4 april: Commissie-Voorzitter Barroso over de kwaliteit van de EU-wetgeving
Nieuwsbericht | 04-04-2006
SPEECH/06/221
José Manuel Barroso Président de la Commission Européenne
Qualité de la législation européenne : le temps des résultats
Parlement Européen Strasbourg, 4 avril 2006
La législation européenne est au coeur de ce qui fait toute la singularité de l'Union européenne. Sans elle, nous serions tributaires de la coopération et de la bonne volonté des uns ou des autres. Ces deux éléments sont certes essentiels au bon fonctionnement de l'Europe, mais ils ne suffisent pas à garantir les libertés et les droits dont jouissent les Européens d'aujourd'hui.
Nous légiférons pour de nombreuses raisons. Par exemple, pour protéger la santé, en veillant à la sécurité alimentaire ; pour protéger l'environnement, en fixant des normes de qualité de l'air et de l'eau ; ou pour prévoir des règles destinées aux entreprises qui opèrent dans le marché intérieur, afin qu'elles soient à armes égales. Nous légiférons au niveau de l'UE parce que les États membres se sont mis d'accord pour que certaines mesures soient arrêtées à l'échelon communautaire. Concrètement, il s'agit bien de substituer une seule règle, applicable dans toute l'Union, à 25 règles nationales.
Pour autant, nous devons veiller à ce que la législation et la réglementation européennes apportent une valeur ajoutée, qu'elles soient ciblées, qu'elles respectent le principe de subsidiarité, et qu'elles soient correctement mises en oeuvre et proportionnelles au besoin auquel elles répondent.
Les dispositions adoptées ne doivent pas être excessives, ni aller au-delà du strict nécessaire. Il faut éviter les règles qui prescrivent trop, qui entraînent des dépenses injustifiées ou qui peuvent se révéler contre-productives. Il faut aussi éliminer les superpositions de règles qui, avec le temps, finissent par se recouper, ce qui est préjudiciable aux entreprises, au secteur associatif, aux pouvoirs publics et aux citoyens.
Permettez-moi de féliciter le Parlement européen d'avoir pris l'excellente initiative de ce débat sur le thème « mieux légiférer ». Il nous donne l'occasion de soumettre cette question à un examen cohérent. Je tiens à remercier Mme Frassoni, M. Doorn, Mme McCarthy et M. Gargani pour leurs excellents travaux et leurs rapports.
Pour peser vraiment sur la qualité de nos initiatives législatives, il nous faut un ensemble de mesures et un principe directeur fort. C'est ce qui ressort clairement des divers rapports, dans lesquels notre échange de vues d'aujourd'hui trouve une base solide.
Ces rapports - et la façon dont nous y répondons - prouvent que nos deux institutions ont parcouru bien du chemin ces dernières années. La nécessité de « mieux légiférer » et de formuler de meilleures règles fait l'objet d'un réel consensus. Notre activité législative est un processus continu : nous devons collaborer pour que nos choix politiques, quels qu'ils soient, se traduisent par une législation de la plus haute qualité.
Comment envisageons-nous ce défi ? Nous le reconnaissons, nous devons apporter des améliorations à tous les stades du cycle, c'est-à-dire des actes déjà adoptés aux nouvelles initiatives, en passant par les propositions en cours de négociation. Ces quatre dernières années, la Commission a lancé un vaste dispositif pour mieux légiférer, qui conjugue plusieurs mesures:
Toutes ces mesures donnent aujourd'hui des résultats tangibles.
Let's look at impact assessment. Since 2003, the Commission has put in place a system to look at the economic, social and environmental impacts of all its major proposals. Since the adoption of the integrated approach, 120 impact assessments were published. We also updated our guidelines - to help staff to better examine options and impacts, including on competitiveness; and to focus attention on issues such as the costs of too much paperwork. This reflects a marked and profound change in approach and attitude. It is real progress.
We know that not all assessments yet meet the same standards. We know there is room for improvement. We recognise - as pointed out in Mr. Doorn's report on behalf of the Legal Affairs Committee - that quality can be improved and that quality control mechanisms must be strengthened.
I fully subscribe to the need for a separate scrutiny of impact assessments. A kind of four-eyes principle if you like.
We are working on a comprehensive approach. First, we need to ensure that our impact assessments are organised in the right way. As promised in March 2005, we are setting up a network of technical and scientific experts to help us develop methods to ensure that impact assessments are comprehensive and of high quality. An external evaluation of the system is also underway to identify where we are doing well and where we need to do better.
Second, the authors of impact assessments need feedback to know if they have done a good job. This is why consultation is part and parcel of the impact assessment process. It is also one reason why all Commission impact assessments are on the Europa website.
As for quality control of the individual assessments, I agree that an independent check should be done. I suggest that the best guarantee for impartiality is to put such a check under the authority of the President of the Commission. I have asked the Secretary General to examine how best to step up our quality support and control.
But let me stress, that we need to work much more closely with you on impact assessment. I welcome the recent agreement on the 'Common Approach to Impact Assessment'. This set of 'traffic rules' for dealing with impact assessment across all three institutions is an important step forward. It will facilitate our work together and avoid duplication of effort.
Moving on to simplification - we have made a good start. The action programme, which we adopted last year, foresees the repeal, codification, recasting or modification of some 220 legal acts covering a wide range of policies.
The programme - already underway in the automobile, waste and construction sectors - will be reviewed and updated in consultation with stockholders. Other sectors such as foodstuffs, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals or services will follow. We need your input to determine the right targets and to secure the best results.
We need Council and Parliament to speed up the adoption of simplification proposals. My reading from your reports is that we basically agree on what we are trying to achieve - now we have to get down to work, look at the substance, and deliver results.
We are also tackling administrative burdens, which are particularly bothersome for small business. This means simplifying forms and modernizing the customs code to help electronic exchange of information. We are introducing the measurement of administrative costs in our impact assessments. It is essential that Council and Parliament pay attention to the 'paperwork load' when they suggest amendments.
I think we also need to test new approaches to regulation looking at co-regulation and self-regulation as a possible alternative. We can work closer with industry, for example, to deliver results on a voluntary basis.
I understand very well your concerns about not being closely associated in the preparation and development of non-legislative approaches. Where such approaches seem the best route, I fully accept the need to work out ways of keeping you involved in their preparation and implementation.
Finally, I would like to say a word about the implementation of law. This is a high priority for the Commission.
Our laws need to be correctly applied and implemented - otherwise our efforts as policy and law makers are in vain.
As more and more policy areas mature, we should see a shift in political attention and resources towards implementation.
As Commission, we need of course to manage infringement proceedings efficiently. I am conscious of the need to reduce the time spent on the individual infringement procedures. We need quicker ways to respond to the problems faced by citizens and business.
We should look at these broad issues of implementation together and explore constructive ways to deal with them. I expect to come back to you with our specific suggestions later in the year.
Mr. President, honourable Members, I believe that the reports discussed today show a shared analysis of what needs to be done. The Commission has put the building blocks in place. Now we have to deliver on our commitment. I am convinced that if we work in partnership, we can show that Europe is not about red tape and unnecessary burdens - but about delivering what citizens need, in the right way.
Thank you for your attention.
