kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
this. firstly i am taking a very strong approach to enforcement and i am again grateful for your support on this. we have launched infringement procedures against seven member states so far but i am sure we have not finished our work yet and i will launch many more procedures if necessary.
fundamentally. i hear very often ok this case was unacceptable but this is an
they show me that the commission is really on the right
emissions cars. we are responsible as policy makers because industry needs a clear regulatory
and most importantly to protect our consumers and our citizens. the commission has made big efforts so far. we have achieved a lot already. most notably i have tabled a revision of the type approval framework but of course there is still a lot more to be
you propose the creation of the european vehicle surveillance agency and as you will have noticed in the white paper on the future of europe that this document refers to a possible enforcement agency i think we have to really discuss it further in this context. but in the meantime let us make quick progress on our legislative proposal on type
final point. the commission has taken first corrective actions but of course we cannot be the only ones. at the source of the scandals was the corrupt behaviour of a number of car
most importantly i also want the commissioners myself ourselves and co legislators to agree on an effective legal framework for type approval because such abuse should not take place again in europe.
we need to see early and effective adoption of the new type approval reform because this will be a game changer.
they have not done it so far.
we need to be engaged not only on the follow up of the recommendation but i think most importantly on ensuring that the legislation changes.
we can prevent this particular scandal from being repeated by creating an independent eu oversight agency but the next fraud and the next violation of the rules will be just as difficult to uncover as this one if we do not improve the accountability of our institutions.
a commission that discards all information all emails and all minutes after six months unless an official has explicitly marked them as important will never be a champion of transparency and it will remain part of the problem.
it could have been prevented. it was not. for all those people who thought we were helping the car industry with that they are the ones being punished the most because internationally there is a big lack of trust in european car manufacturers.
let that be a lesson for all our legislators.
if you look at the conclusions there are six counts of maladministration on member states.
that is forbidden by law.
it is really time for action and if the member states do not do this the commission has all the powers to address those national authorities.
after dieselgate business as usual is simply not an option.
whilst not a supporter of the setting up of this committee at the outset i do acknowledge the benefit of increasing awareness that has arrived so thank you to all of my colleagues for their work. it is the details of the complex legislation and its proper implementation at member state level that will be telling in the future.
in the aftermath of the diesel emissions scandal the european commission made new legislative proposals to ensure that car manufacturers comply with eu safety environmental and production requirements.
maybe they do not go far enough i am thinking for example of conformity factors here but they are a good start.
it is clear that we need to have better and more independent oversight of cars that are in circulation.
those of us working on air quality have known for some time about the problems with real driving emissions.
that is a separate issue from fraud but by its very nature is purposefully perpetrated. today i am supporting the call for a new european vehicle surveillance agency in this report and more importantly in the legislative type approval vote that will come later.
manufacturers and regulators knew for some time before the vw story broke about some of the discrepancies between the approval stage and on road testing.
i have to give special mention to my office who have been fantastic and mr alex keynes in particular whose work on this has been brilliant.
there have been clear instances of maladministration not just in the commission but crucially in member states where the oversight and surveillance were not taking place as they should have been.
i am very grateful to the commissioner for her words today because i think that although we have to see what actions will follow the commitment that she has shown here today is very welcome indeed particularly when you consider the starting point that we had in this committee of inquiry not just the challenges we had to set it up but also the insistence at many levels that nothing had gone wrong.
but we cannot waste this unique opportunity now to ensure that we never have another repeat of a scandal like dieselgate. we have to remember that this parliament is voting not just on a piece of dry legislation not just on another report that goes through the normal machinations.
this is our response to that crisis that crisis of confidence in our vehicle industry yes but a crisis in public health.
that is why it is not enough to say that we cannot have the tools at our disposal to sort this out.
we need that agency.
we need that independent level of operation to have vehicle surveillance across the european union. and please when it comes to compensation let us not talk immediately about companies going out of business as if we could put those roadblocks up at the very start.
this is a basic principle at play here.
consumers in the us have been compensated;
that is an issue of basic justice and what are we for in this place if not to stand up for consumers?
therefore i welcome commissioner pidla's resolution to do his utmost to deploy monies available in the european globalisation adjustment fund and the european social fund.
the ball is firmly in national governments' courts to apply for this funding.
the demise or offshoring of these companies is often a function of globalising forces. globalisation normally a positive force that increases global welfare can unfortunately wreak huge havoc on regional economies when large companies move location.
contrary to popular belief most of those in the libyan embassy at the time did not have diplomatic immunity and the suspect is not protected.
information has come to light that a suspect living in jordan has confessed to the murder and his identity is known to the british security services and to the metropolitan police.
so far no action has been taken by the british authorities to question him and if the evidence so demands to request his extradition from jordan to face trial.
pc yvonne fletcher deserves justice and the british authorities must now make every effort to bring her murderer to justice without further delay.
it was through his work in america particularly his efforts in national parks the protection of redwood forests and his founding of the world renowned sierra club which he wrote and spoke about that most importantly he inspired people to take care of and have responsibility for their environment.
john muir knew that if we do not protect our environment today we will lose it for ever.
john muir should be recognised in europe just as much as in america and i hope that together we can find some way to mark the life of this remarkable man.
mr president the nature nurture debate used to be the most important in politics and was the key to a whole range of political views. the nurture side had much to be said for it perceived kindness and fairness and of course non discrimination.
the nature side had only evidence to support it.
indeed nature has been airbrushed out of the picture even as a contestant.
they assume equal potential ability which does no favours to those without it.
they assume third world migrants can be substitute europeans when they only turn europe into the third world.
they confuse social mobility with equality of opportunity and do not realise that the latter will eventually bring the former to a shuddering halt.
they throw money at continents that cannot benefit from it because europe takes their brightest and best.
mr president last week marked another historic moment in the irish peace process.
the visit of the president of ireland michael d.
higgins to britain marked a significant change in the relations between britain and ireland and highlighted the need for further and deeper reconciliation.
this progressive step has been welcomed by all those like myself who champion this peace process.
the eu has played its part in making this come about with peace funding and constant support for those emerging from this conflict and long may it continue.
the significance of this event should not be underestimated nor should the repeated calls for those involved to continue the reconciliation process.
to that end i want to state that i am very committed to building reconciliation among all our people and to creating an agreed ireland.
by majority in expressing european solidarity on the refugee crisis which i believe the majority in this house want to see.
i know the president agrees with this.
but following the council meeting of monday and the lack of consensus and urgency in reaching majority agreement on an organised and compassionate response to the refugee crisis here in the european union it is necessary that we respond and that we have our view and that people see parliament doing its job. in particular the failure to reach an agreement on the one hundred and twenty zero relocation mechanism to assist with the refugee crisis in italy greece and hungary will be seen to be one of the major omissions of the council conclusions of monday. it is clearly vital that parliament speak on this issue directly and immediately. we can do this by agreeing now to approve this urgent procedure and we will do so tomorrow in our vote i hope
our work in the new parliament should perhaps begin with a new approach in this area and i call on our partner institutions to begin discussions on this.
when we adopted my first report in june two thousand and eleven we called for renewed commitment to smart regulations from all sides sectorial plans for reducing administrative burdens assessment of competitiveness in impact assessments and exemptions for europe's smallest businesses from regulation where not necessary.
we are too quick to ignore inconvenient impact assessments which point out the costs of action or even in many cases fail to assess the impacts at all.
in this area interaction remains unsatisfactory.
my recommendations do not however fall solely upon the commission.
we must heed these words for on this occasion president hollande actually suggested the correct medicine.
we must be bolder still in our efforts to establish a competitive business environment.
such developments are part and parcel of the better lawmaking agreement concluded between the institutions.
this is now my third report on the topic of better lawmaking for this house.
when legislative files come to our committees we must seriously examine these accompanying documents to ensure that we legislate on the basis of evidence.
it is through commitment on the part of this parliament leadership from the heads of state and government in council and through changing attitudes in the commission towards a leaner more effective europe based on a competitive regulatory environment promoting jobs and growth.
however this agreement is perhaps showing its age.
the council must also take on this responsibility in order that both institutions know the impact of their amendments.
only recently one of our eu leaders spoke of the need for a simplification shock to reduce the burden of administrative red tape and bureaucratic machinery on business and to free enterprise to create the jobs we need.
initiatives such as think small first' and the top ten most burdensome pieces of legislation should move beyond mere rhetorical flourishes and become concrete established programmes within the commission delivering proportionate regulation that fits with our small businesses which make up ninety
the refit initiative should be implemented without delay while an annual report on the net costs to business should be established to ensure that the better lawmaking agenda can be monitored effectively.
in my opinion there exists a disconnect between the incentives for parliaments to provide opinions and the effects of such a procedure.
i strongly urge the commission to consider how to implement a burden offsetting policy to ensure we can keep the costs of regulation down for our businesses.
each of these has been delivered as part of a strong agenda towards reducing red tape at eu level.
we cannot regulate in ignorance of the costs of our actions particularly at a time when businesses are hard pressed and the recovery from the crisis is fragile in many member states. in parliament we must make better use of our impact assessment unit particularly in the preparatory stage of the work of our committee and in our work that follows.
we have come a long way towards reforming the eu in this area.
we in parliament and our co legislators in council do not yet stick strongly enough to the principles of better lawmaking.
that has been a qualified success but really we need more time to do that and i commend our own impact assessment unit for helping us by sending their analyses of those impact assessments.
and parliament needs to start work at the beginning of the policy development cycle by doing own initiative reports engaging national parliaments and actually getting involved in shaping the final result.
we need actually to think about the policy evolution process.
we can get too bogged down in issues around impact assessments.
one of the things that i hope the commission will do in the next cycle is to present to parliament a five year plan for each of its major legislative areas because the key legislation that we work on in the internal market committee is constantly up for review.
my committee was the first committee in parliament to invite the commission to present impact assessments to parliament at the start of our legislative process so we could understand the choices and the political strategy behind those proposals.
policy cycle is what we need to be looking at and not just the fragmented individual aspects of this whole better regulation process.
it is quite right that so far as the way in which we carry out our legislation within the european union is concerned there is a need for reform and that is exactly what we are trying to do here.
the impact of our legislation and of our own amendments must be considered more carefully and we need to think small first because the burden of bureaucracy is often felt most acutely by the smallest companies.
we should only pass international laws where they are truly needed to solve international problems and we must listen more carefully to the concerns of national governments.
in certain sectors we have already cut red tape and secured exemptions for small businesses but much more could be done.
the single market is meant to be about helping businesses to trade across borders giving them easy access to five hundred million potential customers.
we should adopt a one in one out strategy and remember that one new eu law does not automatically mean twenty eight national ones are scrapped.
on the issue of compliance why do some countries obey every single letter and even gold plate when other countries are allowed to turn a blind eye? if the single market is to survive every player should play by the rules.
the commission has systematically proposed financial penalties as sanctions against each member state that has missed the transposition deadline.
this way of working has been supported again by the court of justice in one of its recent judgments dated fourteen november.
i also echo parliament's call on the council to complete the work on establishing its own mechanism for undertaking impact assessments mainly on amendments.
it has been suggested that the eight week deadline for national parliaments to issue a reasoned opinion is too short. when you see that we received eighty four reasoned opinions in two thousand and thirteen it seems that it works.
and calls for concrete proposals in this regard.
we also plan improvements on public consultation policy.
what does it imply in terms of concrete proposals?
it was recognised that it uses the best international standard.
as you point out in your report on better lawmaking the principles and tools of smart regulation are being embedded in our policy making cycle.
two thousand and thirteen although the vast majority of them did not trigger a yellow card procedure the national parliaments made the commission aware of their concerns and the commission keeps these comments in mind during the legislative
in addition the commission is proposing twenty three new legislative initiatives to simplify laws and reduce regulatory burden and thirty one new evaluations to identify the precise measures to take.
in addition complaints already benefit from comprehensive administrative guarantees including a deadline for response the right to be heard and prior notice before closure.
we could say that it works well because national parliaments regularly make use of their right to issue a reasoned opinion.
the commission also believes this demonstrates that we are fully committed to simplifying legislation and reducing the regulatory burden.
our two institutions attach great importance to the correct application of eu law and i appreciate the opportunity to have a regular exchange of views on this subject you understand that i am speaking in the name of my colleague now.
the commission wants to underline that in the initial phase of infringement procedures we have to respect the principle of sincere cooperation with the member states.
nearly forty evaluations are already underway.
parliament and the council can substantially amend the commission proposals possibly at the expense of simplicity and sometimes even adding regulatory costs.
however smart regulation is a joint responsiblity.
the commission shares the parliament's concerns as regards the high number of late transposition infringements.
that is inscribed in the treaty. this means that transparency might necessarily be limited while the commission conducts its initial investigation.
the commission will also suggest the repeal of nine legislative acts that are no longer needed and refrain from proposing legislation in six areas during this mandate.
that is why i welcome the creation of parliament's impact assessment directorate and encourage parliament to utilise it fully in carrying out impact assessments on amendments.
mr president honourable members thank you for the opportunity to comment on parliament's draft report on better lawmaking which also highlights some very important issues concerning relations with national parliaments and the report on the monitoring of the application of eu law.
among the measures listed in the refit communication of last october twenty one proposals that will bring important simplifications are already with the core legislator.
concerning the transparency of infringement procedures and especially that of the eu pilot the commission fully adheres to the rules laid down in the current framework agreement with the european parliament.
on subsidiarity and relations with national parliaments you know the subsidiarity control mechanism was introduced with the lisbon treaty and we now have some experience with the mechanism.
this means designing a regulation that respects the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and delivers its benefits effectively with minimum costs. the report places the emphasis on the need to minimise regulatory burdens for businesses
further improvements will be made in ex ante assessment of cost and benefit.
the commission believes the refit programme is an effective and efficient means to identify and correct weaknesses in eu legislation and to take up the suggestions of member states and stakeholders for areas where further simplification and burden reduction is necessary.
work to further strengthen the system is ongoing with a view for instance to assessing territorial impact.
any modification of the deadline or the number of votes necessary to trigger a yellow or orange card procedure would require a treaty change and it would be for member states to agree upon this.
the commission will publish the first refit scoreboard in the course of this year in order to monitor the progress of proposals.
the two thousand and eleven annual report underlined once again that petitions from citizens and businesses are valuable sources in detecting violations of eu law.
two thousand and thirteen that having been said as the case then advances from the stage of letter of formal notice the commission publishes the key information on the subject matter of the dispute by way of a press release and via our europa website.
the commission's impact assessment system has been independently assessed.
article seventeen of the treaty gives the commission the power to oversee the application of eu law under the control of the court of justice of the european union.
i agree with her entirely and that is why i argue that we need more time and more engagement with the commission at the strategic proposal stage because we should be looking at the evidence we should be considering the scientific reports and we should be consulting more at that stage.
i think we have a lot to do there and i hope in the next cycle we will have a new interinstitutional agreement and we will have a commission that is prepared to work with us much earlier on in the policy cycle than it does at the moment.
let me emphasise again that smart regulation and refit are not about the ability to abolish or reduce the fundamental rights of citizens and workers.
they are about achieving our eu policy objective in the most efficient way while respecting the principle of subsidiarity in close cooperation with national parliaments. smart regulation and its correct application
are shared responsibilities.
the commission has presented its ambitious agenda in this regard.
let us work together in a spirit that ensures that our citizens and businesses benefit in the end because we are working for them.
but i would like to raise with the commissioner the large and arbitrary changes in digital policies which have been initiated and supported by the commission in recent years.
parliament understands that both member states and industry are perplexed by the rushed telecoms proposals.
they diverge from previous policy in this field and have not arrived at this house well prepared.
in the same policy field the european commission is in the e identification and trust services regulation just now encouraging members of parliament to pursue trustmarks despite the overwhelming evidence from the european commission over ten years as well as from the european parliament policy department study by the committee on the internal market and consumer protection that shows that this is not a useful endeavour to engage with at european level.
the current economic climate has shown that regulation must be fit for purpose simple to implement and cost effective.
otherwise we place pressure on already over stretched businesses and we put economic growth and all the associated benefits such as job creation at risk.
nevertheless better regulation does not mean no regulation.
i echo the report's emphasis on impact assessments which particularly needs improvement where parliament significantly amends the commission proposals.
i also commend the references to subsidiarity and proportionality and the role of national parliaments. better eu regulation requires the cooperation of all stakeholders and cannot be achieved by the commission alone.
smes and micro enterprises are one of the main drivers of growth and job creation in the union.
taking into account their specific needs should be central to the better regulation agenda.