11 Amendments of Nessa CHILDERS related to 2015/2041(INI)
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Insists, recalling its resolution of 22 October 2014 on the Council position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015, on the need for a legally binding framework replacing C(2010) 7649 Communication Framework for Commission Expert Groups: Horizontal Rules and Public Register, so as to achieve full and consistent implementation of the applicable rules across all Commission Directorates-General;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Welcomes the Commission's announcement of a review of the classification of expert group members in the Register of expert groups; considers that this exercise should bring the categorisation of members into line with that applied in the Transparency Register;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Welcomes the Commission's commitment to introducing new provisions on conflicts of interest of individuals appointed as members of expert groups in a personal capacity; stresses the need for all experts to submit a declaration of interests for publication on the expert groups register;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Holds the view that the requisition of extremely specific technical expertise is not valid ground to obviate a call for applications;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Finds the overall level of disclosure of expert group proceedings and deliberations lacking; calls on the Commission to ensure that more detailed information is made available in a timely and aggregated fashion, particularly as concerns sub-groups;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Considers that, in the absence of an overdue impact assessment by the Commission, a renewed Anti-Contraband and Anti-Counterfeit Agreement with the tobacco industry is an inadequate instrument to address illicit tobacco trade, particularly in light of article 15 of the Tobacco Products Directive and the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, adopted by the Parties to the World Health Organisation's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Stresses the need for a tracking and tracing system for cigarette counterfeiting that is independent from the tobacco industry, in line with Article 8.2 of the WHO Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, particularly in the absence of any referrals of seized contraband for independent laboratory assessment, given the vested industry interest in deeming seizures counterfeit under the terms of the Anti-Contraband and Anti-Counterfeit Agreement, with the attendant loss of customs revenue in the Union;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Strongly recommends a cooling-off period of 5 years from commercial interests as a requirement for candidate- experts to participate as full members of scientific panels with drafting and decision-making duties;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Stresses, as far as EU agencies are concerned, the inadequacy of reliance on self-assessment by prospective members of scientific panels and committees in order to screen for potential conflicts of interest; encourages the EU agencies to establish a system of proactive checks;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6c. Emphasises, in the interests of sound and independent scientific advice for policy making, the importance of adequate resources for the development of in-house expertise within the EU specialised agencies, including the opportunity to conduct publishable research and testing, thus enhancing the attractiveness of regulatory science service in academic careers;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)
Paragraph 6 d (new)
6d. Suggests that, in order to address issues arising from the selective suppression of unfavourable research findings, prior registration of scientific studies and trials, stating the scope and expected date of conclusion, could be a condition for input into regulatory and policy processes.