Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-04-Speech-2-195"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060404.22.2-195"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like to quote an article from an authoritative Dutch newspaper in May last year, just before the referendum in the Netherlands. The quote starts as follows: ‘Not Barroso, not Blair, but Mr van Alphen from the Netherlands, along with thousands of other national civil servants, takes the day-to-day decisions in Europe’. This article did nothing to contribute towards a positive basic perception in the Netherlands of the referendum. You know it all went horribly wrong. The Netherlands said no, which is worrying. It is these very rules and regulations that are a source of worry and that we should discuss in more detail today.
We must work hard in order to remove the negative image the citizen has of rules and regulations. How can we achieve this? We can do it by making them more transparent. We must also consider the administrative burden that results from them. Many companies have the mill stone of a heavy administrative burden round their necks, and if there is anything that affects companies’ competitiveness, then this is it.
How do we achieve more transparency and cut the administrative burden? We can do it, in the first place, by carrying out an actual impact assessment, and that is what is still lacking at the moment. We have seen many examples of impact assessments, and they all vary in terms of quality. Some are good, and some are not. If we in this House want to benefit from impact assessments, then they should offer impartial and sound information that is readily understood. That is what is missing.
We in this House have first-hand experience of some impact assessments on amendments; we too have found that the quality varies, and that is why I propose an independent review of them. This need not be done by a weighty authority. This could be a panel of four experts in the field of impact assessment, who simply look at the impact assessments carried out by the Commission and those carried out in this House, and who then issue recommendations on that basis. In other words, there is no need for an agency or weighty authority; what we simply need is an independent quality review, one that is effective and external.
Turning to comitology, the article I mentioned a moment ago had something to say about this too. It also included another paragraph, one about the committees, which I do not want to keep from you. ‘You do not see them, you do not hear them, some 450 consulting clubs in Brussels, constantly take decisions that affect the everyday life of the citizens.’ More transparency is needed in that area too. When comitology leads to secondary legislation, this legislation must also be verified. We must demonstrate the implications of legislation of that kind by means of an impact assessment. The public will then see that we mean business and that we actually want this transparency.
Finally, as Mrs Frassoni already pointed out, implementation is extremely important and Parliament should devote far more attention to it. When a report has been discussed in the plenary, then the work of the rapporteur is done. I would suggest asking the rapporteur in question, three years after approval in this House, to notify his committee of the state of play in terms of implementation. This will contribute significantly to the proper transposal in the Member States and also to sound contacts with national parliaments.
Those are the proposals: more transparency, objective supervision of the impact assessment, limits to comitology, more insight into comitology and possibly a call-back right for the European Parliament should the need arise. Those are the components of an inter-institutional agreement that I think are needed in order to really get going with these rules and regulations."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples