Activities of Tiemo WÖLKEN related to 2021/2166(INI)
Plenary speeches (2)
Better regulation: joining forces to make better laws (debate)
Better regulation: joining forces to make better laws (continuation of debate)
Reports (1)
REPORT on Better regulation: Joining forces to make better laws
Amendments (28)
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 a (new)
Citation 11 a (new)
— having regard to the special report of the European Court of Auditors entitled ‘Ex-post review of EU legislation: a well-established system, but incomplete’;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas better law-making is a common goal for all EU Institutions, and should be achieved by increasing transparency, accountability and cooperation between the institutions and Member States, citizens and stakeholders, ensuring full respect of all fundamental European values, including democracy, the rule of law and human rights; whereas legislation should be fit for purpose, balanced, clear, transparent and comprehensive in order to benefit citizens and stakeholders; recalls that transparency, integrity and accountability are essential prerequisites of a democracy based on the rule of law;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas quality law-making cannot be reduced to quantitative targets of short-term burden and cost reduction, but should deliver for everyone as a long- term investment in the shared prosperity of our societies and our future;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas well carried out ex ante and ex post impact assessments and public consultations are essential tools for well- informed, better, efficient, accountable and transparent law-making; whereas such assessments should consider economic, social, and environmental aspects with the same level of detailed analysis and accuracy, taking into account both qualitative and quantitative evidence, including also the impact of policy measures on fundamental rights; whereas the European Court of Auditors published a special report in 2018 with a set of recommendations to improve the quality of ex post reviews;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the ‘Have Your Say’ web portal aims to boost involvement of citizens and stakeholders in EU policy- making and has proven to be a useful tool for citizens and stakeholders to participate in the preparation of EU policies; whereas the Commission launched a new version of the tool on 3 July2020 in order to further improve its consultations and communication with the public and increase transparency; whereas the European Court of Auditors published a special report in 20192 with a set of recommendations to improve this portal, especially in regards to out reach and transparency, as well as the use and availability of translations; _________________ 2 European Court of Auditors special report no 14/2019: ‘‘Have your say!’: Commission’s public consultations engage citizens, but fall short of outreach activities’.
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to making better use of foresight, mainstreaming the Sustainable Development Goals in all its legislative proposals, in line with the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, to paying greater attention to gender equality and equality for all, and to ensuring that the ‘do no significant harm’ and precautionary principles are applied across all policy areas; calls for the Commission to clearly define the ‘do no significant harm’ principle in order to ensure its consistent application; welcomes the proposal that sustainability and digitalisation should be better taken into account in law-making; calls on the Commission to implement a ‘sustainability first’ approach; calls for this approach to be adopted for all policy development and evaluation, prioritising long-term considerations of sustainability such as achieving climate neutrality at the lastest by 2050 and living within planetary boundaries;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the Commission’s initiative to make the ‘Have your say’ web portal more accessible to people with disabilities and to consolidate public consultations into a single ‘call for evidence’; calls for all related documents, questionnaires and contributions to be simultaneously available in all EU official languages; calls for greater transparency on how replies are taken into account, , including by ensuring replies are properly weighted according to their representativeness, depending on whether they represent individual or collective interests; Regrets that the Commission has not committed to improve the consultation questionnaires, which would deserve to be always formulated in a manner which is open to all proposals;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to the principle of digital by default; stresses that technologies such as AI can enhance the legislative process and improve access to information as well as make legislation more understandable to citizens and companies;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Calls for a stronger political dialogue between the Institutions and national parliaments, local and regional authorities, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Recalls that a significant part of EU legislation is implemented at sub- national levels which have valuable first- hand experience in applying EU legislation in close contact with the local economy, social partners, civil society and citizens, and can help strengthen the effectiveness and visibility of EU actions;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3 c. Stresses that active subsidiarity is an integral component of the Better regulation Agenda; welcomes in this regard that the Commission is making increased use in its legislative proposals of the subsidiarity assessment grid, as suggested in its communication “The principles of subsidiarity and proportionality: Strengthening their role in the EU's policymaking"
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3 d. Expects the Conference on the Future of Europe to also pave the way for further reforms related to the principle of subsidiarity, in particular by applying subsidiarity also in EU governance processes such as the European Semester;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 e (new)
Paragraph 3 e (new)
3 e. Welcomes the agreement that was recently reached on the Transparency register with the Council; calls nevertheless for further improvement within all institutions of the transparency of discussions and decisions; regrets that not all European Union institutions and bodies, as well as Member States representations are obliged to apply the transparency register;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls for impact assessments to be performed on all acts, without exception; regrets that this was not the case for several politically sensitive proposals in the past; recalls that on several occasions Parliament has carried out its own impact assessments in replacement of the Commission’s in order to inform policy-making; nevertheless, recalls that impact assessments help to inform but do not replace political decision-making;, but should never replace nor unduly delay the legislative process
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Notes the Commission’s intention to publish an analytical staff working document with proposals or within three months of their adoption in those cases where an impact assessment was not prepared; stresses that while this is a welcome step towards more transparency, it should not lead to the Commission circumventing its impact assessment obligations;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. Welcomes the intention of the Commission to strengthen territorial impact assessments and rural proofing, in order to better take into account the needs and specificities of different EU territories, such as urban/rural areas, cross-border areas and outermost regions;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Welcomes that quality control for evaluations and their supporting studies has been standardized through inter- service groups and quality checklists; observes, however, that the same quality controls are not in place regarding ex- post reviews other than evaluations; encourages the Commission to define a set of minimum quality standards for ex- post reviews other than evaluations with a view to ensuring their quality across Commission services; considers that such minimum quality standards should require ex-post reviews to include a detailed outline of the methodology used, including data collection and analysis tools, a justification of its choice, and the limitations;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Welcomes the Commission’s renewed commitment to transparency of the evaluation process and calls for the publication of multi-annual evaluation plans including underlying studies, data, sources and methods; further emphasises the need to increase the availability of public, complete and accessible evidence supporting impact assessments and evaluations, and welcomes, in this regard, the Commission’s intention to improve its evidence registers and the links between them as well as to make its internal databases and repositories publicly accessible; supports in this regard the Commissions’ intention to set-up a Joint Legislative Portal; endorses the objective of increased cooperation between the institutions to facilitate and streamline access to all the data collected on a given policy initiative throughout the legislative process;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Underlines that pilot projects and proofs of concept, where possible, can inform the drafting of legislation as well as facilitate its implementation and enforcement;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Takes note of the use of instruments such as the regulatory fitness and performance programme (REFIT) and the ‘Fit for Future’ Platform to identify opportunities for simplification and reducing unnecessary costs before the Commission proposes a revision, while ensuring the highest standards of protection and enhancing compliance with EU law; recalls that the ‘Fit for Future’ platform’s role is also to assess whether specific Union legislation and its objectives remain future-proof and adapted to new challenges; welcomes the Commission's decision to establish a subgroup within the 'Fit for Future' platform consisting of the European Committee of the Regions' (CoR) Network of Regional Hubs; calls upon the Commission to give a meaningful follow-up to the Platform's opinions and to reinforce the evidence- based approach of its ex post and exante evaluations with local and regional expertise;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Stresses the importance of promoting coherent regulatory systems through, for example, harmonization of concepts across related legislative initiatives; recalls that coherent regulatory systems improve compliance;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Underlines that ‘strategic foresight’ could play a key role in helping to future- proof EU policy-making by ensuring that assessments of new initiatives are grounded in a longer-term perspective, emphasising the added value of quality legislation as an investment in the future; welcomes the integration of ‘foresight elements’ into the Commission’s better regulation agenda in impact assessments and evaluations; considers, however, that the Commission’s methodology for quantifying costs, deciding on trade-offs and implementing strategic foresight remains unclear, and that practice will allow assessment of how these approaches have been followed in practice; encourages the Commission to look into innovative cost assessment tools; calls in this regard to also systematically take the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change established under Article 10a of Regulation (EC) No401/2009 in connection with Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations into account in the strategic foresight process;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Stresses the need to explore innovative legislative approaches such as legal design; highlights that legal design is a human-centred approach that can help bridge the gap between EU citizens and EU legislation; recalls that a human- centred approach postulates that legislation ought to be primarily created with citizens’ in mind and should be easily understandable to them;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Takes note of the involvement of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board in impact assessments, fitness checks, and major evaluations of current legislation; notes, however, that the transparency of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board on meetings with stakeholders, reviews, recommendations and opinions should be significantly improved; underlines that the work of the Board should not ultimately affect the Commission’s capacity to propose legislation or unduly delay the adoption of legislative proposals; considers that all the Board’s opinions should always be made public immediately after adoption without any exception to ensure coherence, transparency and accountability throughout the process; furthermore calls on the Commission to also make draft evaluations and draft impact assessments that are submitted to the board available; takes note that the Regulatory Scrutiny Board is composed of four members of the Commission and three external experts; calls on the Commission to reconsider the decision making process of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board since the current system allows opinions to be adopted without the input of external experts or to establish a truly independent Regulatory Scrutiny Board outside of the Commission;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11 a. Calls for the costs that may arise from policy inaction, notably on the climate and the environment, and the cumulative effects arising from delay in action to be considered in all impact assessments and evaluations, as they can have significant long-term consequences which are not immediately apparent;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)
Paragraph 11 b (new)
11 b. Concurs that monitoring and review clauses in legislation ensure that the necessary data is collected and evaluated; invites the Commission, in cooperation with the European Parliament and the Council, in the context of the existing inter-institutional agreement, to develop an inter- institutional toolbox on review and monitoring clauses, containing, among others, a taxonomy of possible outcomes/ex-post reviews that can be requested, guidance on indicative Timing for each type of ex-post review, and guidance on drafting monitoring clauses both for EU Institutions or bodies and Member States;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Takes note of the ‘one in, one out’ approach by which the Commission aims to offset newly introduced burdens by relieving citizens and businesses of equivalent burdens at EU level in the same policy area; regrets the unilateral introduction of this approach by the Commission, without a prior impact assessment or consultation; underlines that the implementation of this approach should not affect political imperatives or the objectives of better regulation, and emphasises that it should not lead to mechanical or mathematical decisions to repeal legislation, lower its standard or result in a chilling effect on legislation; recalls that the need for new legislation should not automatically imply that current legislation is no longer needed; calls for this approach to be based on a transparent and evidence-based methodology giving balanced consideration to all sustainability aspects, both in terms of benefits and costs, including the costs of non-compliance and inaction; calls on the Commission, in this regard, to make its ‘one in, one out’ calculator public before applying this approach; considers that better law- making should primarily be based on qualitative rather than quantitative considerations; underlines the importance of quality legislation in delivering on EU flagship initiatives such as the Green Deal and the European Pillar of Social Rights;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 a. Underlines that Member States’ parliaments cannot and should not be prevented from maintaining or taking more ambitious measures and adopting higher standards in cases where only minimum standards are defined by Union law; in this regard, acknowledges that additional unnecessary administrative burdens should be avoided when transposing and implementing EU acts into national legislation; notes that in some cases, Member States need to add elements of national importance when implementing EU rules; supports the Commission’s request to Member States to report when they choose to add elements that do not stem from EU legislation;