4 Amendments of Markus PIEPER related to 2016/2018(INI)
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Welcomes the new IIA’s provisions on impact assessments, notably the principle that they may inform but never be a substitute for political decisions or cause undue delays to the legislative process; recalls that the Commission, in the Small Business Act, made a commitment to implementing the ‘think small first’ principle in its policymaking, and that this includes the SME test to assess the impact of forthcoming legislation and administrative initiatives on SMEs27; recalls that in its decision of 9 March 2016 on the new IIA Parliament stated that the wording of the new IIA does not sufficiently commit the three Institutions to include SME and competitiveness tests in their impact assessments28; underlines that, throughout the legislative procedure and in all assessments of the impact of proposed legislation, particular attention must be paid to the potential impacts on those who have least opportunity to present their concerns to decision takers, including SMEs and others who do not have the advantage of easy access to the Institutions; stresses the importance of taking into account and paying attention to the needs of SMEs at all stages of the legislative cycle and expresses satisfaction that the Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines prescribe that potential impacts on SMEs and competitiveness shouldmust be considered and reported systematically in all impact assessments; encouragesnotes that SME tests often lack quality and coherent implementation; calls for a binding SME test for the new IIA; calls on the Commission to consider how the impact on SMEs can be taken into account even better, including in connection with the European added value of a proposal, and intends to follow this issue closely in the years to come; _________________ 27 See Parliament’s resolution of 27 November 2014 on the revision of the Commission’s impact assessment guidelines and the role of the SME test (OJ C 289, 9.8.2016, p. 53), paragraph 16. 28 See Parliament’s resolution of 9 March 2016 on the conclusion of an Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0081), paragraph 4.
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Recalls that the idea of a supplementary ad hoc technical independent panel contained in the Commission’s initial proposal for the new IIA was not further pursued in the course of the negotiations; points out that the aim of the creation of such a panel was to enhance the independence, transparency and objectiveness of impact assessments; recalls that it was agreed in paragraph 15 of the new IIA that Parliament and the Council, where and when they consider it appropriate and necessary, would carry out impact assessments in relation to their own substantial amendments to the Commission proposal which are much needed to take an informed and well-founded decision; reminds its committees of the importance of availing themselves of this tool wherever needed;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Expresses disappointment at the fact that many Commission proposals, including politically sensitive proposals, were not accompanied by impact assessments, in spite of the commitment made by the Commission in paragraph 13 of the new IIA; points out that experience from committees so far suggests that the quality and level of detail of impact assessments varies from the comprehensive to the rather superficial; points out that in the first phase of application of the new IIA, 20 of the 59 Commission proposals included in the 2017 joint declaration were not accompanied by impact assessments; recalls in this regard that, while it is in any case foreseen that initiatives which are expected to have a significant social, economic or environmental impact should be accompanied by an impact assessment, the initiatives included in the Commission Work Programme or in the joint declaration should, as a general rule, be accompanied by an impact assessment; calls also for lower thresholds for Parliament to request an impact assessment; calls for this to be taken into account in the next reform of the Rules of Procedure;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Recalls that replacing the former Impact Assessment Board with the new Regulatory Scrutiny Board is a welcome first step to achieving an independent board; reiterstipulates that the independence, transparency and objectiveness of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board and its work must be safeguarded and that the members of the Board should not be subjected to any political control29; stresses the importance of whatsoever29; calls on the Commission to ensuringe that all of the Board’s opinions, including negative ones, are made public and accessible at the same time as the relevant impact assessments are published; _________________ 29 See Parliament’s resolution of 27 November 2014, cited above, paragraph 12; Parliament decision of 9 March 2016, cited above, paragraph 6.