 
 Full text 
Verbatim report of proceedings
Tuesday, 4 April 2006 - Strasbourg OJ edition

Monitoring the application of Community law (2003-2004) - Better lawmaking 2004: application of the principle of subsidiarity - The implementation consequences and impact of the internal market legislation in force - Strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment (debate)
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria Berger, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I want to extend very warm thanks to all the rapporteurs and to those who have drafted opinions, not least for having agreed to us having this joint debate on them here today.

This joint debate makes it possible for us to see all the aspects that we have to debate today under the headings of ‘better regulation’ or ‘better lawmaking’. I have to admit that it is getting harder and harder for me to get any overview of this debate. There is often nothing visible behind the well-intentioned forms of words that we hear, and with which we are already familiar. I also sometimes suspect that this debate on better lawmaking is intended to distract us from our real functions as legislators and to serve as a pretext for inaction on the part of those who legislate for the Community or for better regulation meaning deregulation.

The whole thing has now got so baffling that one is tempted to call for a process of ‘better regulation of the better regulation process’ or for the impact of the impact assessment to be assessed. I am grateful to the rapporteurs for having worked out some very definite measures, albeit in amidst all this fog, particularly to Mrs Frassoni for her report with its concrete proposals for improved monitoring of the process of transposing Community law, for speedier infringement proceedings and greater transparency for those citizens who bring complaints.

After all, it is not acceptable that members of the public should bring a complaint, or that the Commission should commence infringement proceedings, and then see the proceedings suddenly halted without the public being given any real information as to why this has happened. This often puts them in a worse position in pending cases at national level, and so rather more transparency is called for here.

Above all, I welcome the proposals that Mr Doorn has put together, especially those relating to impact assessment. We agree with him that the impact of acts of comitology needs to be assessed too, and with the idea that the impact assessment should be subject to independent review – independent, that is, of the relevant Directorate-General, but not necessarily conducted outside the Commission. The Commission has its political responsibility, and should not be required to surrender it; indeed, in this specific instance, it has no intention of really doing so.

We do not agree with Mr Doorn, though, on the question of mandatory impact assessments for amendments proposed in this House and in the Council. I do not think that we, as legislators, should, in this respect, allow ourselves to be shackled and silenced. A good impact assessment carried out by the Commission will also make it possible to gauge the effects of amendments, and there is also to hand the voluntary application of the impact assessment, of which – as we have heard – the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection has already availed itself, and that is something that should be discussed by the other committees too.

What is true of better regulation is true of all other good intentions and of all the good things in this life: it is no good unless something is actually done about it, rather than it just being talked about.

 
Legal notice - Privacy policy