Executive summary

• Author: Anglmayer, Irmgard
• Pages: 1-2

Bette r Regulation prac tices in natio nal parliaments

I

Executive summary

Ex-ante impact a ssess ment and ex-post evaluation are regulatory policy tools that help inform the

policy -makin g proces s with eviden ce-based analysis. Geared towards ratio nalising policy -makin g,

these to ols aim at raising the q uality of po licies and legis lation. The use of i mpact a ssessment and

evalu ation is wide-spread ac ross Europe, a s virtually a ll countr ies ha ve developed fr ameworks for

regulato ry governance. This development is so mewha t du e to the Europ ean Unio n (EU) and the

Org anisat ion for Econ omic Co-operation and Development (OECD), two actors that have st rong ly

inspir ed and shaped regulatory policy reform across Europe. However, national Better Regulation

agendas are la rgely government-driv en, often le aving parliam ents ma rginalis ed in t he pr oce ss.

Notwithstanding, both the EU and the OECD ack nowle dge t hat Better Regulation is a shared

respons ibility between the executive and the legislative branch. The aim o f this st udy is to s h ed l ight

on the parliament ary dimension of Better Regulation, by captur ing the practices of 38 national

parliaments.

The first chapt er contextualises the rol e of parliaments in Better Regulation and reflects on concrete

areas for parliaments to join in the process. There is considera ble potential for parliamentary

involvement a t bo th en ds o f t he po licy cycle – impact assessment and evaluation. While su ch

engagement can take multiple forms (spanning from passive scrutiny to an active use of t he tools),

it relates to t wo par liame ntary core functio ns: law-m akin g and ove rs ight.

The regula tor y policy potential of parliaments is exemplified by the case of the Eu ropean Parliament

(EP), where the use of impact assessment and evaluation has, a mere ten years after the ir instig ation,

encou ntered a high degree o f inst itution alisation. The sy stematic use of these reg ulatory policy

tools strengthens EP committees' positio n in law-mak ing, and in holding the executive to account.

Over all, it facilita tes effective scrut iny of E uro pean Com mission act ion and leads to better inf ormed

policy -makin g.

Based o n survey data from 37 national parliaments across Europe plus the Canadian Parliament,

chapters 2 an d 3 analys e the level, types, processes, particularities as well a s, to th e extent possible,

the im pact of individu al parliam ents' en gagement in impact ass essment and ev aluation of those

parliaments tha t choose to get involved. Many do not (or not yet) take an active role: t he s urv ey

revealed that roughly half of the sur veyed parliaments do not engage beyond class ical

parliamentary scr uti ny me chani sms within the general framework of parliamentary control. Non-

engagement can have mu ltiple reasons; some survey respo ndents pointed explicit ly at the distinct

role s and/or the strict separation of power of the executive and the legislative, while others said they

simp ly do not have t he necessar y capacities .

Among the EU-27, seven national parliaments (Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Poland

and Sweden) enga ge systematically in th eir o wn ex-ant e impact assessment w ork , albeit in

fundament ally different ways. The broadest spectrum of impact assessment activities appears to be

assumed by the Polish Parliament. An additional seven parliaments carry out smaller-sc al e im pact

assessment work (Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal and Spain). Moreover, the

Latvian Saeima avails of impact assessment capacities, but has not yet tested them. Out of the

11 survey ed parliaments ou tside the EU, only Canada engages actively, by informing the law-

mak ing pr ocess with b udge tary impac t as ses sment s.

With regard to ex-post eval uation, s ix EU-27 parliament s have developed structures for substantial

involvement (Belgium, Fran ce, Italy, Netherlands, Poland and Sweden). Moreov er, the research

services of the Bulgarian and Latvian parliaments carry out ad hoc evaluations up on request, albeit

in low numbers. Four further EU-27 parliaments engage in ev aluation a ctivities at a smaller scale,

mainly b y scrutin ising gov ernm ent evaluat ions in-depth or by perfor ming ex-post budgetary

scru tiny (Aus tria, Ireland, Portugal and Spain).