Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-06-08-Speech-3-413-250"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110608.20.3-413-250"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"I scrutinised the report very attentively and summarised its key points: (1) the scope of scrutiny (not only cost-benefit analysis, but an integrated approach); (2) the inclusion of stakeholders from all the policy areas while the methodology and final quality control should remain under the remit of the European institutions, with an increased consultation period from 8 to 12 weeks; (3) the revision of the interinstitutional common approach to impact assessment to encourage all the institutions to implement a common methodology on IAs. Potential for improvement at the Commission level: (1) the increased scrutiny by the European Parliament and the Council over the Impact Assessment Board; (2) systematic ex-post assessments of existing legislation and analysis of the relevant ECJ case-law. Potential for improvement at EP level: the main focus is the creation of an autonomous structure within the EP led by a supervisory board consisting of MEPs, possibly appointed at the beginning of each term, making use of the existing resources but also of seconded national experts. I abstained from voting because I do not understand on which criteria experts for the Advisory Board will be appointed and what power they will have. I cannot support the report."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples