Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-03-Speech-1-109"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070903.17.1-109"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of my Group, I would like to make just three comments on points of principle. The first concerns impact assessment for legislative proposals. I recognise that significant progress has been made since 1999, when Parliament took the initiative on this issue, and since 2003, when an interinstitutional agreement was adopted, which was negotiated by our Chairman, Mr Gargani. However, there are still deficits. Parliament is demanding – as it has done before in numerous resolutions – that impact assessments of legislative proposals be conducted on a more independent basis. I make no secret of the fact that to my mind, we should be thinking about whether we should adopt the US model of an independent agency which is established outside the Commission and undertakes impact assessments of legislation in line with a standardised procedure not only for the Commission but for all other institutions as well.
However, another key point based on our experience in the Committee on Legal Affairs is that impact assessments are not actually being carried out as standard on every Commission proposal. I can cite two specific examples from the Directorate-General for Justice and one from the Internal Market Directorate-General that have remained in my memory.
I also think that it is important to give serious consideration to the possibility of carrying out impact assessments in comitology procedures too, as it is often here that the bureaucracy arises as a result of the comitology decisions and the associated burdens.
As to soft law, Mr Medina Ortega's report has my full backing. Indeed, in the Committee on Legal Affairs we increasingly have the impression that the European Commission is misusing the instrument of soft law in order to circumvent Parliament's codecision rights. It is not acceptable for the Commission to make decisions as a legislative body at the proposal of the Directorate-General for Competition on which it consults Parliament, yet this is not the case for recommendations relating to the internal market.
As my final point, I would like to draw attention to the issue of simplification. We need an institutional agreement on simplification as a matter of urgency, as we have in other areas, in order to ensure that we have an efficient procedure. We do not want to open a Pandora's box and instead of simplifying matters, end up with even greater complexity."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples