Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-14-Speech-2-247"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061114.36.2-247"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I should like to start by congratulating the Commission on its intention to reduce the administrative burden by 25%. This is a very important objective, and I would advise you to be as practical as possible in pursuing it.
In the Netherlands, we have now managed to bring about a 25% reduction, but communication with businesses and citizens has resulted in continued complaints about far too much bureaucracy. The citizens and businesses did not feel much of the effects, because the reduction was mainly at macro level. At micro level, however, bureaucracy persists. I can think of a very simple way of solving this problem, for example, by raising the bottom threshold in public tenders.
I live in a village of 25 000 people where a new swimming pool is being built that, in accordance with European rules, must be put out to tender, with all the red tape that this involves. Is this really necessary, or could we not raise the lower limit a little so that it is only really important projects, where real international competition is needed, that fall under this rule?
Turning to impact assessment, we in the European Parliament have repeatedly demanded this, and that it should be comprehensive, including fresh legislation, comitology that affects citizens and businesses, and soft law. After all, an increasing number of issues are being regulated using soft law, which may trigger an administrative burden of its own.
Secondly, we have repeatedly said that we would like the quality of this impact assessment to be subject to an independent review. So far, we have seen a great deal from the Commission in this respect, but none of it was satisfactory. We want this independent review, since this can also generate more transparency. It is, of course, a step in the right direction that this should under Mr Barroso’s presidency, be brought within the Commission’s remit, but, since there is no transparency within the Commission, I fear that we will be waging a bureaucratic trench war between the office that falls within Mr Barroso remit and the Commission offices that are required to draw up the impact assessment."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples