18 Amendments of Adam BIELAN related to 2020/2262(INI)
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Reiterates that Internal market legislation as well as other legislation adopted at the European level should be simple, effective and efficient, should provide a clear added value, and should be easy to understand as well as delivering full benefits at effective cost, without placing any unnecessary administrative burdens on citizens or enterprises;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Reiterates that internal market objectives such as improving competitiveness, digitalisation, sustainability and consumer protection and welfare should be underpinned by the enhanced use of scrutiny instruments such as the regulatory fitness and performance programme (REFIT) and the Regulatory Scrutiny Board;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Regrets that monitoring of ‘Better Regulation’ efforts by the Commission has focused mainly on outputs of the system; asks the Commission to examine whether objectives, such as improved policy outcomes, reduced costs, better implementation, cost/benefit analysis and the use of aggregated net social benefit to illustrate performance of the regulatory system, have been met because ‘Better Regulation’ tools were used;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines that SMEs in particular will continue to face serious repercussions due to the COVID-19 pandemic and need more flexibility to react quickly to the ever-changing demands of our economy; reiterates that cutting red tape, the ‘think small first’ principle, taking decisions transparently, coordinating policies at the Union and national levels and fostering a society that values entrepreneurship need to be priorities within internal market legislation;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Member States’ authorities at national and regional level, and on stakeholders to become more closely involved at an early stage of the decision-making process, with subsidiarity and proportionality checks and administrative burden assessments of EU legislation; calls further on the Member States to ensure the swift and consistent transposition, implementation and enforcement of legislation, and to avoid ‘gold-plating’ that can undermine the smooth functioning of the internal market; calls on the Commission to provide guidance to Member States on how to simplify unnecessarily complex and/or burdensome rules for Internal market and avoid gold-plating;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Welcomes the Commission´s commitment to introduce the “One in, one out” principle to cut red tape also for businesses in the Internal market; asks the Commission for annual report on burden reduction in the Internal market in the user-friendly way with the estimated cost reduction and a change in the number and size of laws;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Notes the fact that EU policy- making places a value on EU integration that is difficult to quantify; calls on the Commission to clarify the definition of the EU added value of a legislative proposals and the approach how the EU institutions should measure EU added value to prove an additional benefit from collective effort at EU level, compared with action by Member States;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Understands that the quality of the analytical efforts is often affected by insufficient monitoring and a lack of comparable EU wide data; notes that the requirement to collect data is often perceived as costly and an administrative burden by the Member States especially on businesses and hence is dropped during the legislative process; asks the Commission to include cost-effective and result-oriented data collection and monitoring methods in legislative proposals;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses that over-regulation creates barriers in the Internal Market; calls on the Commission to conduct the study to measure and quantify the potential benefits of deregulation and simplification of the regulatory environment for the Union and each Member State and recommend improvements for each Member State based on identified best practices;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Notes that especially trade in services is strongly impacted by restrictive measures, welcomes the Commission study from 2017 on the Restrictiveness Indicator for Professional Services; urges the Commission to update the PRO-SERV indicator regularly to compare the trends in national rules and to identify best practices;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Calls on the Commission to prepare an impact assessment for all proposals in the Commission Work Programme; recalls that in 19.5% of proposals Commission stated no need for an impact assessment and further 8.5% of proposals had exception not to have an impact assessment between 2015-2018; regrets that for two thirds of cases analysed there were doubts about whether the explanations were sufficient or adequate; calls on the Commission to extend the Regulatory Scrutiny Board mandate to the validation of the Commissions explanation for not presenting impact assessments;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 d (new)
Paragraph 5 d (new)
5d. Reminds the CJEU judgement in Case T-540/15 that the European institutions must in principle grant access, on specific request, to documents relating to ongoing trilogues; notes the administrative burden to specifically request each four-column document; calls on the Parliament, Council and Commission to publish all documents automatically to improve the trust of the citizens in the Union and the Single market;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 e (new)
Paragraph 5 e (new)
5e. Calls on the Commission to fully take into account the Court of Auditors recommendations to improve the evidence base for decision-making, promote, monitor and enforce the implementation and application of EU law; recalls the key challenges identified by the ECA including (i) the good quality and timely data and evidence that support consultation and impact assessment before decisions are made, (ii) develop an overall oversight framework with enforcement priorities and benchmarks for handling infringement cases, (iii) improving the transparency of the legislative process for instance by making consultation activities more visible and accessible;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 f (new)
Paragraph 5 f (new)
5f. Notes that according to the Court of Auditors impact assessment quality analyses in 2018, two out of the ten quality elements remained below the acceptable level even after the Commission’s services had revised their impact assessments;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 g (new)
Paragraph 5 g (new)
5g. Regrets the persistent weaknesses of impact assessments which include a tendency to justify a pre-determined option, poor problem definition and a focus on actions which the Commission wants to do rather than on the results to be achieved;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 h (new)
Paragraph 5 h (new)
5h. Regrets that according to Court of Auditors despite of the Interinstitutional agreement, only 3 impacts assessments were done by the European parliament and non by the Council for the substantial amendments to Commission proposals since 2016;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 i (new)
Paragraph 5 i (new)
5i. Calls on the Commission to quantify costs and benefits of all considered options; regrets that only a quarter of impact assessments quantified costs and benefits fully;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 j (new)
Paragraph 5 j (new)
5j. Calls on the Commission to increase the number of external experts in the Regulatory Scrutiny Board in order to establish a truly independent control mechanism.