Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-06-06-Speech-1-210-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110606.22.1-210-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mrs Reding, ladies and gentlemen, let me perhaps introduce the topic with a few examples. Greece and other states are heavily in debt, although billions from the structural funds have been poured into these countries for many years. How can we improve the use of these resources and how can the utilisation of these resources be better controlled?
My second example relates to Eurobonds. What effect do they have on the European budget?
Thirdly, if we were to introduce a financial transaction tax in Europe, what would the consequences be? For all these questions, Parliament demands in its reports that a regulatory impact assessment be carried out. After all, we need facts in order to be able to take politically sound decisions. That is what my report on improving the guarantee of independent impact assessments is all about.
This is not a new issue. It has occupied us, together with other issues concerning the improvement of legislation, for over ten years. However, despite all the efforts of the Commission to improve its impact assessment as well as those that we have made in this regard in the European Parliament, the quality of the impact assessment is still in need of improvement. My report puts forward proposals for how, with regard to the European Commission and the impact assessments that it carries out, as well as with regard to Parliament’s impact assessment studies, we can succeed in bringing about this improvement.
In terms of its content, the report is divided into four sections. Firstly, there are general requirements for impact assessments at European level. The second section contains proposals directed at the European Commission and it lists potential areas where improvements can be made. In the third section, I discuss how we in the European Parliament can better optimise the regulatory impact assessment as an instrument. In the last section, I then propose that we in Parliament create an autonomous impact assessment structure.
With regard to the general requirements for impact assessments at European level, it is important to note that we need to move away from pure cost analysis towards an examination of the economic, social and health-related impact of legislation at European level. Secondly, I think it is important that we carry out an SME test in connection with all regulatory impact assessments and also examine the effect on industrial competitiveness in Europe. Thirdly, in this report, we propose the early publication by the Commission of road maps of proposed legislation in order to give Parliament and the stakeholders the opportunity to express their opinions during the consultation period.
With regard to the European Commission, we call, in particular, for the members of the Impact Assessment Board that was set up a while ago in the Commission to be independent and for the parliamentary committees to be involved in the work at an early stage. With regard to Parliament, we believe it is important for us actually to utilise the regulatory impact assessment as an instrument. Up to now, a few committees have been using it, but I think we need to make much more extensive use of this instrument in our discussions in Parliament. If we succeed in developing Parliament’s own resources and establishing an autonomous structure under the leadership of Members of this House in order to develop a method that allows us to carry out professional regulatory impact assessments within the European Parliament, then I believe we will have achieved a great deal with this report. I hope it will receive your support tomorrow in the vote."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples