Activities of Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN related to 2014/2150(INI)
Plenary speeches (2)
Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (A8-0208/2015 - Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann) (vote) DE
Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (short presentation) DE
Reports (1)
REPORT on Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT): State of Play and Outlook PDF (225 KB) DOC (161 KB)
Amendments (19)
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 16 a (new)
Citation 16 a (new)
- having regard to the Commission communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘Better regulation for better results - An EU agenda’, COM(2015)215 of 19 May 2015; having regard to the Commission communication to the European Parliament and the Council entitled ‘Proposal for an Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Regulation’, COM(2015) 216; having regard to the Commission decision establishing the REFIT Platform C(2015) 3261 and the Commission communication entitled ‘The REFIT Platform - Structure and Functioning’ C(2015) 3260; having regard to the decision of the President of the European Commission on the establishment of an independent Regulatory Scrutiny Board C(2015) 3263 and the communication to the Commission ‘Regulatory Scrutiny Board - Mission, tasks and staff’ C(2015) 3262, and to the Commission communication ‘Standard Explanatory Memorandum’ C(2015) 3264/2; having regard to the Commission staff working document ‘Better Regulation Guidelines’ SWD(2015) 111,
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the smart regulation agenda constitutes an attempt to consolidate efforts to introduce better lawmaking, simplify EU law and reduce administrative and regulatory burdens, and to embark on a path towards good governance grounded in evidence-based policymaking, in which impact assessments and ex-post controls play an essential roleREFIT Programme is a key component of the new Commission strategy for better lawmaking;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the REFIT Programme aims to consolidate better lawmaking procedures, simplify EU law and reduce administrative and regulatory burdens, and to embark on a path towards good governance grounded in evidence-based policymaking, in which impact assessments and ex-post controls play an essential role;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas the Commission has set up a new Refit Platform to support its work in the context of the REFIT Programme, which is made up of two groups: the ‘government group’, comprising high- level experts from the civil service in each Member State, and the ‘stakeholder group’, comprising up to 20 experts, two of whom represent the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, with the remaining experts representing business, including SMEs, the social partners and civil society organisations;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)
Recital A c (new)
Ac. whereas the annual REFIT scoreboard allows for the assessment of progress made in all policy areas and of each initiative identified by the Commission, including actions taken by Parliament and the Council;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas, in its communication ‘Better regulation for better results - An EU agenda’ of 19 May 2015, the Commission has now proposed a coherent holistic approach to better lawmaking that takes account of the entire policy cycle of lawmaking and requires targeted interaction among all the institutions, and for this reason it will be closely studied by Parliament in order to achieve the best possible results in the interest of Union citizens;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WelcomNotes the Commission’s commitment to negotiate a new interinstitutional agreement on better lawmaking that takes account of the changes brought about by the Lisbon Treaty and the Framework Agreement between Parliament and the Commission, and to consolidate bestaims to improve practices in areas such as legislative planning, impact assessments, systematic ex-post checks of EU legislation and the implementation and handling of delegated and implementing acts, and stresses its resolve to conclude the negotiations by the end of the year;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Welcomes the confirmation given by the Commission that its better regulation strategy is not aimed at deregulating particular policy areas or calling into question values to which we attach importance, such as social protection, environmental protection and fundamental rights, including the right to health;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Welcomes the recognition by the Commission of the important role played by the consultation process in the REFIT programme; pPoints out that, according to Article 11(2) TEU, all EU institutions are required to maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society; calls on the institutions to pay special attention to the obligatory and regular dialogue with representative associations, and with civil society, in the negotiations on a new interinstitutional agreement;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Observes that, in its better law-making strategy, the Commission significantly upgrades the role of public consultation; notes that in future the Commission will carry out a 12-week public consultation exercise (a) before drafting new legislative proposals or (b) when existing legislative provisions are assessed and their suitability checked or (c) on roadmaps and ex ante impact assessments; notes furthermore that, in addition, after a proposal has been adopted, the Commission will give citizens and stakeholders the opportunity to comment on the Commission proposal within eight weeks and will forward these positions to the Council and Parliament;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Calls on the Commission, in this light, to conduct a balanced and transparent assessment of the positions of, and feedback from, all participants in the consultation procedure and in particular to ensure that public consultations cannot be misused for their own purposes by well funded and organised stakeholder organisations; calls on the Commission to publish its conclusions from consultations;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 c (new)
Paragraph 9 c (new)
9c. Observes that impact assessments should be published only as soon as the Commission has adopted the political initiative concerned; in the interests of the transparency of Commission decisions, considers it necessary that impact assessments should also be published when it has taken the decision not to submit a legislative proposal;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Welcomes the Commission’s decision in future also to conduct four-week public consultation exercises on draft delegated acts and major implementing acts before the Member States vote on their position in the committee responsible;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)
Paragraph 11 b (new)
11b. Notes the new ‘Lighten the Load – Have Your Say’ section of the Commission’s web pages on better law- making and calls for a balanced and transparent examination by the Commission and by the new REFIT Platform of the comments received there;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Is convinced that impact assessments constitute an important tool for supporting decision-making in all EU institutions and play a significant role in better regulation; remains, however, conscious of the factat the same time stresses, however, that such assessments are not a substitute for political assessments and decisions;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. WBelcomieves the Commission’s commitment regularly to revise the impact assessment guidelines in order to improve this process; belieat impact assessments must be comprehensives, that the Commission should assess there must be a balanced evaluation of economic, social and environmental consequences, and better evaluate in particular, and theat impact of its policy on the fundamental rights of citizens in order to fully grasp its effects, keeping in mindmust be assessed; stresses that the cost-benefit analysis is only one of many criteria;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Takes note of the conversion of the Commission’s Impact Assessment Board (IAB) into an independent ‘Regulatory Scrutiny Board’ (RSB) and expects that the inclusion of independent experts will have an advantageous effect on the impact assessment process within the Commission; 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 157 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Welcomes the Commission’s clear commitment to further improving the SME test, particularly in view of 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; welcomes therefore the Commission's commitment to give consideration to more flexible rules for SMEs, including an outright exemption for microbusinesses, only if that is appropriate and feasible and effective realisation of the social, ecological and economic objectives of proposed legal provisions is not undermined;
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Acknowledges that, in most casthe case of directives, 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; reaffirms that that must not be regarded as 'gold plating'; 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; recommends, for the sake of transparency and user-friendliness, that any additional innovations introduced at national level be clearly identified as such;