20 Amendments of Anthea McINTYRE related to 2016/2005(ACI)
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the agreement reached between the institutions and considers this a good basis forfirst step in establishing a new relationship between them with a view to delivering better law-making in the interest of the Union's citizens;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Deeply regrets, in the context of better law-making, that negotiations on the IIA failed to follow established practice in terms of a committee procedure in the European Parliament; believes that the manner in which the negotiations were conducted undermines the democratic legitimacy of the agreement;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes a number of elements contained in the agreement which represent a first step in ensuring that legislation is clear and simple and that it will have a positive impact on citizens' lives with proportionate and bearable costs; notes in particular the results of the negotiations as regards multiannual interinstitutional programming, the Commission's follow-up to Parliament's legislative initiatives, and the provision of justifications for and consultations on envisaged withdrawals of legislative proposals; also welcomes the agreed interinstitutional exchange of views in the event that a modification of the legal basis of an act is envisaged;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines the importance of the provisions of the new IIA on better law- making tools (impact assessments, public and stakeholder consultations, evaluations, etc.), which should be used both in the preparatory phase and throughout the entire legislative process, for a well- informed, inclusive and transparent decision-making process and for the correct application of legislation, whilst safeguarding the prerogatives of the legislators; welcomes the aim of improving the implementation and application of Union legislation, inter alia through better identification of national measures that bear no relation to the Union legislation that is to be transposed ("gold-plating"); believes that the concept of "gold-plating" must be understood as meaning any measure that exceeds minimum requirements;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Is concerned that the wording in relation to impact assessments in no way commits the three Institutions to include SMEs and competitiveness tests in their impact assessments notwithstanding that this would have helped ensure that companies, and SMEs in particular, are not overburdened by legislation;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Believes that thorough impact assessments which comprehensively evaluate compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, and enhanced subsidiarity checks by all Institutions are essential throughout the legislative process and that the inclusion of a subsidiarity check in the agreement would have been a welcome step forward in improving the trust of citizens, who regard the subsidiarity principle as a key aspect of the democratic process;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Regrets that the wording of the agreement does not explicitly indicate that impact assessments should be living documents that must as a matter of course be updated when new significant amendments are introduced during the legislative process;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3d. Notes that the cumulative cost of legislation can result in significant difficulties for businesses and individuals affected by Union rules; expresses regret that that this agreement has failed to address this, and calls on the three institutions to consider the benefits of introducing regulatory offsetting, whereby new rules that add to administrative and regulatory burdens can only be imposed if a corresponding cut in existing burdens can be identified;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Takes note of the letter of 15 December 2015 from the First Vice -President of the Commission on the functioning of the new Regulatory Scrutiny Board, which is to oversee the quality of the Commission's impact assessments; strongly believes that the establishment of the RSP represents a missed opportunity which should have shown more ambition; believes that an external, independent Regulatory Scrutiny Board involving independent experts throughout the legislative cycle and common to the three institutions should have been agreed upon; points out that the legislators may also carry out their own impact assessments where they consider this necessary; underlines that, furthermore, the new IIA provides for exchanges of information between the institutions on best practice and methodologies relating to impact assessments, thus providing an opportunity to review the functioning of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board in due time;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines the importance of the agreed "Annual Burden Survey" as a tool to help avoid and eliminate overregulation and reduce administrative burdens; points out that the feasibility and desirability of establishing objectives for the reduction of burdens in specific sectors must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in close cooperation between the institution in order to monitor, in a clear and transparent manner, the burden reduction; urges that the Annual Burden Survey must identify the burdens imposed by individual Commission legislative proposals and acts and by individual Member States; welcomes in this respect the fact that the three institutions have agreed that impact assessments should also address the impact of proposals on administrative burdens, particularly as regards small and medium- sized enterprises;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Regrets that the appropriate use of first and second-reading procedures has not been addressed; believes that the practice of conducting trilogues to achieve first-reading agreements may lack transparency and reduce the possibility for citizens and stakeholders to follow and provide input during fast-tracked procedures; calls for improvements to be made to the transparency of Parliament's own procedures, especially in first- reading agreements; believes in this regard that a "cooling-off" period, applied after the conclusion of negotiations, should be further utilised for the completion of an impact assessment and subsidiarity check;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Also believes that more concrete arrangements are needed in order to enhance the political dialogue with national parliaments; believes that steps should be taken to facilitate the review by national parliaments of implementing acts and their ability to call for further consideration to be given to them;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Regrets that the three institutions have not made a greater commitment with regard to implementation; believes that the European Parliament could have gone further by agreeing to set aside committee time and to undertake analyses of the implementation of legislation applying in their sectors; believes that such evaluation should be supported by the Commission, which should be represented by a senior official during these meetings and should be expected to answer questions in detail;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that such simplification and reduction of red tape in the application of Union legislation should be carried through once all practical arrangements to implement the new IIA in its entirety are in place, whereupon the institutions could also evaluate whether adjustments to the new IIA may be necessary in light of experience gained up until that point in time with the implementation of the new IIA;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – introductory part
Paragraph 12 – introductory part
12. Points out that the following issues, in particular, the need further follow-up at technical and/or political level:
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 3
Paragraph 12 – indent 3
- the transparency and coordination of the legislative process, including the use of a "cooling off" period after the conclusion of trilogue negotiations for the completion of an impact assessment and a subsidiarity check (practical arrangements for exchanges of views, information- sharing and comparison of time-tables, transparency in the context of trilateral negotiations, development of platforms and tools for the establishment of a joint database on the state of play of legislative files, the provision of information to national parliaments and practical arrangements for cooperation and information-sharing regarding negotiations on, and the conclusion of, international agreements);
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 3 a (new)
Paragraph 12 – indent 3 a (new)
- an evaluation and possible follow up of the independence of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board in fulfilling its role in supervising and providing objective advice on respective impact assessments;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 3 b (new)
Paragraph 12 – indent 3 b (new)
- inclusion of a binding target for a 25% reduction by 2020 of the economic costs linked to regulatory burdens for businesses in each policy area, with a longer-term target for halving the burden of existing Union regulations by 2030;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. ApproveRejects the draft agreement contained in Annex I to this decision;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Instructs its President not to sign the new IIA with the President of the Council and the President of the Commission and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;