36 Amendments of Agnes JONGERIUS related to 2014/2150(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Insists that better regulation should focus on the quality and not quantity of legislation by prioritising the aim and purpose for which obligations were put in place and make society benefitting at large;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Considers REFIT a first step towards reducing unnecessary regulatory burden and eliminating barriers to growth and job creation; stresses however that 'better regulation' must not be used as pretext for deregulation in order to subvert worker's or consumer's rights;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Points to the horizontal clauses in Article 9 and 11 of the TFEU, which shall be taken into account when defining and implementing policies and activities at EU level; underlines the need to not only assess financial factors and short-term effects but also the long-term value of legislation, such as the reduction of adverse health effects or the preservation of ecosystems, which are often difficult to quantify; deplores that as a consequence, social and environmental benefits and costs are often not taken into account;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Is worried, that the large number of Commission initiatives and titles regarding 'better regulation' is leading to confusion for citizens and businesses;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomesTakes notice of the decision of Commission President Juncker to entrust the First Vice- President of the Commission with the portfolio of better regulation, which underlines the high political importance of this topic; fears however that cutting red tape will lead to deregulation, that negatively effects legislation on employment, health and safety at work, environmental and consumer protection;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2d. Urges the Commission to provide clear definitions regarding REFIT related activities such as 'evaluation', 'simplification', 'consolidation' and 'targeted review' of existing legislation in order to ensure greater transparency;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes efforts to identify genuine opportunities for simplification of legislation; sStresses the need for simpler, clearly-worded rules that remove complexity and can be implemented in a simple manner in order to improve compliance, particularly in the area of health, safety and employment legislationlegislation in order to facilitate compliance;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines that the Commission should focus more on the quality of legislation rather than on the number of legislative acts; and on better enforcement of existing legislation and not on the number of legislative acts; therefore opposes the introduction of a net target for reducing regulatory costs as this contradicts the aim pursued by regulation and its corresponding benefits;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Stresses that smart regulation must comply with the social dimension of the internal market as provided for by the Treaty; underlines that the REFIT agenda should not be used in order to undermine agreements reached by social partners at the European level; stresses that the autonomy of social partners needs to be respected; recalls that Article 155 of the TFEU guarantees that social partner agreements become European legislation at the joint request of the signatory parties; welcomes in this respect the statement by Commission President Juncker that the social market economy can only work if there is social dialogue and that he would like to be a President of social dialogue;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Opposes the intention of the Commission to withdraw legislative proposals, in particular the directive on maternity leave; without adequate consultation with co-legislators and stakeholders, which constitutes an essential element of policy making;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines that the social partners may, in accordance with Article 155 TFEU, conclude agreements that can be implemented uniformlylead to European legislation designed in common agreement of the signatory parties; calls on the Commission to respect the autonomy of the parties and their negotiated agreements, and to take their concerns seriously, and stresses that the REFITbetter regulation agenda should not be a pretext for disregarding agreements reached between the social partners; therefore rejects impact assessments on social partner agreements;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Stresses the need to ensure predictability, legal certainty and transparency in order for REFIT not to become a source of permanent legal uncertainty; underlines that any changes to legislation must be thoroughly considered also in a long-term perspective; notes that the principle of political discontinuity and the withdrawal of existing legislation should not give rise to doubts regarding political desirability of social goals;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Regrets that the Commission is reluctant to scrutinise the proposed directive on the single member company with limited liability (SUP) in the context of REFIT; warns that the proposed directive might create serious problems by providing new and easy ways to establish letterbox companies as well as by undermining workers' social rights and avoiding the payment of social contributions;
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 97 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Points out that legislation can have a different impact on large enterprises and SME's, which should be kept in mind during the drafting process; stresses that all employees have a right to the highest level of protection regarding health and safety in the workplace regardless the size of the employer or the underlying contract;
Amendment 103 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for further measurebetter impact assessments to check that legislation is doing what it was intended to do and to identify areas where there are inconsistencies and ineffective measuresroom for improvement; stresses at the same time the need for better enforcement of current legislation;
Amendment 112 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the Commission's commitment regularly to revise the impact assessment guidelines in order to improve this process; believes that the Commission should assess the economic, social and environmental consequences, and better evaluate the impact of its policy on the fundamental rights of citizens in order to fully grasp its effects, keeping in mind that the cost-benefit analysis is only one of many criteria; underlines that when impact assessments are carried out, fundamental and social rights should be given priority over economic considerations;
Amendment 120 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Warns against the implementation of sunset clauses in legislation as they risk to create legal uncertainty and legislative discontinuity;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Takes note of the conversion of the Commission's Impact Assessment Board (IAB) into a ‘Regulatory Scrutiny Board' and expects that the inclusion of independent experts will have an advantageous effect on the impact assessment process within the Commission; insists that this board should be limited to a consultative role only by giving opinions which are not binding; insists that impact assessments should be based on estimating what the additional costs would be for the Member States if there were no solution at European level;
Amendment 125 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 141 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Opposes the setting of a net target for reducing regulatory costs, as this ignores the aim pursued by regulation and its corresponding benefits;
Amendment 143 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8c. Stresses that EU directives are meant to be implemented by Member States through national legislation; underlines that according to the Commission one third of the regulatory and administrative burden of EU legislation is a result of transposition measures undertaken by the Member States which do not flow from the legislation itself (also known as gold- plating); calls on the Commission to closely monitor the implementation of directives by Member States as regards gold-plating;
Amendment 144 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 159 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Urges the Commission to better assess the social and environmental consequences, as well as the impact of its policy on the fundamental rights of citizens, by keeping in mind the cost of non-legislation at European level as well as the fact that cost-benefit analyses are only one of many criteria.
Amendment 160 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Is convinced that sound impact assessments constitute an important tool to support decision-making and play a significant role in better regulation; underlines, however, that such assessments cannot substitute for political assessments and decisions;
Amendment 161 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 c (new)
Paragraph 9 c (new)
9c. Questions the conversion of the Commission's Impact Assessment Board (IAB) into a 'Regulatory Scrutiny Board' and stresses the need for transparency and independence regarding this process.
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Welcomes the Commission’s clear commitment to further improving the SME test, particularly in view ofNotes the extremely large number of small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the cornerstone of economic activity and employment; supports consideration of adapted agreements and more flexible SME impact assessment rules, provided that it can be shown that they do not undermine the effectiveness of legal provisions and that exemptions or more flexible provisions do not encourage fragmentation of the internal market or hamper access to it;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls on the Commission not to abandon its ambitious targets of reducing the administrative burden on SMEs and thereby helping to establish a basis for the creation of quality jobs and uUrges that measures be taken to ensure that objectives concerning the public interest including user-friendly, ecological, social, health and safety and gender- equality standards are not compromised;
Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Welcomes the fact that the Commission is making ex-post analysis an integral part of better regulation; stresses that, in the interests of legal certainty for citizens and businesses, such analyses should be carried out within a sufficient time-frame, preferably several years after the deadline for transposition into national law; stresses however that the idea of sunset clauses in EU legislation should not be pursued as it leads to legislative discontinuity and legal uncertainty;
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Acknowledges that, in most cases, it is the prerogative of the Member States to decide whether to adopt higher social and environmental standards at national level than those agreed upon at EU level, and welcomes any decision to do so; calls, however, on the competent national authorities to be aware of the possible consequence of the so-called practice of ‘gold plating’, by which unnecessary bureaucratic burdens are added to EU legislation, since this may lead to a misconception of the legislative activity of the EU, which in turn might foster EU scepticism; recommenany reference to gold-plating is therefore misleading and should not hinder Member States to adopt higher protection standards, for the sake of transparency and user-friendliness, that any additional innovations introduced at national level be clearly identified as suchworkers, consumers and the environment;