Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-03-Speech-1-091"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070903.17.1-091"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking all those who have contributed to my report
I am very grateful for their help.
In summary, I should like to emphasise that better regulation aims at more simple, clear, citizen-friendly regulation, with continuous impact assessment, with a special focus on those vulnerable groups that cannot defend themselves. Clarity, transparency, simplicity, cutting red tape are perhaps the key elements of my report.
In recent years, the Commission has become more and more concerned about the quality of Community legislation, both in terms of clarity and accessibility, on the one hand, and of its effectiveness and positive impact on citizens and business, on the other.
The Commission usually refers to these goals as ‘better regulation’ or ‘better law making’. As a matter of fact, better regulation aims at maximising the benefits of modern, rational and effective legislation, whilst minimising its costs, so that productivity, growth and ultimately employment can be ensured at the highest level throughout the European Union.
There is no doubt that better regulation is fundamental to ensuring a fair and competitive market place, citizens’ welfare and the effective protection of public health and the environment. It is an important part of the Lisbon Strategy, as it can boost productivity and employment significantly. Better regulation is shared responsibility. EU laws are transposed into national law by national governments and parliaments and are often applied at regional and local level. There is a risk that laws are progressively embellished along this chain from conception to implementation. The responsibility for regulating well is hence a shared one.
Many Member States now carry out impact assessments, and some have been developed guidelines. However, only a relatively small number of countries systematically carry out an integrated impact assessment for new legislative proposals.
Legislating at European level has reduced much red tape. One common rule to apply in all Member States is much simpler and more efficient than a complex web of varying rules at national and regional level. European legislation has been effective in removing harmful barriers to competition and conflicting national rules, so the simplification programme can generate tangible economic benefits not only through reducing administrative burdens. The experience of Member States demonstrates that public authorities can do a lot to reduce unwarranted administrative burdens of legislation. Such action, according to the Commission, would boost the EU economy by about 1.5% of the GDP and free up an estimated EUR 150 billion for investment.
In my report, I support the objective of ensuring that the regulatory environment is necessary, simple and effective. On the other hand, however, we have to stress that such a process should be fully transparent and based on the full involvement of the European Parliament with public scrutiny and wide and open consultation of experts and all the relevant stakeholders – not only government or business, but, particularly, non-governmental organisations as well.
Furthermore, I would like to suggest the creation of an impact assessment board. It is of the utmost importance that this body, which will offer advice and support in developing a culture of high-quality impact assessment inside the Commission, acts independently of the policy-making departments. However, this does not necessarily mean that impact assessments must be carried out by external experts who do not belong to the institution. It is also necessary that the impact assessment board helps develop a common methodology for all impact assessments.
Furthermore, I would suggest a special project within the impact assessment procedure – so-called ‘social benchmarking’. This project should focus particularly on sensible target groups, for example disadvantaged people, women, ethnic minorities, parents raising children, the elderly, and permanently ill and disabled people."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples