Awaiting committee decision
2014/2150(INI) Regulatory fitness and performance programme (REFIT): state of play and outlook
Lead committee dossier: JURI/8/01740
Legal Basis RoP 052
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Opinion | ECON | ||
Opinion | EMPL | MCINTYRE Anthea (ECR) | |
Opinion | ENVI | LA VIA Giovanni (EPP) | |
Opinion | IMCO | KARAS Othmar (EPP) | |
Lead | JURI | KAUFMANN Sylvia-Yvonne (S&D) | NIEBLER Angelika (EPP), KARIM Sajjad (ECR), MARINHO E PINTO António (ALDE) |
Opinion | TRAN |
Legal Basis RoP 052
Activites
- #3353
- 2014/12/04 Council Meeting
-
2014/11/24
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
- 2014/06/18 Non-legislative basic document published
Documents
- Non-legislative basic document published: COM(2014)0368
- Debate in Council: 3353
Amendments | Dossier |
69 |
2014/2150(INI)
2014/12/11
IMCO
69 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph -1 (new) -1. Welcomes the REFIT Communication and the continued commitment shown by the Commission towards the better law- making agenda; underlines that the work foreseen in the REFIT Communication should be seen as an ongoing process, ensuring that the legislation in force at European level is fit for purpose, achieving the shared objective of the legislators and meeting the expectations of citizens, businesses and other stakeholders;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 d (new) 1d. Insists that the next Commission should establish a European objective of a 30% reduction in the costs to SMEs generated by administrative and compliance costs and regulatory burdens by 2020;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Reiterates that SMEs need careful consideration in EU legislation; calls on the Commission, with a view to providing evidence on the added value of EU action and its costs and benefits, to include a mandatory SME test in the revised impact assessment guidelines; notes that in 2011 the Commission committed to lighter regulatory regimes for SMEs; strongly encourages the Commission to build on the progress it has made in this area by continuing to cut the cost of legislation for micro-enterprises and extending these efforts to cover all SMEs as a starting position, to be rebutted by evidence where appropriate;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Reiterates that SMEs need careful consideration in EU legislation; calls on the Commission, with a view to providing evidence on the added value of EU action and its costs and benefits, to include a mandatory SME test in the revised impact assessment guidelines; reminds of the Lisbon Treaty horizontal social and environmental clauses (Art. 9 and 11 TFEU) which have to be taken into account in defining and implementing the Union's policies and activities and require an in-depth analysis of the social and environmental impact of any proposed legislation;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Reiterates that SMEs need careful consideration in EU legislation; calls on the Commission, with a view to providing evidence on the added value of EU action and its costs and benefits, to include a mandatory SME test in the revised impact assessment guidelines; reminds the Commission that in the Small Business Act, it has made a commitment to implement the 'think small first' principle in its policy-making and considers that there is an important margin of progress still to be completed;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Reiterates that SMEs need careful consideration in EU legislation; calls on the Commission, with a view to providing evidence on the added value of EU action and its costs and benefits, to recognise the importance of the "think small first principle" includ
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Reiterates that SMEs need careful consideration in EU legislation; calls on the Commission, with a view to providing evidence on the added value of EU action and its costs and benefits, to include a
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Reiterates that SMEs need careful consideration in EU legislation, and draws attention to recommendations made in its resolution of 27 November 2014 on this matter (2014/2967(RSP)); calls on the Commission, with a view to providing evidence on the added value of EU action and its costs and benefits, to include a mandatory SME test in the revised impact assessment guidelines;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Notes that the European Parliament's position in the Resolution of 17 April 2014 on the 'top ten' consultation process and lightening the burden of EU regulation on SMEs was to reduce burdens of employment legislation and to fundamentally overhaul the Working Time Directive as it is inflexible for micro-enterprises and SMEs; also notes that the European Parliament adopted the position in the same resolution to recommend that low-risk companies should not be required to keep written health and safety assessments, in order to reduce the burdens of health and safety legislation;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notes that up to a third of the administrative burden related to EU legislation stems from national implementing measures, and reiterates the importance of ensuring the swift and consistent transposition, implementation and enforcement of legislation, alongside the proposed simplification
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notes that up to a third of the administrative burden related to EU
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that, where the need for action at EU level has been clearly identified, it should be carefully assessed which legislative instrument (regulation or directive) is best suited for reaching the intended political goal; considers that a set of indicators to identify the full compliance costs of a new legislative act should be applied in order to better assess its impact; underlines that such indicators must be based on clear, comprehensive and multi- dimensional criteria, including social and environmental criteria, in order to properly assess the need and modalities for action at EU level;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notes that up to a third of the administrative burden related to EU legislation stems from national implementing measures, and reiterates the importance of ensuring the swift and consistent transposition, implementation and enforcement of legislation, alongside the proposed simplification
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notes that up to a third of the administrative burden related to EU legislation stems from national implementing measures, and reiterates the
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Is of the opinion that optional legislation, also known as 29th regimes, does not contribute to the efforts made in the REFIT exercise, as it creates uncertainty and adds to the complexity of legal frameworks, as is the case with the current proposals for a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base and for a Common European Sales Law;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Endorses the Commission’s intention of improving evaluations as a central aspect of intelligent legislation; points out that evaluations provide reliable information about the actual impact of laws on their addressees and in this connection calls for the formal and comprehensive participation of the addressees’ stakeholders in the evaluation procedure;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Calls on the Commission to take into account the short and long term effects of regulation; considers that long-term benefits of regulatory action are often more difficult to quantify in monetary terms (for example, reducing health impairments or maintaining eco-systems), whereas the emphasis on quantification introduces a structural bias in favour of more easily quantifiable aspects such as costs to economic operators as compared to social and environmental benefits, thus failing to adequately consider societal costs and benefits as a whole;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Points out that smart regulation and regulatory fitness must be based on impact assessments, assessments of existing policies (' fitness checks') and competitiveness proofing tests;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls for the renegotiation and updating of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Lawmaking, in order to take account of the Treaty of Lisbon and the framework agreement between Parliament and the Commission and develop and consolidate best practice in areas such as legislative planning, impact assessments, systematic ex-post evaluations of EU legal provisions, implementation and the handling of delegated and implementing acts;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Calls on the Commission to introduce a methodology for quantitative targets for the reduction of administrative burden at European level; notes the positive experiences in some Member States of setting net reduction targets with the aim to lower compliance costs; asks that this methodology be discussed at the High Level Group on Administrative Burdens and taken into account in future impact assessments when accepted;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Stresses that the work of regulatory simplification (REFIT) cannot be taken as a pretext for lowering the level of ambition on issues of vital importance to the safety and wellbeing of employees, or on the protection of the environment; calls against the promotion of a deregulation agenda with the excuse of Better Regulation or of reducing burdens to SMEs; calls on the Commission not to lower its level of ambition and calls for public policy objectives including environmental, social and health and safety standards not to be jeopardised;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that, where the need for action at EU level has been clearly identified, it should be carefully assessed which legislative instrument (regulation or directive) is best suited for reaching the intended political goal; considers that a set of indicators to identify the full compliance costs of a new legislative act should be applied in order to better assess its impact; underlines in this regard that the quality of legislation is the appropriate benchmark, as opposed to the number of legislative acts, and that the REFIT programme should not be used to undermine social, labour, environmental and consumer standards;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Calls for
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Calls for businesses and stakeholders to be more closely involved with checks on subsidiarity
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Calls for businesses and stakeholders to be more closely involved with subsidiarity checks, administrative burden assessment, and the monitoring of the implementation of EU legislation at national level;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Calls for businesses
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Calls for
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Calls for
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Believes that an unbalanced or incomplete impact assessment or the lack of an impact assessment must be considered as grounds for the potential removal or revision of current Union legislation under the REFIT programme;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Recalls its previous requests for a more detailed examination of the problems national parliaments encounter in order to monitor subsidiarity; believes that it would also be desirable to explore moves to strengthen this mechanism which, perhaps in the context of future Treaty revision, could give more rights to national parliaments, for example by introducing a 'red card' system; suggests that in such a review consideration could be given to the appropriate number of national parliament responses required to trigger such a procedure, whether it should be limited to subsidiarity grounds, and what its effect should be, with particular reference to recent experiences of the 'yellow card' procedure;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Refers to the European Parliament resolution of 27 November 2014 on the revision of the Commission’s impact assessment guidelines and the role of the SME test in which it calls on the Commission to establish the High Level Group of stakeholders and national experts as an independent better regulation advisory body;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that, where the need for action at EU level has been clearly identified and respects the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, it should be carefully assessed wh
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls on the Commission to establish a "European Stakeholder Forum" on better regulation and less bureaucracy consisting of representatives from the social partners, consumer organisations and the business community with a quantitative goal of reducing administrative burdens by 25 % by 2020; stresses the need for a bottom-up approach to deregulation and regulatory fitness and that the "European Stakeholder Forum" must have direct access to put forward proposals to the Commission through The High Level Group and the responsible Vice- President; stresses that proposals put forward by the "European Stakeholder Forum" must be followed by the principle of "comply or explain";
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to ensure that
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to ensure that consultations with stakeholders are transparent and timely and their output is analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively to ensure that minority views are also duly taken into account; considers that feedback could already be given on draft impact assessments to the Impact Assessment Board, at the stage preceding the final legislative proposal and assessment; is of the opinion that public consultations via the Commission´s website cannot replace direct consultation with representatives from stakeholders, as the website is simply not known enough to be representative or balanced;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to ensure that consultations with stakeholders are transparent and timely and their output is analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively to ensure that minority views are also duly taken into account; considers
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to ensure that consultations with stakeholders are transparent and timely and their output is analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively to ensure that minority views are also duly taken into account; considers that feedback could already be given on draft impact assessments to the Impact Assessment Board, at the stage preceding the final legislative proposal and
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to ensure that consultations with stakeholders undertaken by means of dialogue with, in particular, social partners and professional organisations are transparent and timely and their output is analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively to ensure that minority views are also duly taken into account; considers that feedback could already be given on draft impact assessments to the Impact Assessment Board, at the stage preceding the final legislative proposal and assessment;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to ensure that consultations with stakeholders are transparent and timely and their output is analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively to ensure that minority views are also duly taken into account;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to ensure that consultations
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Calls on the Commission to introduce quantitative quality indicators for the different sectors in its annual publication of a REFIT scoreboard, so that it will be possible to indicate if any progress and savings have been achieved at European and national level; implies that these quantitative quality indicators should not be looked at in isolation, but should instead form part of a comprehensive regular quality impact assessment taking into account the interests of all stakeholders involved, an in particular of consumers, creditors and employees;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Calls on Commission to frame and link the REFIT exercise in the broader context of the definition and implementation of the Commission work programme and key priorities;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that, where the need for action at EU level has been clearly identified, it should be carefully assessed which legislative instrument (regulation or directive) is best suited for reaching the intended political goal, emphasising European added-value and respect for the subsidiarity principle; considers that a set of indicators to identify the full compliance costs of a new legislative act should be applied in order to better assess its impact;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Urges the Commission to increase its consultation, both public and private, with all stakeholders, including consumers, when preparing implementing and delegated acts with a view to considering how better to increase awareness of proposals at a provisional stage; believes firmly that such efforts to increase their input before finalising recommendations will lead to better legislation; welcomes in this regard possible initiatives to compare processes for consulting on provisional rules or standards with those used in other jurisdictions in order to develop best practice;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Expresses its concerns about the Commission’s draft revised impact assessment guidelines which were published for consultation purposes; calls on the Commission to maintain the SME test as a dedicated part of impact assessment; underlines that the Impact Assessment Board should be strengthened so that it plays an even greater role in ensuring the independence and quality of Commission impact assessments;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Calls on the European Commission to facilitate dialogue on regulatory fitness with citizens, Member States, business and civil society at large so to ensure that quality legislation and social aspects of the Single Market are preserved and that one ideal does not progress at the expense of the other;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Stresses that REFIT, in particular in the context of the Commission work program, cannot be taken as a pretext for lowering the level of ambition on issues of vital importance to the safety and wellbeing of employees, or on the protection of the environment; calls against the promotion of a deregulation agenda with the excuse of Better Regulation or of reducing burdens to SMEs; calls on the Commission not to lower its level of ambition and calls for public policy objectives including consumer, environmental, social and health and safety standards not to be jeopardised;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Points out that the Commission's proposals should not be adopted by the College of Commissioners before the Impact Assessment Board has found that the corresponding impact assessment has been carried out in a satisfactory manner within the Commission;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Considers that stakeholders, local and regional authorities and Member States should be more closely involved in identifying implementation difficulties at local, regional and national level and should provide feedback to the Commission; calls for the use of indicators for measuring compliance costs as well as the costs of non-regulation (along the lines of the ‘Cost of non-
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Considers that stakeholders and Member States should be more closely involved in
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Considers that stakeholders and Member States should be more closely involved in identifying specific implementation difficulties at national level and should provide feedback to the Commission; calls for the use of indicators for measuring full compliance costs as well as the
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Calls on the Commission to introduce a methodology for quantitative targets for the reduction of administrative burden at European level; notes the positive experiences in some Member States of setting net reduction targets with the aim to lower compliance costs; asks that this methodology be discussed at the High Level Group on Administrative Burdens and taken into account in future impact assessments when accepted;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Considers that the adequate use of REFIT is relevant for consumers and citizens not only in terms of carefully assessed legislation aiming at informing, protecting and boosting their confidence in the Single Market, but also in terms of implementation and enforcement; considers that measuring tangible benefits for consumers brought about by EU legislation is an effective manner to assess EU regulatory activity; considers, furthermore, that empowering consumer with EU wide redress mechanism would foster effective enforcement of and compliance with EU legislation within the Single Market, notably from the competition and market access point of view;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that, where the need for action at EU level has been clearly identified in the best interest of the Member States, it should be carefully assessed which legislative instrument (regulation or
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Calls for partnership agreements for the implementation of EU legislation to be drawn up, on a voluntary basis, between the Member States and the Commission, involving local and regional authorities where appropriate;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 b (new) 8b. Believes that the assessment of REFIT and further efforts on better regulation should follow the shift towards digitalisation of economy, society and public administration; believes that an extensive use of the tool and the use of Fitness checks could also be undertaken with a view to assess coherence and consistency of regulatory areas within the broader framework of the DSM;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 b (new) 8b. Stresses the need to ensure the effectiveness of inspections and of the supervision of EU legislation at Member State level; encourages, in this regard, the streamlining of national inspection capacities, the strengthening of peer review and of the exchange of best practice between the Member States, and the development of inspection-assistance capacity at EU level, which can become operational at the request of the Member States concerned in accordance with a cost-benefit approach;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Welcomes the prospective drafting of internal guidelines for improving the quality of consultations and their evaluation; believes that as regards the complexity of
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Recalls that Commission Bieńkowska, during her confirmation hearing, commit the Commission to consider the withdrawal of any proposal when Members find that an impact assessment is flawed or elements have not been considered correctly; calls on the Commission to confirm in writing that this is the policy of the whole of the College of Commissioners;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 b (new) 9b. Notes the importance of Multilevel governance and that stakeholders most often face administration burdens at the local and regional level; with regards to this fact, believes that a Multilevel governance test should be included in further guidelines in order to limit this burden;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Stresses the need to improve EU communication policy with regard to EU legislation so that it is easier for people to understand and accept; Calls on the Commission to further develop the Your Europe Portal in cooperation with the Member States, in order to give SMEs easy access to practical information on relevant EU rules and their application in Member States in a multilingual format;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Calls on the Commission to further develop the Your Europe Portal in cooperation with the Member States, in order to give SMEs easy access to practical information on upcoming consultation, relevant EU rules and their application in Member States in a multilingual format;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Calls on the Commission to focus on ex-post evaluation to verify whether the expected results of EU regulation are attained; considers that there is a need for a qualitative assessment of implementation and enforcement which goes together with the idea of meaningful Single Market governance;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Considers it inappropriate to introduce blanket exemptions from legislation for SMEs; takes the view that proposals which permit the option of lighter regimes and exemptions should be assessed on a case-by-case basis;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Calls on the Commission and Member States to be more rigorous in assessing the impact of future and existing regulation on SMEs and competitiveness in general; believes that the assessment of an impact on competitiveness should form a significant part of the impact assessment process; considers that the draft revised guidelines should contain direction on how impacts on competitiveness should be assessed and weighed in the final analysis; supports a standing presumption that proposals with a negative impact on competitiveness should be rejected, unless evidence supporting significant unquantifiable benefits is presented;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Expresses disappointment that the measures identified for review in the scoreboard accompanying the Communication are far from new, but rather represent a catalogue of measures which the Commission were obliged to follow due to expiring review clauses in previously adopted legislation; expects a more ambitious approach from the new Commission to the objectives contained in the REFIT Communication, in particular to tackle the tough questions such as those highlighted in the TOP TEN Consultation with SMEs;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 c (new) 1c. Considers that the concept of the scoreboards should be revised and should instead comprise two documents, one outlining a work plan, and a second, new document which details the progress made by the Commission expressed in a quantitative fashion; calls for this document to form the basis of an annual statement of new costs to business, an easily understood statement or ledger of 'debits and credits' in terms of the administrative and regulatory impact from proposals adopted in the previous legislative year which would be much more useful, and would show that the Commission understands that the cumulative cost of regulation is often the problem;
source: 544.339
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2014-12-12Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
activities/0/commission/0 |
|
other/0 |
|
2014-12-11Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
activities/1/committees/4/shadows/2 |
|
committees/4/shadows/2 |
|
2014-12-06Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
activities/2 |
|
2014-11-28Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
activities/1 |
|
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
JURI/8/01740
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting committee decision |
2014-11-26Show (5) Changes
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|