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 mewhat dueto the Europ ean Unio n (EU)and the

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

inspiredand shapedregulatory policy reform across Europe. However, nationalBetter Regulation

agendasare la rgely government-driven, often le aving parliam ents ma rginalis ed in t he process.

Notwithstanding, both the EU and the OECDacknowledge thatBetter Regulationis a shared

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

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

parliaments.

The first chapt ercontextualises the rol e of parliaments in Better Regulationand reflects on concrete

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

involvementat both ends of the policy cycle – impact assessment and evaluation. While su ch

engagementcan take multipleforms (spanning from passive scrutiny to an active use of t he tools),

it relates to t wo par liame ntarycore functio ns: law-makingand oversight.

The regula tor y policy potentialof 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. Thesy stematic use of these reg ulatory policy

toolsstrengthens EP committees' positio n in law-making, and in holding the executive to account.

Overall, itfacilita tes effective scrut iny of E uro pean Com mission act ion and leads to betterinf ormed

policy-making.

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

chapters 2 an d 3analys 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 surveyed parliaments do not engage beyond classical

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

engagement can have multiplereasons; 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) engage systematically in th eir o wn ex-ante impact assessment work, 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 Saeimaavails of impact assessment capacities, but has not yet tested them. Out of the

11surveyed parliaments outside 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 ixEU-27 parliament s have developed structures for substantial

involvement (Belgium, France, Italy, Netherlands, Poland and Sweden). Moreover, the research

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

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

mainly by scrutinising government evaluations in-depth or by performing ex-post budgetary

scrutiny (Aus tria, Ireland, Portugal and Spain).