Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-04-Speech-2-202"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-04-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Monitoring the application of Community law (2003-2004) - Better lawmaking 2004: application of the principle of subsidiarity - The implementation consequences and impact of the internal market legislation in force - Strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060404.22.2-202"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-04-04-Speech-2-2032
lpv:speaker	lp:Ieke van den Burg2
lpv:spokenAs	member; ECON (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; IMCO (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Committee of Inquiry into the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society (2006-01-19--2007-06-19)3 unknown; Partij van de Arbeid (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with Australia and New Zealand (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; PES (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". I fully endorse what Mr Barroso said in the latter part of his speech. On behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I have drafted an opinion on Mr Doorn’s report. I should like to congratulate him on it and also thank him for including, virtually in their entirety, the various paragraphs that we in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, had incorporated in our opinion, based on our experience. I would also like to endorse what Mr Winkler said and respond by adding a slightly different slant, namely that better regulation does not always mean fewer rules and regulations or deregulation, but rather more effective regulation that is mainly geared towards the outcome and end result. This cycle of preparation, consultation, formulating rules, impact assessment and subsequently the implementation and enforcement has been mentioned by various people. In our opinion, I argued that we should, in fact, start at the back and look at the process from that angle. How can we make the process effective and based on that, what are the rules that we need to draft? A bad example of how this was not done, how this had not been given any thought and how the field dimension had not been drawn on at the preparation stage was the services directive which we discussed just now in its original form. Fortunately, this directive has now been changed by Parliament. I would also like to mention good examples from that selfsame Directorate-General market. Particularly in the area of the financial provision of services, a practice has been developed in that directorate and proposed by the Lamfalussy experts committee, which we call the Lamfalussy procedure. In this framework, it is indeed those who use the rules and regulations in practice, namely the supervisors, the economic operators, the consumers and users involved in the process, who should have far more say in terms of the content of those rules. We have also used this example to show others, and that is something we would like to make quite clear once again in this discussion. Whilst we have problems with the call back and Parliament’s responsibility as colegislator to be able to monitor what is eventually produced, the process as such is something we wholeheartedly support."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph