Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-08-Speech-3-093"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-10-08"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Better lawmaking2
dcterms:Language	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20031008.8.3-093"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-10-08-Speech-3-0942
lpv:speaker	lp:Monica Frassoni2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 member; AFCO (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of South America and MERCOSUR (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 co-chair; G/EFA (2002-01-08--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Presidents (2002-01-08--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Ecolo (Belgium) (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I asked to speak again after the debate because I was very interested in hearing what the Council and the Commission had to say. Now I have heard them, and their speeches have confirmed for me that, if we want this agreement not to remain an empty vision, then it will depend exclusively on the European Parliament’s ability to ensure that it is respected and that it enters into the practice of our institution. During this debate, exactly as was the case during the negotiations, we encountered a certain inflexibility on the need to ensure that, where alternative methods to legislation are concerned, there should be a legislator and, for the European Parliament, in particular, the possibility of evaluating how they work and if necessary, of rejecting them. Mrs McCarthy, the problem is not the cultural difference, which can certainly exist between us regarding voluntary agreements; the problem lies in the fact that, when the voluntary agreements do not work, then we must, as the legislative authority, have the right to recall them, and this, I am sorry to say, is partially possible but only if we fight long and hard to get it. Mr President, I would like to speak briefly about the issue of impact assessment. Mr Clegg, who was part of our negotiating team, is right: at a certain point, we stopped insisting on this issue, not least because Parliament may well not yet be ready to act united on this question. Impact assessment remains, I would stress, a highly political issue, on which we even risked losing some of our prerogatives during the negotiations, binding ourselves too rigidly to an obligation to complete an impact assessment which, in practice, we are still not technically in a position to do. Furthermore, I believe that the Commission’s approach to this issue varies enormously. For some matters, indeed, the assessment is carried out and is seen as important, whilst for other matters it is completely abandoned. In relation to this, I would like to give the example of the famous Van Miert list on trans-European networks, where the Commission has completely abandoned the idea of any type of impact assessment for this important measure. I repeat: impact assessment remains an issue that this interinstitutional agreement has not succeeded in closing, and I think that we must be aware of this act responsibly for the future."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph