Activities of Jens NILSSON related to 2014/2150(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on Regulatory fitness and performance programme (REFIT): state of play and outlook
Amendments (12)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that, where the need for action at EU level has been clearly identified, it should be carefully assessed which legislative instrument (regulation or directive) is best suited for reaching the intended political goal; considers that a set of indicators to identify the full compliance costs of a new legislative act should be applied in order to better assess its impact; underlines in this regard that the quality of legislation is the appropriate benchmark, as opposed to the number of legislative acts, and that the REFIT programme should not be used to undermine social, labour, environmental and consumer standards;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Reiterates that SMEs need careful consideration in EU legislation; calls on the Commission, with a view to providing evidence on the added value of EU action and its costs and benefits, to include a mandatory SME test in the revised impact assessment guidelines; reminds of the Lisbon Treaty horizontal social and environmental clauses (Art. 9 and 11 TFEU) which have to be taken into account in defining and implementing the Union's policies and activities and require an in-depth analysis of the social and environmental impact of any proposed legislation;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that up to a third of the administrative burden related to EU legislation stems from national implementing measures, and reiterates the importance of ensuring the swift and consistent transposition, implementation and enforcement of legislation, alongside the proposed simplification, and the need to avoid ‘gold-plating’; underlines that Member States have the right to decide stricter standards in cases where EU law only provide for minimum levels;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls on the Commission to take into account the short and long term effects of regulation; considers that long-term benefits of regulatory action are often more difficult to quantify in monetary terms (for example, reducing health impairments or maintaining eco-systems), whereas the emphasis on quantification introduces a structural bias in favour of more easily quantifiable aspects such as costs to economic operators as compared to social and environmental benefits, thus failing to adequately consider societal costs and benefits as a whole;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for businesses and stakeholder, citizens, consumer organizations and unions to be more closely involved with subsidiarity checks, administrative burden assessment, and the monitoring of the implementation of EU legislation at national level; welcomnotes the Commission’'s intention to establish a new High Level Group on better regulation under the responsibility of the responsible Vice-President; calls on the commission to respect and follow agreements by the social partners;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to ensure that consultations withinclude all stakeholders arewhile being transparent and timely and their output is analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively to ensure that minority views are also duly taken into account; considers that feedback could already be given on draft impact assessments to the Impact Assessment Board, at the stage preceding the final legislative proposal and assessment;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Calls on Commission to frame and link the REFIT exercise in the broader context of the definition and implementation of the Commission work programme and key priorities;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Stresses that REFIT, in particular in the context of the Commission work program, cannot be taken as a pretext for lowering the level of ambition on issues of vital importance to the safety and wellbeing of employees, or on the protection of the environment; calls against the promotion of a deregulation agenda with the excuse of Better Regulation or of reducing burdens to SMEs; calls on the Commission not to lower its level of ambition and calls for public policy objectives including consumer, environmental, social and health and safety standards not to be jeopardised;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Considers that the adequate use of REFIT is relevant for consumers and citizens not only in terms of carefully assessed legislation aiming at informing, protecting and boosting their confidence in the Single Market, but also in terms of implementation and enforcement; considers that measuring tangible benefits for consumers brought about by EU legislation is an effective manner to assess EU regulatory activity; considers, furthermore, that empowering consumer with EU wide redress mechanism would foster effective enforcement of and compliance with EU legislation within the Single Market, notably from the competition and market access point of view;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Believes that the assessment of REFIT and further efforts on better regulation should follow the shift towards digitalisation of economy, society and public administration; believes that an extensive use of the tool and the use of Fitness checks could also be undertaken with a view to assess coherence and consistency of regulatory areas within the broader framework of the DSM;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Calls on the Commission to focus on ex-post evaluation to verify whether the expected results of EU regulation are attained; considers that there is a need for a qualitative assessment of implementation and enforcement which goes together with the idea of meaningful Single Market governance;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Considers it inappropriate to introduce blanket exemptions from legislation for SMEs; takes the view that proposals which permit the option of lighter regimes and exemptions should be assessed on a case-by-case basis;