Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-08-Speech-3-092"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031008.8.3-092"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I also welcome the fact that we have now reached the point with this inter-institutional agreement that we can begin to make good on our commitment to deliver better and simpler legislation. I would also like to congratulate the team of negotiators and indeed our rapporteurs.
If we get it right, good clear simple legislation could mean fewer infringement cases in the European Court of Justice, it could also result in laws which are easier to enforce in our Member States. I believe that consumers and citizens need to know what redress they can expect from EU law, and businesses need to be clear about standards and practices they must aspire to, in order to implement EU law. Yes, regulatory impact assessments may be a technical tool, but they are a vital tool in both involving more stake-holders and providing for checks and balances on the executive, improving both the quality of debate in this House and our ability to call the executive to account.
We can also use impact assessments to evaluate the benefits of proposed legislation and equally to look at where co-regulation, self-regulation or soft- law can be useful tools. I know some of my colleagues are concerned that soft-law options would undermine or take away Parliaments prerogative as a legislator. I accept that there are cultural differences between Member States on this issue, but we also have to accept that sometimes legislation can be inflexible and difficult to change whereas codes of conduct can have effect more quickly, particularly in unfair business practices.
Of course, Mr MacCormick is right that legislation is about politics. It is not just a scientific exercise of impact assessments. For that reason this Parliament and its elected politicians will always be an essential part of the legislative process. I also agree that callback is an essential part of that right of scrutiny. We should give our support to the better legislation agenda but Parliament will need more resources and powers to be able to respond to and evaluate impact assessments and use these regulatory procedures to call Commission and Council to account.
The better regulation agenda will require a change of culture, power and responsibility in all our institutions. It should not be to the detriment of Parliament; in fact it should strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of future legislation."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples